We have the ancient Roman writer Vegetius to thank for the phrase: "If you want peace, prepare for war." The phrase itself was adapted from one found in Vegetius' book on Roman military strategy, De Re Militari (circa 450 AD), the only complete work on the topic to survive to the modern era. The phrase translated literally reads, "Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war."
Whether that is good advice seems less relevant than whether those who prepare for war actually desire peace. I am thinking of something Madeleine Albright, secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, said to Colin Powell, the then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to wit: "What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
Which brings us to today: a world decidedly more under the sway of Albright than Vegetius, a world in which everyone seems to be preparing for war, but with little intention of preserving the peace.
I'll start with the recent attack on the alleged drug-smuggling boat blown to smithereens by the U.S. Navy in the Caribbean Sea. The United States is now conflating two failed wars into one: the war on drugs and the war on terror. The word "narco-terrorist" is ready-made for the occasion.
The Trump administration claims the boat was from Venezuela and operated by a notorious Venezuelan gang. But it offers no proof. The navy could have stopped the boat, searched it and, if warranted, arrested the passengers. But that would involve actually mounting a legal case for which the U.S. might not have the necessary evidence.
The destruction of the boat even though American sailors and ships were not at risk is now being called "an act of war." But that was almost certainly the point. The Trump administration is trying to goad Venezuela into an attack on U.S. forces (or arrange a false flag incident) that will justify a full-on war with Venezuela. Importantly, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth did not rule out regime change in Venezuela as a goal of American military operations in the Caribbean.
Why war with Venezuela? In part there is concern about growing Chinese and Russian influence in Venezuela and in the Americas in general. And then there's all that oil. Venezuela is purported to have the world's largest oil reserves (though much of that oil is expensive, hard-to-process extra-heavy crude that may not all be economical to produce except at much higher oil prices). Presumably the Trump administration wants to deny that oil to China, a large importer, and direct that oil toward the United States. (For reference, the United States was a large importer of oil from Venezuela before crippling sanctions were invoked to topple the current regime, sanctions which forced Venezuela to look elsewhere including China to sell its exports.)
This military bravado is ironically coming from a president who promised to bring an end to America's "forever wars" and stay away from further foreign conflicts. But so far Trump is moving in the opposite direction, ordering more air strikes in his first five months than Biden did in four years and rebranding the U.S. Department of Defense as the Department of War, a move that could cost billions to implement without adding one bit to the department's capabilities.
Earlier this year halfway across the world the United States bombed Iran ostensibly to eliminate or at least damage the country's nuclear facilities believed to be capable of eventually producing a nuclear bomb. Although that campaign was short-lived and ended with a ceasefire between Israel and Iran which Trump pushed for, there is every reason to believe that the conflict between Israel and Iran is not over and that the United States may be drawn in again. (For a long form history explaining how Iran is likely to regroup, read this.)
Meanwhile, in Europe war continues to rage between Russia and Ukraine. The causes of the conflict are complex, but one of them almost certainly includes American unease with European dependence on Russian energy—something Europe and America (and Europe internally) have squabbled over for decades. This article from before the war provides a sense of how tangled and politically fraught the issue has been.
The Ukraine-Russia war, however, has dramatically curtailed Russian energy supplies (through policy and sabotage) and led Europe to become vastly more dependent on American supplies of oil, coal and especially natural gas in the form of relatively high-cost liquefied natural gas rather than the cheaper pipeline gas from Russia.
The Trump administration has now insisted that Europe pay for a larger share of its own defense, with military spending of 5 percent of the gross domestic product of each NATO country. At the same time, the United States is withdrawing special security aid for countries that border Russia, a move that could signal weakness to the Russians but is consistent with the idea that Europe carry a greater share of the burden defending itself.
In anticipation of a possible wider war with Russia, NATO allies in Europe are trying to increase the size of their militaries. But they are having trouble recruiting the necessary numbers for such an expansion. Germany has now passed a law that allows the government to reinstate a military draft if there is an emergency and not enough people volunteer to serve.
It seems doubtful that Russia wants a war with Europe. But the more each side believes that such a war is inevitable, the more likely it becomes. Ironically, the Russians have now achieved worse than the opposite of what they hoped to gain in Ukraine, outcomes which will make the Russian government feel less safe. First, Ukraine will never be a neutral country—either Russia will occupy the entire country OR what's left of Ukraine will seek membership in NATO. Either way the borders between Russia and NATO will be greatly expanded.
When I say that it's worse than the opposite of what Russia had hoped to achieve, I mean the accession of Sweden and Finland, both formerly neutral, into NATO as a direct result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. And, what had formerly been essentially a border managed by border guards between Russia and Finland is now increasingly militarized—so much so that there is concern the border could become a flashpoint for conflict between NATO and Russia.
And the news got even worse for Russia when Austria signaled that it is considering NATO membership. The country's neutral status was part of an agreement that led to the withdrawal of the Soviet military in 1955.
My survey of world conflicts would not be complete without mentioning ongoing tension over Taiwan and the South China Sea. China, of course, has long maintained that Taiwan is part of China. It should be noted that the Chinese nationalist forces which retreated to Taiwan at the end of the civil war agreed, only with themselves and not the Chinese Communist Party in charge.
The Chinese like the Russians are unlikely to want a direct confrontation with the United States and its allies. But the Chinese may be channeling Vegetius saying they want peace while preparing for a possible war. The hardware on display in a recent military parade has convinced some experts that China is now leading the United States in weapons innovation.
Just days before the parade, U.S. officials met with Taiwanese representatives in Alaska to discuss security for the island nation. How far the United States would go to defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese attempt to invade is something the Chinese would very much like to know. But to date, they are taking a wait and see attitude. Despite the frequent dust-ups concerning Taiwan, there is good reason for the Chinese to refrain from simply taking the island. Given the terrain of Taiwan and its current defenses, it would be very difficult to take and the Chinese might very well fail.
There are, of course, other conflicts which are getting worldwide attention, Israel's war in Gaza and the on-again, off-again Pakistan-India conflict which was recently on again. The Pakistan-India conflict has potential to bring a nuclear exchange as both sides have nuclear weapons. Fortunately, the countries are now in an "off-again" stage in the conflict.
Although we cannot be sure of the intent of all these actors, I'm inclined to think more like a Hollywood screenwriter would. If you show the audience a weapon, you are obliged to have someone use that weapon later in the script.
The title of my piece alludes to a phrase that comes from the Gospel of Matthew which tells believers: "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed." I'm not so sure that we should remain calm. After all, even Matthew tell us that "[s]uch things must happen." The context in Matthew is the Biblical "end times," a set of great convulsions preceding the second coming of Christ.
While I do not believe we are living in the so-called end times, I find it hard to imagine that all of these countries mentioned above will be able to guide events in ways that will allow them to refrain from Hollywood endings to their ongoing disputes with their adversaries.
Kurt Cobb is a freelance writer and communications consultant who writes frequently about energy and environment. His work has appeared in The Christian Science Monitor, Resilience, Common Dreams, Naked Capitalism, Le Monde Diplomatique, Oilprice.com, OilVoice, TalkMarkets, Investing.com, Business Insider and many other places. He is the author of an oil-themed novel entitled Prelude and has a widely followed blog called Resource Insights. He can be contacted at kurtcobb2001@yahoo.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment