8 posts tagged “geopolitics”
Possible Outcomes of Pakistani Crisis Might Even Change a Democrat’s Mind
Pervez Musharraf has imposed martial law in Pakistan. The official reason is because radical murdering Islamist terrorists are trying to bring their Theo-Political ideology as the rule of law and depose Musharraf.
I am certain there is an element of truth to the official reason; however I am betting the actual reason is elements outside of the military within the regime are trying to depose Musharraf, specifically Pakistan’s version of the Supreme Court.
Pakistan’s Supreme Court was about to rule on the legality of Musharraf’s election as President while retaining his spot as the head of the Pakistani military. The talk was the Court ruling was not going to happen to Musharraf’s benefit.
Although I am certain Musharraf would have used the military to brush off such a judicial ruling it would have angered the people in such a way that rioting might lead to sympathy to the radical Islamists followed by a Khomeini style people’s revolution.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and eight other judges refused to support Musharraf’s “emergency order.” Musharraf’s response was to depose the Chief Justice and rename another to replace him – Abdul Hameed Dogar.
Then there is the position of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto who returned to Pakistan recently under a deal with Musharraf to bring back democracy to Pakistan while siding with her families old military enemies to draw the people away from radical Islamism. Bhutto is a secular Socialist Muslim.
Bhutto officially complained about the Martial Law order; however I sense she understands her future in Pakistan will only occur with the military’s support combined with a hoped for elective support from the Pakistani people. Bhutto would be executed summarily if the likes of al Qaeda or the Taliban got their hands on her.
What was America’s official reaction? This from BBC News:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the declaration of emergency rule was "highly regrettable" and called upon Pakistan to have free and fair elections.
In essence the US response was the politically correct response; a deposed Musharraf would be a huge hit on America’s war effort in the Middle East. It would be tough for America to lose an ally in Pakistan which could happen if Musharraf was deposed. There is the possibility that the Pakistan military might simply replace Musharraf with another top dog general and continue the policy of Musharraf under a different military political Administration.
Again though, a deposed Musharraf would pour prestige and allegiance of the Pakistani people to the radical Islamists. This could lead to a similar scenario of a Khomeini style revolution in Pakistan that the military could not stop without outright butchery and genocide.
What is the worst that could happen? O not much, a nuclear armed Wahhabi-Sunni-Taliban-al-Qaeda Islamist nation that hates America. The only plus would be incredible Sunni power probably would end the friendship with Shi’ite Iran who has no doubt been aiding the Waziristan Sunni radicals. I also suspect the old socialists in India will change their minds in rejecting America’s proffered hand of friendship and join in with American against radical Islamists in Pakistan and Iran.
Muslim Pakistan and Hindi India are nearly blood enemies and I suspect India could not stand for Mohammedan nuclear proliferation in the Middle East than America or Europe (although for different reasons).
Thus what Musharraf has done may be reported with media calm of just another dictatorial move in Pakistan; however I suspect the American military and policy strategists are scrambling to develop multiple alternative measures to choose from depending on which way the Pakistani crisis swings.
It would have been awesome to have India (the largest Western style democracy globally) in America’s camp. America even went out on a limb to strike a nuclear technology deal with India subject to approval of Congress and India’s Parliament.
There were critics on the Left in America of sharing nuclear technology with India in light of our denunciation of North Korea and Iran going nuclear. There were traditional slanted right critics (paleocons) who felt such a deal would alienate the much needed support of nuclear armed Mohammedan Pakistan on the War on Terror.
President Bush had managed to swing Congressional approval of the nuclear deal with India. Unfortunately the irony of ironies is occurring in the Indian Parliament. The Left block (Marxist/Communist associated Parties) which make up part of the ruling Parliamentary coalition of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are working to strike down the deal. That is an irony because the Left in America tentatively seems to have signed on to the deal. The reason: traditional Marxist aversion to a Capitalist America as a global hegemon and the Marxist Indian’s fear of America manipulating India’s foreign policy.
Prime Minister Singh has been lobbying hard with the Indian Parliament however it appears headed to defeat.
I suspect the Marxists in India’s Parliament wish to continue an affinity with former Communist Russia (though apparently becoming hostile toward America) and Communist China.
This is an indication to me that has its own version of polarizing politics: The old politicians of India wish to stay connected to past associations with Russia and it’s off and on again relationship with China. A new guard of Indian politicians needs to assert themselves because on paper it would seem an America/India partnership would benefit both nations in National Security and the economics of prosperity as a counter weight to Chinese ambitions to be a global military and economic hegemon at India’s expense.
I believe the ruling Indian elites are missing the big picture for the future growth and security, especially since Islamofascism is attacking India nearly as much as America. The American Media fails to report the significance of radical Islamists committing acts of terrorism against the Hindi majority of India’s population.
Let us hope President Bush and Prime Minister Singh can pull out a twelfth hour turn around for both nations’ sake.
Russia has been revising it geopolitical stance slowly moving back to a Cold War image of Russia VS the West with the USA in mind in particular.
Russia has been playing brinksmanship with Britain in the air and in protecting Russian assassins who killed on British soil a Russian protected by the British government.
Russia is playing brinksmanship in the Arctic Ocean relating to natural resources around the North Pole.
Russia has demanded the USA not build an anti-ballistic missile security system in Poland and the Czech Republic. America’s reasoning (publicly anyway) is that Europe needs an umbrella of protection from Iranian long range missiles which may eventually contain nuclear warheads. Russia’s stand is such a security system undermines Russia’s deterrent strategy with Europe: So much for Russian matriculation into the Western democratic lifestyle.
With a little guess work on might see another reason for Russia’s stand against an ABM system in Eastern Europe. Russia is building Iran’s nuclear plant. As part of that Russian/Iranian partnership further Putin brinksmanship have proceeded from the lips of the Russian President. Putin is warning the U.S. or any nation that might threaten to militarily attack Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
That sounds like a veiled threat of a Russian military response to any sane nation preventing insane Iran from acquiring weapons grade uranium to arm Iranian long range missiles.
Although Russia is still in the realm plausible deniability there is an appearance of a plan of Russia allying itself with Islamofascist rogue nations such as Syria and Iran. If Arabs calling themselves Palestinians schmooze their way into a sovereign nation, you can bet it will join Islamofascist rogue nations. I also suspect that Hezbollah will either usurp Lebanon’s political rule or divide the nation with a Lebanon in the north a southern nation we can call Hezbollahstan.
Who would supply the military arms to a progressive Islamofascist Middle Eastern disease? Naturally it would be Russia. This is the same Russia that was the former Soviet Union that armed Egypt, Syria and Jordan in a perpetual goal of eliminating Israel.
What is the Russian motivation? After all Russia has had their own experience with Islamofascist terrorists with Chechen separatists murdering Russian children and teachers at a school.
For Russia ideology is irrelevant. It does not matter if it Czarist Russia, Soviet/Communist Russia or the current Russian republic; Russian nationalism has sought global hegemony in order not to be the victim of invasions. Russia trusts no one. Currently America is a global hyper-super power hegemon. The obvious Russian strategy is to stretch American National Interests so much that a potential collapse occurs via over extension.
Russia has cleverly used their traditional enemies via agreement or military supply to stretch America.
Communist China has not exactly been friendly with Russia over the years even when they shared the same Marxist ideology. Yet China is an emerging Super Power that also wants to compete with American hegemony. Russian and Chinese cooperation although tentative is effectively giving geopolitical power to Islamofascist rogue nations and ultimately stateless Islamofascist terrorists.
When America and Israel had an opportunity to end Iran’s nuke program with little more than the threat of Iranian terrorism and global protests, they failed by yielding to diplomatic Appeasers. Now that Russia is extending veiled protection to Iran’s nuclear program, it will a more difficult decision to carpet bomb Iran’s nuclear industrial military complex. Now it is a guess if Russia is bluffing or not. An effective diplomatic lesson learned from Iran.
I have gone from favoring an attack on Iran to a wait and see if Russia, Iran, Syria or Waziristan-Pakistani terrorists step over a line that forces an American response. America has given up a preemptive posture to awaiting another 911/Pearl Harbor victim posture.
Unless Israel and America is of a gambling nature and call Russia to see if their warning is a bluff.
Krauthammer on the enigmatic Israeli air strike on something or some place in Syria: he believes it may portend ominous military confrontations in the future of the Middle East.
Here is a week old WorldNetDaily report that comes under the heading of “What’s going on behind the geopolitical doors?” President Bush has signed a document that is supposed to integrate economic standards between the European Union and America. The document is a commitment yet it was not ratified by the Senate as is called for by the U.S. Constitution for International Treaties and Agreements.
Couple this so-called “Transatlantic Economic Integration” document with all the back door media reports of a “North American Union” (linking Canada, America and Mexico as a national entity), Joe Public has to begin to wonder “What’s the deal?”
This Transatlantic Economic Integration document actually creates a “Transatlantic Economic Council.” It is co-chaired by a Cabinet level American (Alan Hubbard) and an EU “vice-President of the European Commission in charge of enterprise and industry.”
The Transatlantic Economic Council could be an entity as simple as standardizing practices, property rights (e.g. intellectual rights such as Copy Right) and so on. The thing that draws suspicion is the lack of Senate oversight and confirmation. This is eerily comparable to the shadow behind closed doors talks of the North American Union; this also seems to be a President Bush initiative without Senatorial oversight and confirmation.
Clearly all the international nations share geopolitical alliances in one form or another. Yet it is also clear that there are many conflicts of interest between these geopolitical nations, especially as to their view of President Bush. It is the differences that cause a huge confusion for me. There is the appearance that President Bush is attempting to hammer out some sort of United Western Confederation without American Constitutional consent and there is the appearances from which America’s International allies believe President Bush’s geopolitical strategy is unilateral rather than multi-lateral. Unilateralism seems to be a huge point of contention for the EU, Mexico and to varying degrees also with Canada.
This secretive Bush strategy coupled with the EU, Canada and Mexico paradox of cooperation and denunciation is almost like a mystical mystery that Joe Public may not comprehend until it is too late to weigh in. It all seems to be un-American in its extra-Constitutionality (somewhat like a Democratic Party ploy).
So what is going on here?
According to this Bio I am reading at Jewish World Review, Nicolas Sarkozy has a stronger attachment to a Jewish family heritage maternally than his paternal family history from Hungary (which is Roman Catholic).
Think about it: On personal a level Sarkozy’s influence have been maternal Judaic (actually his mother’s side represents a recent Roman
Catholic conversion), Eastern Europe sympathies coming from a Hungarian upper crest family paternally, Sarkozy was born in France but is a first generation Frenchman paternally and Sarkozy has an admiration for American Conservativism.
If Sarkozy proceeds with any revolutionary transformation, his ancestry will have an impact.
John H. Fund looks at who the political Sarkozy is. According Fund Sarkozy may be easier to work with than past French Presidents; however he has indicated there will be little change in foreign policy. On a brighter note Sarkozy has also indicated a concentrated effort on the positive commonalities between America and France.
When the Bush Administration approached India about strengthening ties, I presumed it was a good thing. When the talks turned to the topic of nuclear power exchange I thought, “Wow!” The “Wow” was because India has had a history of enmity with Mohammedan nations (Pakistan in particular) and China. At the time I believed a potential America/India alliance could hold the future in a positive light as the inevitable clash between West and political Mohammedanism crashed into explosive conflict.
I was so confident of a future ally that I overlooked the old friendship between India and the former Soviet Union. Last week Russia, China and India held a Summit discussing geopolitics in New Delhi and how the three could enhance their presumed National Interests. Officially the Summit was a cumbaya get together to talk about how the three could influence world peace (blah, blah). However the topics included North Korea and the use of multilateral diplomacy to handle global crises (such as Iran). This troika of friendship cannot be good for the good ole’ USA. If this troika embarked on economic and military cooperation it would definitely challenge American global influence and National Interests.
I still cannot get past the primary military purveyors to rogue nations and consequently to Islamofascist terrorists and an India hook-up. As I have written these words still is a huge target of Islamofascist terrorism. My guess is since the end of WWII India is second only to in the frequency radical Mohammedans murdering innocent non-Mohammedans. It was Mohammedan Imperialism in India's history that slaughtered Hindus in India and basically eradicating Buddhism in the land of its birth. Forced conversions occurred in India during the Mohammedan Imperialism. Hindus also faced extermination and torture for being polytheists; however the Hindus managed to survive extermination in India. With all this in mind what boggles me is India getting into the bed of the suppliers of its loathsome enemies.
Al Qaeda’s al Zawahiri has called for Jihad in Somalia because the Islamofascist revolutionaries are close to defeat by the combined forces of Ethiopia and the legitimate government of Somalia.
The fascinating element of al Zawahiri’s jihad proclamation is the blaming of America for the Islamic Courts imminent demise. The actual truth is that the Islamic Courts are handily being routed by a Third World military force of the Ethiopian army. I suspect military arms have been received from America; however there are NO American troops in Somalia.
Jihad calls like al Zawahiri’s is the very reason that Ethiopia entered the fray to aid the legitimate government of Somalia. Ethiopia is a nation that is a Christian majority; however there is a significant minority of Mohammedans. Some have the Mohammedan ratio to between 40% and even 50%.
To date the Mohammedan population and the Coptic Christian population have interacted peacefully. The Ethiopian government fears the influence of radical Mohammedanism that al Qaeda and the Somali Islamic Courts would have represented to Ethiopia’s National Interests and National Security. Al Zawahiri has proven that concern to be accurate.
Ethiopia also has proven it does not take a Super Power military to defeat an Islamofascist military.
This is exactly why victory against jihadist forces in Somalia is so important. A major blow would be dealt to the global jihadist military and propaganda machine--and not by the mighty U.S., but by unheralded Ethiopia. This only doubles the jihadists' humiliation. (Erick Stakelbeck)
Fox News has the details.
