The only two nation-states on earth who could destroy us – nipping in the bud the American Hegemony – are Russia and China. Each has mobile ICBMs – which we could never preemptively “take out” – capable of dropping thermonukes on every mega-city in the United States. Each also has more thermonuke warheads than any anti-ballistic missile system we deploy could possibly intercept and destroy.
World War II was in reality a war between ideologies, fascism versus communism. Contrary to what you’ve been taught, the Russian commies won in Europe and the Chinese commies won in Asia.
(Roosevelt had us fighting on the side of the commies.)
All during the Cold War that followed, the principal goal of our foreign policy was to keep the commies from conquering even more of the world.
Well, now the Cold War is over.
And, to the extent that Russian and Chinese foreign policy is driven by ideology, it is beginning to look a lot more like capitalism than communism.
Conversely, our foreign policy is increasingly being driven by an ideology that is beginning to look more like communism than capitalism.
Take Operation Iraqi Freedom, for example.
We told the rest of the world that we had to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had – or soon would have – nukes that he intended to give to terrorists.
Neither the Russians nor the Chinese bought that argument and now we all know that the real reason we invaded Iraq – at such terrible cost – was that God told George Bush it was his Christian duty to replace the existing Iraqi regime with one more like our own. One that would make nice with Israel. One that would use Iraq’s oil riches to build roads, schools, hospitals and affordable housing for the poor. Would provide universal health care and subsidized prescription drugs. Would protect the environment, promote women’s lib, save the whales, and put organic bean sprouts in every pot.
Michael Moore to the contrary, it was neo-crazy American Hegemony ideology – not access to Iraqi oil reserves – that drove Operation Iraqi Freedom.
On the other hand, both China and Russia strenuously opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom, mostly because they were afraid they would lose access to Iraqi oil and to markets for their arms industries.
So, we already know that no matter who wins in November, we’re going to stay in Iraq as long as it takes and do whatever it takes to achieve final victory – whatever “victory” means.
The election may, however, decide which country is next to have its “regime changed.”
If Kerry is elected, it’ll probably be Sudan. If Bush is reelected, it’ll probably be Iran.
But, perhaps Bush-Kerry ought to consult the Chinese and Russians before they decide whose regime to change next.
China can be expected to strenuously oppose changing the regime in both Sudan and Iran.
You see, a Chinese company, Zhuhai Zhenrong Corporation, has just signed a long-term agreement with the current Iranian regime to buy $20 billion worth of liquefied natural gas. Zhenrong also imported 12.4 million tons of crude oil from Iran last year and expects to complete deals soon to develop three Iranian oil fields.
As for Sudan, it is also oil rich, and the holder of the biggest oil development concession from the current regime is China.
How about Russia?
Well, Russia would vigorously oppose a preemptive attack by Bush-Kerry or the Israelis on the zillion-dollar nuclear power complex the Russians are building at Bushehr.
As for Iran’s oil, Russia doesn’t need it. But Russia does depend upon oil “swaps” with Iran to get much of her Caspian region oil to market.
Both Russia and China expect Iran to be a big customer for their armaments.
Now, if Kerry-Bush want to change the regimes of other members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – such as Cameroon, Chad, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, and Uganda – neither Russia or China are likely to object.
The Russians might not even object to Kerry-Bush changing the regimes of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – all OIC members and all formerly part of the Soviet Union. Especially if Kerry-Bush build roads, schools, hospitals and affordable housing for the new regimes.
You see, a major contributing factor to the failure of the Soviet Union was the inability of relatively rich European states – such as Russia and Ukraine – to subsidize those sorts of programs in relatively poor Asian states like Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
So, can we succeed where the commies failed? Stay tuned.
