ISIS top 100, World War III?

Stories have been breaking over the weekend that Daesh has posted a list of 100 troops names and addresses.  The terrorist group was able to comb press releases and compile information from social media to come up with the names.  "The US Marine Corps urged personnel to ‘check their online footprint’ after the so-called Islamic State released the alleged identities and addresses of 100 staff officials, calling on adherents to kill them."  (RT)  Want a sure fire way to neutralize this threat?  The Sec Def should immediately require all active duty personnel to be issued and wear their sidearms at all times.  Up the rhetoric to the terrorist levels by adding that "any military personnel (including those who have separated or retired) will be found NOT be charge with any crime as a result of shooting and/or killing who was in the midst of committing an act of terrorism as defined by the Department of Defense or FBI."

While the Americans are being led to hate one another because of race, they are too busy to notice that Daesh is getting very serious about operations outside their own area:

"Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon believes that every British ISIS fighter will have been given chemical weapons training in the hope they will come back to launch an attack.

The retired head of chemical and biological weapons for the Army believes the Tube or sporting events could be the target."  (Daily Mail)

Daesh does not give a damn about if you are white, black, Latino, Asian or any other flavor of American.  Be at the wrong place at the wrong time and they will kill you just as soon as anyone else.  The only way to counter this culture of fear is to empower Americans to defend themselves.

During the early days of the Cold War, the government decided the best way to manage widespread fear of nuclear war was to convince the public they could survive it.  Hence "Duck and cover" was released and while we can now see how patently ridiculous this campaign was, the interesting thing is the government back then wanted Americans to be responsible for their own safety.

Today's White House pretends to be about empowerment (kids eating healthy, race relations, rights for illegal immigrants) but the effect is just the opposite of "duck and cover".  Americans don't trust the police, don't' trust the government and increasingly don't trust other Americans that don't look like them.  The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was supposed to symbolize American's renewed focus on defending the homeland but recent stories (such as Ferguson, Eric Brown, hiring immigrants as police officers) has made Americans feel less safe.

Focusing on keeping Iran from developing nuclear weapons is also making us less safe.  The headlines and Washington sound bytes assure us that a nuclear armed Iran is unthinkable and the President has to put all of his focus on this issue (and somehow not Daesh?).  It's fascinating to watch how Iran's potential, not actual" nuclear capability is of far more concern to the White House than is Russia's actual nuclear inventory.  Or China's.

In the not too distant past, there was much press about the "Pivot to Asia" under then Secretary of State Clinton.  The policy supposedly recognized that by focusing on defeating terrorism, the US had taken its strategic view away from an ever expanding China.  The "pivot" was supposed to get US efforts refocused on containing China (especially in light is its rapidly expanding economy and surging military).  But Clinton and then Kerry became kiddy at the thought that they could use the Arab Spring to gain US advantage in the Middle East.  Their lack of focused has introduced a different scenario to World War III than most people think.

The most obvious and alarming scenario to the next World War is with Russia over something like the anti-missile system in Europe or if Russia expands their buffer zones via the areas in Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania.  But a wholly different scenario has been developing eerily similar to the days prior to the First World War.

The Economist's "Look Back With Angst" from 2013 shows how pre-war Europe believed "Globalisation and new technology—the telephone, the steamship, the train—had knitted the world together," much as we view smart devices, social media and the Internet today.  For all of the good that has come as a result of these latest technologies, we need only look to how one shooting in Ferguson was able to set race relations in the US back decades (would the reaction have been the same without social media?).  Like in the early 20th Century, many are still of the delusion that war that globalization eliminates the possibility of a global war.  John Maynard Keynes has a wonderful image of a Londoner of the time, “sipping his morning tea in bed” and ordering “the various products of the whole earth” to his door, much as he might today from Amazon—and regarding this state of affairs as “normal, certain and permanent, except in the direction of further improvement”.--The Economist

Instead of Britain, France and Germany, the essay sees China as in the role of pre-war Germany, Japan in the role of pre-war France and the US playing the role of a fading British Empire.

"Yet the parallels remain troubling. The United States is Britain, the superpower on the wane, unable to guarantee global security. Its main trading partner, China, plays the part of Germany, a new economic power bristling with nationalist indignation and building up its armed forces rapidly. Modern Japan is France, an ally of the retreating hegemon and a declining regional power. The parallels are not exact—China lacks the Kaiser’s territorial ambitions and America’s defence budget is far more impressive than imperial Britain’s—but they are close enough for the world to be on its guard."--The Economist

It may often seem that the Middle East will lead us into a major conflict and it is tempting at times to reminisce about the days of the Cold War and try to cast Russia in the role of its former self but the Economist makes some truly valid comparisons.  The comparisons of which the current occupants of the White House and State Department are even less concerned with than Keynes portrayal of a pre-war Londoner.

Could World I and World War III be 100 years apart?

“In Ukraine, Russia’s recent actions recall the days when Soviet tanks rolled into Eastern Europe,” Obama said. “But this isn’t the Cold War. Our ability to shape world opinion helped isolate Russia right away.” Speaking to cadets and top Army leaders, Obama said the U.S.-led “mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to Russian propaganda and Russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks.” President Obama in The Washington Post

I'm sorry Mr. President but your statements are too easily refuted.  World opinion has not been shaped in the manner which you claim.  Elections throughout Europe show people are fed-up with the notion of the European Union and are voting in far-right politicians at an unprecedented pace.  These nations are not planning to follow you or this country anywhere any time soon.  France sold 3 warships to Russia even though both former Sec Def Gates and current Sec Def Hagel begged them not to.  China signed a huge energy deal with Russia enabling Putin to continue on his quest.

If the President truly believes his attempts to mobilize world opinion have worked, he must not have read this account;

"Pro-Russian rebels downed a military helicopter in eastern Ukraine, killing 13 troops and a general, as an aide to President Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of pushing the world toward war through proxies in Kiev."  Bloomberg

Two can play the propaganda game and what Mr. Obama forgets is the US doesn't have the reputation to being able to pull of the "good-guy" role anymore.  Many in countries ranging from Iraq and Iran to lesser known countries like Mali see the US as a hostile nation.  Putin is portraying his actions as protecting Russian speaking people, not invading sovereign nations or even attacking terrorists.

And while Mr. Obama claims that he is working through "multilateral actions" to thwart Russia's presence in Ukraine, the new Ukrainian president has a different interpretation of what that means;

"Poroshenko, 48, a billionaire who won the May 25 presidential election in the first round, said in an interview with Germany’s Bild newspaper that he intended to call on the United States for military supplies and training."  The Washington Post

While drawing parallels from the past is always fraught with error and faulty conclusions, one thing about Russia annexing Crimea is eerily reminiscent of something from exactly a hundred years ago next month.  The Great War or World War I started on July 28, 1914.  That was the date Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated serving as the trigger but the underlying problem was neo-imperialism.  Neo-imperialism was a period of unprecedented pursuit of overseas territorial acquisitions.  At this time, countries focused on building their empire with new technological advances and developments, making their country bigger through conquest, and exploiting their resources.

Obviously Russia fits the parallel but let's not forget the United States.  US overseas bases have been quietly built-up during the war on terror in Qatar, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Djibouti, and Diego Garcia to name a few.  US drones can now be deployed through the most of the Middle East and the Horn of Africa.

Don't think the rest of the world might resent this presence?  Here is listing of all of the countries the US State Department has issued travel warnings for:  Iran, North Korea, Philippines, Kenya, Central African Republic, Ukraine, Nigeria, Syria, El Salvador, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of South Sudan, Chad, Colombia, Sudan, Burundi, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Algeria, Pakistan, Israel, Lebanon, Yemen, Mexico, Honduras, Venezuela, and Eritrea. (US State Department)

I did not include alerts which would have added Egypt, Thailand and Russia.  Brazil likely gets added once the World Cup starts and if there are clashes between protestors and police that make the news.

Humans like numbers and anniversaries.  The 100th anniversary of the start of the Great War may be a more than a coincidence.

World War Three

The polar vortex that hit the last two days has closed the college and left me with more time to read and write.  A few days ago, Max Hastings posted an article about why he thought the deteriorating relationships between the US and China could lead to the next world war.

As was the case in World War I, neither the Chinese nor the US are looking to start a war.  However, China will not be denied its future role as a global economic and military superpower.  The US is no longer interested or able to go head to head with China (at least not publicly).  What might provide then the catalyst for war?

Interestingly the answer is Japan.  The Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the formal ending of the Japanese Empire and hostilities of WWII, also ended the Japanese military as anything other than a self-defense force.  Very similar in fact to what happened in Germany.

The United States has maintained a large military presence in Japan more out of its commitment to protect Japan against aggression from China than as an occupying power.  The US military, since at least the Reagan administration, has thought to re-evaluate this relationships but the Japanese government has historically tended to prefer to focus its GDP towards its economy rather than defense.

Recently this relationship has begun to change.  Washington is beginning to once again look to Japan to assume more responsibility for its own defense and Tokyo is now more receptive.  Herein lies the real root of the problem.

Japan has never admitted to the atrocities it committed against China and Korea during the war.  In comparison, Germany has openly acknowledged the Holocaust and criminalized Nazism.  The lack of admitting Japan's atrocities is what lies in China's fear that that US is looking to pull out of its role in Japan.

This lead to a whether alarming statement by the Chinese ambassador to London that "Japan risks ‘a serious threat to global peace’ by ‘rekindling’ the bellicose attitude that hastened the expansion of World War II into a global conflict."--The Nation

With this as a backdrop, is it no wonder that the Chinese have felt compelled to expand their air defense zone?  Similarly the United States has spent over $6 billion at Andersen AFB as part of a reinforcement program.

Let's not forget the continued struggle between Japan and Russia over the disputed Northern Territories (specifically the Kuril Islands, which has prevented a peace treaty being signed between Russia and Japan since WWII).

The Kuril Islands were annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II and remain under the control of Russia which is why in Feb 2011, then Russian President Medvedev ordered a significant increase in reinforcements of the islands when it look like Japan may lay claim.

The issues though actually date back to Czarist Russia when the quest for a warm water port lead Czar Nicholas II to attack Japan in 1904.  Partially out of bad advice from his own people but also partially the noting that the Japanese were somehow a backwards people. the Czar believed this was sure fire way to increase his political standing with little risk.  Unfortunately the Japanese were now a modern, early 20th Century military and defeated the Russian Navy (and also ended the era of the Czars, leading to the Russian Revolution and the start of the Soviet Union).

The victory by Japan emboldened their desires of the Empire to expand.  The loss by Russia was sought to be revenged in part by the Soviet take over of the Kuril Islands.  Is it any wonder that according to a 2012 Pew Global Attitudes Project survey, 72% of Japanese people view Russia unfavorably, compared with 22% who viewed it favorably, making Japan the most anti-Russian nation in the world?

The Chinese remember the Japanese invasion of 1937 resulting the Massacre of Nanking where, according to estimates by International Military Tribunal of the Far East, over 200,000 Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants were murdered by the Japanese Imperial Army.

So do the Souther Koreans.  Just last month, South Korean President Park Geun-hye said she rejects flatly any idea of meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe until Japan apologises for wrongdoings during its 35-year occupation of Korea.

South Korea wants a deeper apology and greater compensation for an estimated 200,000 South Korean “comfort women” who were forced to work as prostitutes in Japanese military brothels during the occupation. Everything to do with the 1910-45 Japanese occupation of Korea, brutal and authoritarian even compared with most other imperial occupations, still festers--The Independent

It has looked to me for some time that major hostilities could be started over Syria and Iran (and nothing today makes my think that still can't happen), I think we must also now consider how old hostilities in the Pacific may be creating an even more volatile situation than the Middle East.