Wednesday, December 15, 2010

I only disagree with the gang in charge.....

We control the world. Nothing we can do about it whether we like it or not. We control  all seven seas, all airspace, all shipping, everything. Our satellites watch every nations borders. Our money buys everything that counts to anyone.We have the capacity to destroy the planet several times over. With all that the best we can do is who we have in Washington in charge.

Tell me this makes sense?


charles hugh smith-The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil
The Great Game: Geopolitics and Oil (October 19, 2010)

The Great Game is afoot and no matter how we may disapprove of the Global Empire, we would be wise not to discount the cards it alone holds.

Geopolitics is not called The Great Game without reason. The game of dominating the world's resources, nation-states and alliances is like a combination of Go and chess, with the threat of military conquest or defeat always hovering over the statecraft and financial game.

I am going to present a number of statements and speculations here, most of which are at odds with the status quo thinking. I present them not to be contrarian but because they seem self-evident.

As I have noted here before, the value of "hard power" (military dominance) and "soft power" (cultural, financial, diplomatic) cannot be assessed until you don't have any.

That establishes a conundrum: one must maintain these quite different forms of global power without knowing if the cost is justified, until the moment arrives when others would pay ten times over to hold what you have in hand.

If that moment never arrives, it may be because you maintained an overwhelming advantage. Wars are launched when one side perceives a rough balance has been achieved; no nation is so suicidal that it chooses to attack a far superior power.

While I don't approve of the American Global Empire, I respect the intelligence and drive of those tasked with maintaining and expanding it--and they number in the millions.

There is only one nation-state which can project hard power: the U.S. A missile is not power-projection, because it exerts control over nothing; it is deterrence or threat, but not power that can be projected. Only aircraft carrier groups and the ability to transport an army by sea and air to any locale in the world is power projection.

The U.S. has 11 carrier groups, China has zero. The U.S. has the ability to transport a small army by air, China does not. The U.S. has the sealift capability to transport a large army by sea. China does not, and neither does Russia or the E.U.


No comments: