The Cheonan

Ever since the news of the sinking of the Cheonan, and the claims that it was a North Korean torpedo that sank the South Korean ship, I’ve wondered at the motivations behind such action being taken by Pyongyang. Many will claim the North Korean regime does not require a rationale for committing what amounts to an act of war against their neighbour and enemy in the south, with Rogue State status, we, the gullible public are quick to swallow the ascertations and ‘evidence’ that North Korea was responsible.

I, however, don’t buy into the motiveless act. There must have been some reason, some gain for the North Korean submarine to have taken the shot or to have been ordered to take the shot.

Could it be that Pyongyang wished to goad the South or her US allies into punitive action against them and so force the Chinese into a dispute with the United States? Perhaps dragging Russia kicking and screaming along with it? Nobody wishes to see widening tensions and potentially war on the Peninsula, least of all the Obama Administration which already has Iraq, Afghanistan and potential action against Iran to consider.

The South Koreans claim it is a revenge attack for the clash in the same area last year between two surface ships in which the North Korean vessel came off worse.

We can, of course, go all conspiracy theorist on this and suggest the Cheonan was sunk due to foul play on behalf of the US/South Koreans in order to point the finger of blame at North Korea and force China to step in a control it’s wayward ally. The Chinese cannot be seen to be condoning the attack, which is why rejected the opportunity to investigate the issue.

Whatever the reasons or motivations behind the sinking of the Cheonan, it does little for regional security, and pushes the DPRK even further into the area of international pariah. The recent joint US/Korean naval exercises will have done little to play down the issue or lessen the intensity of feeling on either side of the 38-th parallel.

Posted in Korea | Leave a comment

Dutch withdraw from Afghanistan

The departure of the Dutch signifies the loss of one of the main partners in the coalition in the war in Afghanistan. NATO willl play down the withdrawal, but it comes on the back of major domestic pressure against the war in the Netherlands, pressure which lead to the collapse of the Dutch Government early this year.

Dutch troops end Afghanistan deployment

The Netherlands has ended its military mission in Afghanistan, after four years in which its 1,950 troops have won praise for their effectiveness.

Dutch military chief Gen Peter van Uhm said security had improved in Uruzgan province during the Dutch deployment.

But he acknowledged that “a lot still has to happen” after the withdrawal.

Nato has played down its significance, but analysts say this is a sensitive time for the alliance, with growing casualties and doubts about strategy.

Dutch command was formally handed over to the US and Australia in a small ceremony on Sunday at the main military base in Uruzgan – where most Dutch soldiers have been deployed.

The Dutch ministry of defence told the BBC that while its military mission in Afghanistan had ended, a redeployment task force would stay on to oversee the return of vehicles, military hardware and equipment to the Netherlands.

Four F16 jets, three Chinooks and five Apaches from the Dutch air force were expected to remain in Afghanistan until the end of the year.

“Dutch forces have served with distinction in Uruzgan, and we honour their sacrifice and that of their Afghan counterparts during the Netherlands’ tenure in the province,” said a statement from the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Nato had wanted the Netherlands to extend its mission, but the request triggered a political row which brought down the country’s coalition government in February.

This sent shock waves through other European countries, particularly Germany, where public opposition to the war is growing.

3D warfare

More than 145,000 foreign troops currently operate under US and Nato command in Afghanistan and are supporting its Western-backed government against a Taliban-led insurgency that has gained strength.

Having supplied just a small percentage of Nato forces, the Dutch pull-out will not make a significant military difference, says the BBC’s David Loyn in Kabul, but it will have a symbolic impact far beyond the troop numbers themselves.

Analysts say the Dutch contingent has pioneered techniques which have since been held up as a model for other foreign forces in Afghanistan.

These include the “3D” policy – defence, diplomacy and development – which involved fighting the Taliban while at the same time building close contacts with local tribal elders and setting up development programmes.

“We offer the majority of the population relatively safe living conditions and advancements in health care, education and trade,” Gen Van Uhm told a news conference on Wednesday.

“We have achieved tangible results of which the Netherlands can be proud.”

Finite commitments

Uruzgan is a poor mountainous region north of Helmand and Kandahar, and the Dutch lost far fewer troops than the UK, US and Canada, the main forces further south.

Gen Van Uhm said 24 Dutch troops died during the four-year mission and 140 were wounded. His 23-year-old son was killed by a roadside bomb in April 2008.

A Taliban spokesman told the Volksrant newspaper that the group wanted to “wholeheartedly congratulate the citizens and government of the Netherlands” for pulling out its troops and urged others to follow suit.

Officials in Brussels insist the rest of the military alliance remains solid and note that the decision of the Dutch to go ahead with the withdrawal did not produce a chain reaction of other announcements about pull-outs.

But Canada is still expected to withdraw its forces next year, Poland in 2012, and the UK in 2014 or 2015.

With increasing focus on the process – if not the exact timetable – for handing over security to the Afghans, analysts say there is a growing sense that commitments are finite, analysts say.

BBC News

Posted in Afghanistan | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

America’s war with the E.U. fought in Iraq

America went to war in Iraq, without the support of the UN or the EU because those are the two organisations it wished to hurt with it’s military campaign in the Middle East.

In 2000 Iraq became the first OPEC nation to start selling it’s oil reserves in euros. This, consequently, helped to strengthen the Euro, but the main point of this is that it weakened the dollar. Since ’45 the dollar has been the powerhouse of world economics. The vast majority of transactions, and the vast majority of imports/exports are done in dollars. What would it mean to the U.S. if all OPEC nations suddenly switched to the Euro? It would mean catastrophy for the American Economy.

The euro is the biggest single threat to the economic dominance of America that it has ever faced. The American Government is aware of this and used Iraq as an excuse to prevent the euro superceding the dollar as the currency of choice.

Members of the Bush administration have said that the US must, “discourage advanced industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” The EU is the only organisation capable of doing this.

With Iraq trading in Euros and the rest of OPEC looking to make the move from the dollar also, the US needed to act fast to maintain it’s dominance. It did this by invading Iraq under the pretence of regime change/WMDs/whatever. It also, significantly, took Great Britain with it. Blair has been manipulated. It is a well known fact that Blair is both pro-American but also pro-European. Blair wanted the U.K. in the single currency and the U.S. was well aware of this. Britain is also (with Norway) the largest oil producing nation in Europe. If Britain had joined the Eruo, it is widley expected that OPEC would have completed the transition to trading in Euros. America relied on Britain’s involvement in Iraq to distance the UK from Europe and so scupper the attempts of the EU to intergrate Britain into the single currency. Because of Britian’s relationship with the US, their inclusion in the single currency looks less likely. If, however, Blair had not supported the Iraq invasion, we could be looking at a very different world right now. One where oil trades hands in euros and where American dominance of world economics is slipping.

Instead, we have a situation where the US controls Iraq. If we consider Iraq’s vast, untapped oil reserves we can lend further reasoning to the invasion. Many people here shout and scream about their being no great benefit to the US (in terms of oil) due to the Iraq invasion. This is bullshit.

Iraqi oil was nationalised. There was no benefit in the old Iraqi system to the U.S. as U.S. based companies such as (Cheney’s) Haliburton could not control the supply from Iraq’s nationalised oil production. Since the U.S. intervention in Iraq they can now prevent Iraq from opening the gates and flooding the market with cheap oil, thus damaging U.S. oil interests which would be unable to compete with the cheaper prices.

The U.S. relies on OPEC to control the supply of oil in order to keep prices at a level where the U.S. can compete and retain the profitability of the U.S. oil industry. The U.S. controls Iraq and thus controls a stake of OPEC. We only need to look at the failed U.S. backed coup in OPEC member Venezuela to see that contolling OPEC (and controlling oil production) is of vital importance to U.S. economic interests.

This war was a war for control. Control of oil, control of oil production, control of OPEC. The invasion of Iraq gave the U.S. all three. The alternative to the state of affairs as they stand now are.

No control over oil.

No control over oil production.

No control over OPEC

OPEC trading in euros.

America attacked Iraq to keep the E.U from gaining the upper hand in global economics.

Posted in Iraq | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Welcome to the wars of the future

Welcome to Future Wars.

This is a news blog dedicated to looking to the future of human conflict. We will examine the possibility of conflict in the different regions of the world, and the nations which will be involved.

Please follow on Twitter to make sure you get all the updates: @future_wars.

Future Wars | Bringing you the news of the wars of the future

Posted in FW.net News | 1 Comment