Four years ago, in January 2007, to be exact, I wrote an article, under the title Save The Tiger, which was never published. There is, however, a very good reason for me to resurrect it today, in conjunction with a remarkable unfolding news story.
But first, my article.----
Save The Tiger!
An acquaintance of mine, who supports a muscular U.S. foreign policy, preemption and all, explains the American campaign in Iraq and a potential military strike against Iran by the necessity to project America’s power in the world with sufficient force, in order to overcome the image of a paper tiger, brought about by the dovish policies of the past.
This is such nonsense (which I told him, of course)! Nobody in their own mind could ever mistake America, even metaphorically, for a paper tiger! A terribly exhausted and diminished tiger, yes, but a very real one still.
America has indeed lost a lot of stature since the good old days of the “evil empire,” when she was staring down the Soviet giant across the globe and had a China policy, which put another international giant high up on her national agenda. Benjamin Franklin was right to say “there is no little enemy,” but then, as the proverb goes, judge the man by the size of his enemies. Proclaiming Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the axis of evil of the new century, then adding Syria and perhaps Somalia too to the list, makes America’s enemies big indeed ---not in absolute terms, of course, but by making America small!
Seems like these days Washington is recklessly spending America’s blood and treasure trying to emulate that stupid giant, who turned himself into a mouse to impress Puss in Boots. Iraq is no Vietnam, where, at least, America thought, albeit mistakenly, that she was fighting an expansionist Soviet empire. Iraq is a profoundly disturbing psychiatric disorder, a profligate obsession at the expense of this nation’s vital national interest. It was because of Iraq that America’s legitimate war against Al Qaeda (I resent the unfortunate term war on terror: only specific wars are winnable, generic wars, such as "wars" on crime as such, poverty as such, and, yes, on terror as such, are generally unwinnable, by their very nature), was waged with such a mind-boggling incompetence, as if America's leaders all along had better things, like Iraq, on their minds. But the hapless Iraq adventure was reducing America from a global superpower to a full-time regional player, drawn into an ethnic game of others, whose rules she did not even understand.
Next target Iran? Is Washington like a desperate gambler trying to increase his chances of winning by increasing the number of games played, even before any one of them has been brought to completion? In real-political terms, Iran is far less dangerous to America right now than, say, her ‘ally’ Pakistan, and yet Washington politicians seem to be ready to lose the whole world (warning them not to attack Iran!) for the sake of an illusory victory, which, like in Iraq, is very much in question.
Yes, this country is still the great tiger, but risking soon to become an endangered species. Anybody watching The Animal Planet knows that big animals have an instinctive aversion to messing with little animals, for fear of injuries, yet even in this Washington has shown a reckless disregard for the laws of nature and common sense.
Now, what happened to the big game? What about Russia, and her six thousand nuclear weapons, and her latest military doctrine of nuclear preemption, authorizing a preemptive nuclear strike against the enemy? As to who that enemy is, Army General Mahmut Gareev, President of the Military Academy of the Russian Ministry of Defense, minces no words: “The political course taken by the USA is inevitably leading it to a confrontation with a considerable part of the world.”
Russia’s new military doctrine was the subject of the Russian Military Academy conference in Moscow, on January 20, 2007. Will the Russians ever deliver on the nuclear first strike threat? In the words of General Gareev, “if Russia is faced with an extremely unfavorable alignment of forces in all strategic directions, nuclear weapons will be the most important and reliable strategic deterrent against foreign aggression.” As to the nature of the strategic threats facing Russia, “their list includes, above all, the efforts of certain international forces and leading states to threaten Russia’s sovereignty and to prejudice its economic and other interests by different forms of pressure and subversion, as was the case in Ukraine, in Georgia, and in Kyrgyzstan.” It is quite clear that while still paying lip service to the ongoing “war on terror,” Russia is much more concerned with what it sees as an American neo-imperialist aggression, and is poised to resist it with all necessary means, including the first use of her strategic nuclear force.
Meanwhile, on the global scale, America is on the verge of losing the whole continent at her doorstep south of the border. All Latin America from Mexico to Argentina is becoming more and more radical, virulently anti-American, and unmistakably pro-Russian, buying Russian weapons and signing mega-deals with Moscow. President Chavez of Venezuela is becoming the face of America’s next-door neighbor, while she is “gone” on a mission to change the face of a far-away land.
Her European and other siblings, known under the common family name of free nations, are shaking their heads no longer willing to accept her lead. Her courtship of India, judging from the recent triumphant visit there by President Putin of Russia, is threatening to end in a marriage to America’s rival.
And finally, what about China, successfully challenging the US in space, by shooting down their satellite with a ballistic missile? Why are so many American experts pointing to China as an emerging global threat to the United States, the greatest superpower of the twenty-first century, while Washington still has her stuck clueless in a place that belongs to the middle ages?
Save the tiger from the smallness of his hunt! Let America recalibrate her vision to bigger game, and truly global challenges.
And now the most recent event, which makes my erstwhile article so palpably current.---
Courtesy of NPR.ORG.
10 March, 2011, 6:30 PM EST.
Title: U.S. Intelligence Chief Alarms Senators By Calling China, Russia ‘Threats.’
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper caused a stir Thursday during an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he described China and Russia as "mortal threats" to the U.S.
His remarks, coming in response to a question from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), caused concern among senators of both parties. After all, the U.S. has mainly friendly relations with both China and Russia.
Iran and North Korea? Not so much. So senators were taken aback, to say the least, that those two members of what used to be called the "axis of evil" got a pass.
The senators were so concerned that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chair of the committee helped Clapper "revise and extend" his remarks, as they like to say in Congress.
Meanwhile, the "mortal threat" description, as well as Clapper's estimation that Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was likely to fend off attempts to oust him, had Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calling for Clapper's resignation or, if that wasn't forthcoming, President Obama to fire him.
Here's the "mortal threat" exchange:
MANCHIN: First of all, Director Clapper, I'd just ask — the first question would be: In your estimation, which is the greatest threat we have in the world against the United States of America — whether it be a build up of their army or their defenses or their economic threat they pose or a combination of both?
MR. CLAPPER: Are you speaking of a nation state, sir?
SEN. MANCHIN: Yes.
MR. CLAPPER: I'm sorry?
SEN. MANCHIN: Yes, a country.
GEN. CLAPPER: Well, a country — well, from strictly — well. Certainly the Russians have a — you know, still have a very formidable nuclear arsenal, even with — which does pose, you know, potentially a mortal threat to us. I don't think they have the intent to do that.
Certainly China is growing in its military capabilities. It has a full array of — whether conventional or strategic forces that they are building, so they too pose, potentially, from a capability standpoint, a threat to us, as — a mortal threat. The issue, though, is — which, you know, we always have trouble gauging, is intent versus — versus the capability.
Having said all that, my greatest concern, though, does not lie with a nation-state posing a threat to us as much as it is in the area of terrorism, as I indicated in my opening statement.
When he had the opportunity a few minutes later, Levin moved in to help try to set things right.
LEVIN: Senator Manchin asked a question; I was frankly kind of surprised by your answer, Director Clapper. He asked a very direct question, who represents the greatest threat to the United States. And your first answer was Russia, and then you kind of clarified it in terms of saying, well, that's in terms of capability, but that — they don't have any intent to use that capability. But I still was kind of surprised by your answer. Then the next one was China, who also would have the capability, I guess, but without the intent.
By that — you didn't mention Iran or North Korea, which would have been the first two countries that I would have thought of in response to that question. I was really kind of taken aback, almost, by your answer. I thought it was a very — kind of a very clear question.
GEN. CLAPPER: I think — as I interpreted the question, it is, you know, which country or countries would represent a mortal threat to the United States.
SEN. LEVIN: Could have the potential of being a mortal —
GEN. CLAPPER: Yes. And so I — the two that come to mind are — because of their capabilities, are Russia and — and China.
SEN. LEVIN: Now, if we were sitting —
GEN. CLAPPER: Iran and North Korea are, you know, of great concern. I don't know that at this point in time they pose a direct mortal threat to the continental United States.
SEN. LEVIN: Does Russia or China, at this time, represent a direct mortal threat to the United States?
GEN. CLAPPER: Well, they have the capability, because of their strategic nuclear weapons.
SEN. LEVIN: Right.
GEN. CLAPPER: I don't think —
SEN. LEVIN: By that measure, we —
GEN. CLAPPER: The intent is low, but they certainly have the capability.
SEN. LEVIN: By that measure, we represent a direct mortal threat to both of them, right? We have the capability of an attack.
GEN. CLAPPER: Well, sir — we do.
SEN. LEVIN: So you would say, the director of — you're national intelligence, that you wouldn't mind a headline out there in Russia and China saying the United States represents a direct mortal threat to Russia or China?
GEN. CLAPPER: (Off mic) — each of these countries certainly have the capability in our strategic arsenals.
SEN. LEVIN: And vice versa.
GEN. CLAPPER: Yes, sir.
Even after Levin tried to provide an escape route, Clapper refused to use it. A few minutes later, he sad that because of the New START treaty with the Russians, he would rate them a lower threat than China.
(End of quoting from the NPR post.)
My opinion of today’s exchange in the US Senate must be clear to all from my decision to start this post with my Save The Tiger article. To spell it out explicitly, I am fully with General Clapper on this, who seems to be alone in this episode who is doing his job as a topnotch professional. I would have called his detractors fools, had the situation not been too serious for name-calling.
America has been taken over by agenda-driven politicians, and from many indicators, which I am following with great concern, both American national interest and global security as such, have been taken hostage by a particularly virulent strain of political correctness. The American media are timid self-censoring sheep, and should the media now allow one of the best professionals Washington has today, namely Director Clapper, to be fired for doing his job with dignity and integrity, I shall completely lose whatever has remained of my respect for the once great American reporting.
But first, my article.----
Save The Tiger!
An acquaintance of mine, who supports a muscular U.S. foreign policy, preemption and all, explains the American campaign in Iraq and a potential military strike against Iran by the necessity to project America’s power in the world with sufficient force, in order to overcome the image of a paper tiger, brought about by the dovish policies of the past.
This is such nonsense (which I told him, of course)! Nobody in their own mind could ever mistake America, even metaphorically, for a paper tiger! A terribly exhausted and diminished tiger, yes, but a very real one still.
America has indeed lost a lot of stature since the good old days of the “evil empire,” when she was staring down the Soviet giant across the globe and had a China policy, which put another international giant high up on her national agenda. Benjamin Franklin was right to say “there is no little enemy,” but then, as the proverb goes, judge the man by the size of his enemies. Proclaiming Iraq, Iran, and North Korea the axis of evil of the new century, then adding Syria and perhaps Somalia too to the list, makes America’s enemies big indeed ---not in absolute terms, of course, but by making America small!
Seems like these days Washington is recklessly spending America’s blood and treasure trying to emulate that stupid giant, who turned himself into a mouse to impress Puss in Boots. Iraq is no Vietnam, where, at least, America thought, albeit mistakenly, that she was fighting an expansionist Soviet empire. Iraq is a profoundly disturbing psychiatric disorder, a profligate obsession at the expense of this nation’s vital national interest. It was because of Iraq that America’s legitimate war against Al Qaeda (I resent the unfortunate term war on terror: only specific wars are winnable, generic wars, such as "wars" on crime as such, poverty as such, and, yes, on terror as such, are generally unwinnable, by their very nature), was waged with such a mind-boggling incompetence, as if America's leaders all along had better things, like Iraq, on their minds. But the hapless Iraq adventure was reducing America from a global superpower to a full-time regional player, drawn into an ethnic game of others, whose rules she did not even understand.
Next target Iran? Is Washington like a desperate gambler trying to increase his chances of winning by increasing the number of games played, even before any one of them has been brought to completion? In real-political terms, Iran is far less dangerous to America right now than, say, her ‘ally’ Pakistan, and yet Washington politicians seem to be ready to lose the whole world (warning them not to attack Iran!) for the sake of an illusory victory, which, like in Iraq, is very much in question.
Yes, this country is still the great tiger, but risking soon to become an endangered species. Anybody watching The Animal Planet knows that big animals have an instinctive aversion to messing with little animals, for fear of injuries, yet even in this Washington has shown a reckless disregard for the laws of nature and common sense.
Now, what happened to the big game? What about Russia, and her six thousand nuclear weapons, and her latest military doctrine of nuclear preemption, authorizing a preemptive nuclear strike against the enemy? As to who that enemy is, Army General Mahmut Gareev, President of the Military Academy of the Russian Ministry of Defense, minces no words: “The political course taken by the USA is inevitably leading it to a confrontation with a considerable part of the world.”
Russia’s new military doctrine was the subject of the Russian Military Academy conference in Moscow, on January 20, 2007. Will the Russians ever deliver on the nuclear first strike threat? In the words of General Gareev, “if Russia is faced with an extremely unfavorable alignment of forces in all strategic directions, nuclear weapons will be the most important and reliable strategic deterrent against foreign aggression.” As to the nature of the strategic threats facing Russia, “their list includes, above all, the efforts of certain international forces and leading states to threaten Russia’s sovereignty and to prejudice its economic and other interests by different forms of pressure and subversion, as was the case in Ukraine, in Georgia, and in Kyrgyzstan.” It is quite clear that while still paying lip service to the ongoing “war on terror,” Russia is much more concerned with what it sees as an American neo-imperialist aggression, and is poised to resist it with all necessary means, including the first use of her strategic nuclear force.
Meanwhile, on the global scale, America is on the verge of losing the whole continent at her doorstep south of the border. All Latin America from Mexico to Argentina is becoming more and more radical, virulently anti-American, and unmistakably pro-Russian, buying Russian weapons and signing mega-deals with Moscow. President Chavez of Venezuela is becoming the face of America’s next-door neighbor, while she is “gone” on a mission to change the face of a far-away land.
Her European and other siblings, known under the common family name of free nations, are shaking their heads no longer willing to accept her lead. Her courtship of India, judging from the recent triumphant visit there by President Putin of Russia, is threatening to end in a marriage to America’s rival.
And finally, what about China, successfully challenging the US in space, by shooting down their satellite with a ballistic missile? Why are so many American experts pointing to China as an emerging global threat to the United States, the greatest superpower of the twenty-first century, while Washington still has her stuck clueless in a place that belongs to the middle ages?
Save the tiger from the smallness of his hunt! Let America recalibrate her vision to bigger game, and truly global challenges.
And now the most recent event, which makes my erstwhile article so palpably current.---
Courtesy of NPR.ORG.
10 March, 2011, 6:30 PM EST.
Title: U.S. Intelligence Chief Alarms Senators By Calling China, Russia ‘Threats.’
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper caused a stir Thursday during an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he described China and Russia as "mortal threats" to the U.S.
His remarks, coming in response to a question from Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), caused concern among senators of both parties. After all, the U.S. has mainly friendly relations with both China and Russia.
Iran and North Korea? Not so much. So senators were taken aback, to say the least, that those two members of what used to be called the "axis of evil" got a pass.
The senators were so concerned that Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chair of the committee helped Clapper "revise and extend" his remarks, as they like to say in Congress.
Meanwhile, the "mortal threat" description, as well as Clapper's estimation that Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was likely to fend off attempts to oust him, had Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) calling for Clapper's resignation or, if that wasn't forthcoming, President Obama to fire him.
Here's the "mortal threat" exchange:
MANCHIN: First of all, Director Clapper, I'd just ask — the first question would be: In your estimation, which is the greatest threat we have in the world against the United States of America — whether it be a build up of their army or their defenses or their economic threat they pose or a combination of both?
MR. CLAPPER: Are you speaking of a nation state, sir?
SEN. MANCHIN: Yes.
MR. CLAPPER: I'm sorry?
SEN. MANCHIN: Yes, a country.
GEN. CLAPPER: Well, a country — well, from strictly — well. Certainly the Russians have a — you know, still have a very formidable nuclear arsenal, even with — which does pose, you know, potentially a mortal threat to us. I don't think they have the intent to do that.
Certainly China is growing in its military capabilities. It has a full array of — whether conventional or strategic forces that they are building, so they too pose, potentially, from a capability standpoint, a threat to us, as — a mortal threat. The issue, though, is — which, you know, we always have trouble gauging, is intent versus — versus the capability.
Having said all that, my greatest concern, though, does not lie with a nation-state posing a threat to us as much as it is in the area of terrorism, as I indicated in my opening statement.
When he had the opportunity a few minutes later, Levin moved in to help try to set things right.
LEVIN: Senator Manchin asked a question; I was frankly kind of surprised by your answer, Director Clapper. He asked a very direct question, who represents the greatest threat to the United States. And your first answer was Russia, and then you kind of clarified it in terms of saying, well, that's in terms of capability, but that — they don't have any intent to use that capability. But I still was kind of surprised by your answer. Then the next one was China, who also would have the capability, I guess, but without the intent.
By that — you didn't mention Iran or North Korea, which would have been the first two countries that I would have thought of in response to that question. I was really kind of taken aback, almost, by your answer. I thought it was a very — kind of a very clear question.
GEN. CLAPPER: I think — as I interpreted the question, it is, you know, which country or countries would represent a mortal threat to the United States.
SEN. LEVIN: Could have the potential of being a mortal —
GEN. CLAPPER: Yes. And so I — the two that come to mind are — because of their capabilities, are Russia and — and China.
SEN. LEVIN: Now, if we were sitting —
GEN. CLAPPER: Iran and North Korea are, you know, of great concern. I don't know that at this point in time they pose a direct mortal threat to the continental United States.
SEN. LEVIN: Does Russia or China, at this time, represent a direct mortal threat to the United States?
GEN. CLAPPER: Well, they have the capability, because of their strategic nuclear weapons.
SEN. LEVIN: Right.
GEN. CLAPPER: I don't think —
SEN. LEVIN: By that measure, we —
GEN. CLAPPER: The intent is low, but they certainly have the capability.
SEN. LEVIN: By that measure, we represent a direct mortal threat to both of them, right? We have the capability of an attack.
GEN. CLAPPER: Well, sir — we do.
SEN. LEVIN: So you would say, the director of — you're national intelligence, that you wouldn't mind a headline out there in Russia and China saying the United States represents a direct mortal threat to Russia or China?
GEN. CLAPPER: (Off mic) — each of these countries certainly have the capability in our strategic arsenals.
SEN. LEVIN: And vice versa.
GEN. CLAPPER: Yes, sir.
Even after Levin tried to provide an escape route, Clapper refused to use it. A few minutes later, he sad that because of the New START treaty with the Russians, he would rate them a lower threat than China.
(End of quoting from the NPR post.)
My opinion of today’s exchange in the US Senate must be clear to all from my decision to start this post with my Save The Tiger article. To spell it out explicitly, I am fully with General Clapper on this, who seems to be alone in this episode who is doing his job as a topnotch professional. I would have called his detractors fools, had the situation not been too serious for name-calling.
America has been taken over by agenda-driven politicians, and from many indicators, which I am following with great concern, both American national interest and global security as such, have been taken hostage by a particularly virulent strain of political correctness. The American media are timid self-censoring sheep, and should the media now allow one of the best professionals Washington has today, namely Director Clapper, to be fired for doing his job with dignity and integrity, I shall completely lose whatever has remained of my respect for the once great American reporting.
No comments:
Post a Comment