Can Super Power/s Control Major Regional Conflicts

S

stdalire

New member
I am reading some regional conflicts in some parts of the Globe.

I have a wild idea, that if there is a simultaneous high intensity conflict against an interest of a certain superpower. Would it be controlled? This might be a highly hypothetical questions in nature but I am interested to know also. If irrelevant query I'm willing that it will be deleted.

Let say, there is a regional conflicts in Korean Peninsula, Middle-East, Asia or Asean, Africa targeted at a superpower interest, Could it be controlled or stop by any one of the super power/s by conventional means.

Your comments is highly appreciated.
 
What superpower do you have in mind? There are no more superpowers in the sense of the U.S. and U.S.S.R. during the cold war. The military capability of of both nations is a shell of it's former self.

The U.S. is down to 10 understrength divisions, two of which are not combat ready due to peacekeeping/nation building commitments. We have expended much of our high tech "smart" ordinance in Kosovo so we could avoid casualties. (I even saw a 2000 lb laser guided bomb used against a fuel truck, cannon shells would have been the appropriate munition to have used against that kind of target). We had NO aircraft carriers in the Pacific during the Kosovo operation due to the NATO requirements in Kosovo and the continuing war over Iraq (you don't hear much about it, but it's still going on).

Other nations aren't in much better shape. Our traditional allies, the British are considering recruiting from the prisons to keep their forces at minimum strength levels.

I think anyone who choses to start a major regional conflict will be able to run amok for a long time before forces could be brought in to stop them. The U.S. has just begun issuing M17A2 protective masks to all of the dependents of service members in Korea.

But don't worry the world is a safer place. The people in Washington tell us so, so it must be true.

Jeff
 
Jeff: thanks for that info, I just cautioned myself in mentioning US or Russia as superpower. I consider France and UK and its allies in Europe as other super power too, if they joined forces as one Euro Military Armada. Or maybe USSR will still go back to its old ways if the Old Politburo can manage to overturn their present system. But of course I am referring USA as the lone super power for it acts as the "World Police" now. Can he handle if there is such regional conflicts.

By now, I got an enlightining answer from you, and perhaps some more can expand the subject, on how to look the world safer to live.

Thanks,
 
Such actions are tremendous drains, materially and economically, on the intervening "superpower". Effectiveness requires a long term time comittment...prolonging the drain upon the superpower.
Consider, as well, the goals and aspirations of the opposing groups within this conflict...unless the superpower as entered in on the side of one of these groups, the superpower becomes an enemy to all of them. Hence, the superpower takes the brunt of hostilities until it leaves...then the fight resumes between the original opposing groups.

Tensions are still high in Korea...even after 50 yrs. The Balkans, Somalia as well. So, until the prevailing political variables responsible for the original conflict change, such interventions are only stop gap and accomplish little other than decreasing the scale of deaths and infrastructure destruction.

From a purely pragmatic standpoint i.e the self-interest of the intervening superpower, is intervention beneficial? I'd say yes in Korea...there have been economic benefits. No for the Balkans and Somalia....those just cost, with no returns and nothing was accomplished.



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
DC is right. War is a tremendous drain on any economy. I don't know who started the widely held rumor that war stimulates an economy, but it's just not true. The military produces nothing (except for maybe the PLA making goods for sale in the US), someone (us) has to pay for the increased government spending involved in war.

As for a Euro Force, have you ever heard of NATO? The European nations have prospered for years due to the fact that we picked up the cost of their defense. The Brits did away with their "real" aircraft carriers in the '70s. The Falklands conflict really stretched their ability to project power away from Europe.

We still bear the brunt of the defense costs of Europe. No one else has the ability to move forces across continents to a regional conflict. Our capability to do this is limited too. Roll On/Roll Off cargo ships, C141 and C17 transport aircraft aren't glamorous, so we don't buy them in sufficient quantity to move our forces. Once we get our forces into theater we have to sustain them with food, ammunition, fuel, spare parts, and move casualties out of theater.

Logistics like this ultimately win wars. I seem to remember an Army in the '40s that had small quantities of the most advanced wonder weapons then devised. Jet and rocket aircraft, cruise missiles, theater missiles, the first true assault rifle. They also started the war with a professional officer and NCO corps that had been battle hardened in minor regional expeditions. They were defeated by an allied force that for the most part had inferior equipment and a longer learning curve for it's officer and NCO corps (for the most part inexperienced). But there were a lot of the slightly inferior weapons.

DC, we haven't made a difference in most of the regional conflicts we've been involved with since WWII because we never set out to win. Our goal was always to restore the status quo. When we set out to win, we win and win big (Grenada, Panama). When we set out to maintain the status quo, we usually manage that, but at a cost in lives and the continual economic drain on our economy by paying to maintain troops in these far off places forever. It would be better to decide if we have an overriding national interest in a conflict, then pick a side and win. For some reason that's never an alternative. It would be cheaper in lives and in money, but then we couldn't say we were "fair" and everyones friend.

Jeff
 
Well, I may lose some flesh here but I have to disagree with DC on the Korea issue. It seems that South Korea has been keeping some things from the US as of late. South Korea has been developing long range missles without telling the US that it has been doing so. Recent spy photos show undisclosed assembly plants in full production in South Korea.

This is not what I would call friendly allied efforts. One side keeping secrets from the other. One side spying on the other. Koreans are Koreans, it doesn't matter if they are Northerners or Southerners. I suspect South Korea is close to giving the good old USA the heave, and rejoining the North as a unified country. The South has a solid economy, and the North has a vast labor force. Joined together they can pretty much stand up to the Japanese and the Chinese in the economic as well as military arenas.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http://www.ofcc.net
Do what you C.A.N.
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/can.html
 
Not a chance the with the condition the old superpowers forces are in today, the Russians dont have the transport ability though they have the troops. The Europeans, "give me a break" Kosovo proved that they cant even fight a limited war in their own yard with out our help. The US, not any more with half the force structure and equipment gone since 1990 and units deployed around the world on these meals on wheels missions, not a chance.
The only way we could fight the war in Kosovo is cause it is just around the corner from the Gulf and the planes we were using aginst Iraq could pull double duty in two wars, and we still had to strip assets from other places. Face it with 10 divisions we could fight another war in Korea maybe(only cause the S.Koreans would supply another 10 divisions). The biggest problem with the US Military is not just the missing 8 active divisions but the missing independent battalions, brigades, logistic support, transport units, ships, Air Wings, and Naval air groups. These missing units provided all functions, combat arms, combat support, service support and transportation to add capabality, survivalability and sustainability to units enganged in combat operations. The US Military is about in the same shape today as it was in 1939, or 1914 woefully short of every damn thing you could name except politicians who know better than the people who have been there and done it.
 
Hal
With Korea can you blame them?? We seem to be the only people (US Voters) who seem to not understand that Bill has been bought by the chinese and tells or gives them everything they want. Lets see Satalite Technology, W88 bomb designs, Computer milling machines, supercomputers, control of the panama canal, revamping their command and control systems and supply systems... should I go on?
 
Alan,
Can't say as I would blame any country for not wanting to be a part of Bill's Big Adventure. I think it is high time for America to wake up and face the fact that the rest of the world just doesn't give a $hit about the USA. The only time they talk to us is when they want money. We (The USA) aren't above that sort of thing either, we have little interest in places that we can't milk. 30 years ago, every kid in a foreign country wanted to be "American" in talk, cloths and actions. Today, those kids have grown up. Now all they want is the USA to keep their nose out of internal affairs, but don't forget to send money.

We (the USA) aren't the parents of other countries, that play the part of college students. Just because the US passed out candy bars in south Korea 50 years ago, it doesn't mean the Koreans are going to turn their back on thousands of years of tradition and old hatreds.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http://www.ofcc.net
Do what you C.A.N.
http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/can.html
 
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the USA playing "Globo-cop". We're spending billions of our tax dollars trying to stop "blood feuds" that have gone on for centuries. The Hell with 'em. If they're stupid enough to wipe each other out, let'em go for it. We can always renegotiate whatever we need from that part of the world with the winners.
We have much better uses for that tax money right here at home.
Besides, if they learn that Uncle Sam don't give a fat rodent's rear end about 'em anymore, That we ain't gonna help and we ain't gonna spend billions rebuilding their country, they just might think twice before starting this crap!

(that's my rant for today. rant mode off)
 
DC, you outlined it well. Yes, external intervention by powerful countries will only stop the conflicts for the time being, but how long will they be present on those regions, sooner or later they will leave also and the internal conflicts will resume.

Now, it is crystal clear that simultaneous high intensity conflicts to different regions is uncontrollable by a powerful country such as US.

Hal, Grayfox, your points of view looks bias, that 3rd world, new industrialized or industrialized countries depend much on US Gov't without any mutual benefits. Would it not look like you're one sided or bias to your opinion that Uncle Sam is only helping without getting any benefits from small countries? Base on my study also, External meddling of US political affairs is necessary as one protocol in maintaining your presence and influence to other friendly countries. This will maintain also your economic domination in the world arena.

I’ll give you concrete instances. Without the Middle-East as your market for Mil or Civil defense equipments, perhaps many lay-offs of employee’s in the Defense Companies. Like my country Phils. Until now we are paying million dollars of interest of the Unused Nuclear Plants in the Former US Base area.

If your actions is like what you said “Koreans are Koreans” it would be the same if you say “Filipinos are Filipinos”. Have you not ever come to think that Americans are composed of different immigrant’s nationalities. Perhaps even yourself you’re a former Europeans, a Jew or whatever, and only migrated to the New World, except if your ancestors were RED INDIANS. I am quite for sure, every external meddling of any country has some sort of interest, political, defense or economics purposes.

I remember one time you commented on my post saying re: What is the difference between an LE, MIL life to a Civilians. I qoute:
[posted October 07, 1999 06:49 AM ………….using such words like This is just my reaction to the line, not really my opinion. The only reason I bring it up is to point out that however noble the intention, it can always be taken differently. Lines like this, along with "For LEO and Military use Only", LEO vs civilian, etc,, only seem to drive a wedge.
PeterGunn,
I don't deny that you have every right to walk out the front door expecting to come home at night. The sad fact is that you (or at least your counterpart here in Ohio) are given a better chance of survival than millions of others are.]

Base on the above comments you made, I have high regard on your views and perspective, but if you say “Koreans are Koreans” then you are also driving a WEDGE among Koreans and Americans or Americans and Korean Americans. Haven’t you seen that that there were also Pure Japanese bred but became US citizen and serve as advisers to most high post in your White House. If we used the words “Koreans are Koreans then you’re going against the dream of the then Pres. Abraham Lincoln for no racial discrimination policy he fought for. Like us Filipinos, we also contributed to some area of US interest and US help us too in Advance Mil. Hardwares.

Anyhow, the question is only “Can the lone super power control simultaneous regional conflicts”. And it has been answered very well by Jef, DC, & Alan.

Thanks and with all my respect.
 
Stdlaire,
Well of course I'm bias. I'm an American tax payer watching billions of dollars of my hard earned tax money and American lives being wasted as my government sticks its nose into what are accually internal matters of another soveriegn nation. Its none of our business.
Jeff and DC have made the point much better than I can. Bear in mind that ever since Viet Nam, US military operations have been directed by ignorant, self-serving politicians who only seek to further their own political goals.
Example: Desert Storm, here we had an obvious bad guy invading a US allied nation. The US oil supply was directly threatened. Here we did the almost right thing by driving them out of Saudi. At this point what we should have done was crush Hussain and his entire military capability to prevent any further threat. But NO! That didn't meet the admistration's political agenda. So now US military personel and equiptment stand watch year after year knowing that the minute we leave Saddam will be up to his old tricks after having plenty of time to rebuild his military.

Example: The Balkans. An ethnic civil war has gone on for centuries, but then one side starts to win. The press reports massacres, neighboring nations get spooked. The place has little or no value to the US. But, what happens? Slick (who is a draft dogger BTW) decides its time for Globo-cop to spring into action! The end result? The depletion of US military stock piles, more troops and equiptment tied up playing policeman and practically the total destruction of a country that was already in bad shape to begin with.

My point is that military intervention can only be effective when the goal is total victory. Anything less and in the long run you end up losing more than you gain.
You are entitled to your opinion and I will respect that. Let us agree to disagree. Until politicians can learn and only commit our troops in situations that serve the United States best interest and settle for nothing less than total victory. I stand by my original post.
 
Grayfox:I understand your straight forward comments being a tax payer, but the point is, we are being shaped by the Governing body not us being governed, although sometimes the masses can be heard of but all the time the Gov't has the last decision!

I agree with you if it comes to purely internal matters, your country should get-off his hands on it. Like what had happened to Phils. during the attempt coupdetat by then Col. Gringo Honasan (now senator) - they almost take-over the Aquino Government but your plane help the beleaguered Aquino Govt., that is a clear meddling of internal affair. You said and I paraphrase it. "Why don't they just watch it and whoever win the fight they will renegotiate with the winning party". You're right, but they may be reluctant if the winning party has harder treatment to them. Also, your gov't is not so sure if whom it supported is what the populace want it to govern them.

You mention the desert storm issue: You really need to guard the supply of oil not only for your nation interest but to the rest of the oil dependents countries to the ME. So, you cannot really stop US to be a Global Cop as the situation needs it.

I think there is big benefits for US of not completely eliminating the root caused of problem in the ME or somewhere else for there is also consultancy fee in it. As I said, there is mutual benefits every time you play "Globo Cop". Uncle sam is not wasting your hard earned money but also maintaining your International Image, and International presence so that, before the problems will reach to your shore the allies in the pacific or asia should take all the blows first from the agressor.

I think I deviated from the original subject as I pointed much on your comments.

Just an exchange of ideas purposes only.

Thanks
 
stdalire,
Forgive me for not being clearer. Yes,like Grayfox I am sick of losing not only money, but friends and relatives to countries other than the USA. I was born here, I chose to stay here, and I continue to support the USA. So I guess you can say I am biased.
What I am trying to say in the above post is that blood is thicker than money. I don't mean to imply that America has no friends in other countries. Sometimes typed words have a hard time conveying a message, unless you have a gift for it(I don't). America should stop trying to buy friends is what I am trying to say. If you buy a friend, that friend is always for sale to the highest bidder. All Americans at one time were pure bred foreigners,something I forget from time to time. Racial, ethnic and religous differences do exist. This is not a bad thing. All cultures have a certain flavor that only enriches everyone. When push comes to shove though, sadly, people tend to align themselves with others like themselves. I try to avoid doing it, but I am only human, and sometimes I react that way. Thank you for reminding me of that fact.

In answer to your original post. Yes, if a conflict would erupt that threatened US interests, econonomic or political, the US would intervene. Such has been our history.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
http://www.ofcc.net
Do what you C.A.N.

http://thematrix.acmecity.com/digital/237/cansite/can.html
 
About 10 years ago the US Army sent me to grad school to obtain a MS in International Relations. Not necessarily the field I would have picked, but since DA was paying for it, I really didn't care.

One of our professors, a retired US Ambassador (a career FS officer, not a political appointee) provided the simplest lesson in foreign policy I have ever heard. I'll pass it along now for what it's worth.

He told us that if you can remember this you will understand the international system: "Pirates and prostitutes...threats and bribes". There ain't anything else, and you don't really need anything more than that. Basically, large powerful nations act like pirates while small, weak nations act like prostitutes...the pirates threaten and cajole...the prostitutes accept bribes and sell themselves to the highest bidder.

The ambassador was a pragmatist...a former Army Airborne officer as well, (a fact that immediately endeared him to this paratrooper) he had (while serving as a junior consular officer in the Congo) gone into Stanleyville with a formation of Belgian Paras during one of the more historic dust-ups there back in the 1960s. My own experiences in NICs and "third world" nations have pretty much borne out the accuracy of his theory.

Oh yeah, no...the US cannot (with it's current troop strength and readiness levels) successfully operate in two "...nearly simultaneous..." MRCs.

Mike
 
Mr. Hal: I can understand how you feel in losing friend and relatives alike in bloody full scale or limited war, thus it carries your emotion and that translated into your comments. I can't blame you for that. I am with you. But as I said, it is the decision of the powerful body and it is always be like that because of vested interest. It would be the same feeling on the part of the victims of war "that can be compared to Vietnam during the last evacuation at your embassy" the southerners feels they were neglected as they were left by their great ally after fighting with them side by side against the VC at the expense of family members and professions. It breaks some Mil officers hearts who really understand the tragedy. But that is the name of the game and even how noble the purpose a concerned person we have no control, only we can voice out through media and other means like here now.

Col Spight: I appreciate to hear from a man with high profile in accepting or rather quoting "....He told us that if you can remember this you will understand the international system: "Pirates and prostitutes...threats and bribes". There ain't anything else, and you don't really need anything more than that".

You have exactly identified how does International system works. I see a lot of nationality being bought to sell their countries info to some groups in exchange of huge amounts of fees. Not one time job but a full time job at the pretext in maintaining such consultant companies. And this made me believe that few can really turn down an offer from rich and powerful country to buy someone even at the expense of his own countries interest.

So, the US cannot contain a simultaneous MRCs, thus International relations is necessary to fill-up the vacuum of Strength, and continue to be meddling others internal affairs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top