From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Tue Mar 18 2003 - 09:44:08 MST
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> In this case, Iraq is a client state of France, Germany, and Russia,
> all three nations which need their trade with the US far more than the
> US needs trade with them. Since all three nations seem to be making
> their decision to oppose us specifically on commercial interests, logic
> follows they will continue to follow the money trail and will not
> declare war on the US, a trading partner they need far more than they
> need Iraq. Should they be stupid enough to do so despite the logic,
> they will find they really have no military capability, even combined,
> short of their ICBM nuclear forces, which in any way challenges the US.
I agree that direct military action against the US is unlikely at this
time, and over this issue (Iraq). But it could be something that other
governments start thinking about for the future. French, Russian, Chinese,
Pakistani, Iranian (?), etc. nuclear weapons are of course a kind of
bluff/trump card, but France/Germany (and their faction of the EU), China,
and even Russia could probably put together a formidable conventional
military force if their governments were so inclined. Ditto for Japan and
the young boom economies of East Asia.
> THe only wild card would be if China decided to jump into an anti-US
> war alliance.
And now there is a new Chinese administration, so this is something to
watch. (The old administration is still influential in military affairs at
the moment, but that may change.)
There is another wild card - India, a potential superpower indeed, if not
already one. There are many reasons why the Indian government might wish
to ally itself with the US, but the US continues its Cold-War-relic
alliance with Pakistan, so India is liable to have to oppose the US also.
> Face with such might, we wouldn't be alone. We'd have the UK,
> Australia, Japan, Spain, and a number of eastern european nations, plus
> we'd have a window of time before the anti-US forces could mobilize to
> force a reformation of middle eastern governments along democratic
> lines with pro-US parties in power. Heck, Canada might even get off
> it's tush.
The UK might be splintered between the tidal forces of EU and
US. Australia has to take its near-Asian position into account, and its
relations with those neighboring countries - an alliance with the US might
or might not seem logical or advisable under the scenario of
re-allignments. Japan, ironically, is most likely to side with the US I
think, but then again, it might think it more timely to go back to
establishing a kind of "co-prosperity sphere" for itself among the new
Asian economies (competing with China independently of the US
alliance). Spain and other European countries might side with the US but
being so close to other possible alignments, they may not be able to hold
out very long under the circumstances of a conventional WWIII.
If, somehow, the US government had managed to "export" democratic-style
government to the Middle East before re-allignments, I think their
willingness to ally with the US would be very much in
question. Considering the considerable cultural antipathy to the US that
already exists among Middle Eastern peoples, they're very likely to side
with some other alliance - prob. the Germany/France one.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 09:51:14 MST