Global War: Trend, Accident, or Conspiracy?

Backtracking slightly, I may have been on to something in regards to the situation in Africa. I recent weeks there has been alot of buzz about the situation in Darfur/Sudan.

Britain proposes UN council condemn Darfur attack

UNITED NATIONS - Britain is urging the U.N. Security Council to condemn as a possible war crime an ambush last week that killed or injured more than two dozen peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region.

Tuesday's proposal came ahead of scheduled council debate over the status of the beleaguered U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force, which due to fears of increasing violence has been pulling out all but its most essential civilians. Britain's U.N. mission said it hoped the statement would be unanimously adopted as a formal council statement on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, the commander of the joint force vowed Tuesday to keep operating and carrying out its U.N. mandate in the region.

"We will continue to conduct patrols and security, as well as protect U.N. personnel and U.N. facilities on the ground," Gen. Martin Agwai said in a statement from El Fasher, the capital of the North Darfur state. "We will continue to assist the humanitarian organizations to do their job of rendering humanitarian services to the people in Darfur."

Britai n proposes UN council condemn Darfur attack

In fact, the situation over there, be it in Sudan, Somalia, or Zimbabwe, is highly reminiscent of the very violent early '90s in Africa, specifically in 1992 in Somalia. The part that really strikes me as reminiscent of '92 is the "beleaguered U.N.-African Union peacekeeping force." In '92, the failures of UNOSOM I were what led to the U.S.-led United Task Force (UNITAF) and the carnage that followed.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Let's stay on track. It's all fine and well to make these interpretations, but let's have some new product, rather that some old glad handing. You've got a lot of people waiting for what comes next, and I'm sure they have questions. Let's answer them.

Hey all. I apologize for the long delay. Thigns had gotten very complicated the last week or so, thereofre I was unable to access the Internet for a little over a week now.

The next installment will be up by tomorrow.

Hang on a sec. Let me get the cob webs and tumble weeds out of here. Ah, that's better. Now, let's proceed.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Justin Oldham]

Okay, it took way too long, but here is the borderline vaporware continuation of my chronicles of the future. Hopefully, people still have interest in this.

Thursday, January 1, 2010: It is New Year’s Day and there is no Parade of Roses or any New Year’s Day festivities. As they have now done for months, everyone stays home, trying to stay safe. The first few weeks of 2010 are marked by inactivity, gas prices that have temporarily flat-lined, and plenty of crime and discussion about what is in store for the country for the next 365 days. By the second week, most kids have returned to school and teachers attempt to provide some sort of sanity and perspective on what has become an absolutely uncontrollable wave of chaos and violence. Judging from the events of 2009, everyone must be prepared for more of the some (and maybe more) in the following year(s).

During the first few weeks, the Obama administration continues to operate at 110%, ensuring a sound civil and domestic climate as well as addressing the myriad of national security concerns. Alerted to the possibility more attacks on U.S. citizens and/or troops may eventually lead the public to feel as though they are not being protected, Obama decides that in the new year, he will put forth a stronger emphasis on anti-terrorism (at least more than he previously has). At the same time, the economic crisis has been trumping so many other concerns, especially now that there is solidarity within the administration of the necessity of going to war with Iran.

The president is also reminded of the troops that are still in the Horn of Africa and Afghanistan. In hopes that the media will not focus too much on his next move, Obama orders both the Defense and State Departments to devise an exit strategy for Africa. He plans to continue maintaining a presence in Afghanistan due to instability in Pakistan and hopes that stabilizing Afghanistan will make the task of securing the Middle East slightly easier.

Monday, January 4, 2010: The Stock Market has yet another bad opening and oil is now $130 a barrel, while gas prices top $8 a gallon, all of this in the wake of the Ras Tanura terrorist attack. Carpooling has now become widespread because of this and in cold of the winter, many find themselves warming themselves by wearing bundles of clothing or keeping fires in the fireplaces instead of turning on the heat. It is quite a miserable existence in many respects. Unfortunately, with little to give in the way of tax credit and fears of the failure of Jimmy Carter-esque policies, the current administration is stumped at what to do. Meanwhile, rumors have begun to fly regarding a possible release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserves.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010: Obama sends his Secretary of State back to the U.N. in a long-awaited second try at garnering support for the attack on Iran. However, some assert that going back will take far too much longer due to the delays created by the nuclear stand-off, as well as the vehement objections again expected from China and Russia. The recent attack on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as well as the shopping mall attack last October and the attempt and nuclear terrorism back in June are seen to have somewhat de-legitimized the Obama administration, the U.N., and Iran. With scant evidence of Iran’s duplicity in its support for the Saudi Arabian insurgency, the Obama administration figures it has a bit more evidence to go at it alone.

1757 EST, Wednesday, January 6, 2010: Hundreds of witnesses report sightings of strange lights in the sky over Seattle, Washington. Home video footage of the lights hit’s the news and the Internet. Closely being scrutinized is the apparent fear and vigilance demonstrated by many of the witnesses, an indication of the current climate in which many Americans are living in now.

A few hours later, this latest UFO sighting takes an intriguing turn when unconfirmed reports surface stating that the same kinds of unusual lights have been sighted over Fort Lewis, just south of Seattle. The sighting of UFOs over a major U.S. military installation cause nationwide concern and even President Obama and his NSC are reported to be scrambling for answers and possible ways of mitigating this unnerving episode. When prompted for comment, however, Fort Lewis nor the military at large has anything to say about the incident.

Friday, January 8, 2010: Intelligence agencies throughout the world receive word from their contacts in Saudi Arabia about what appears to be an increase in insurgent activity and communications. There are also reports of possible double-agents within the House of Saud and even within the ranks of the military and law enforcement agencies. The kingdom is on high alert.

Upon receiving these reports, the Truman CSG, which was originally slated to eventually take position in the Persian Gulf, is ordered to hold position in the Red Sea and serve as a contingency force should a crisis occur in Saudi Arabia. Coalition military forces in the region go to DEFCON 3.

Later that night, a mid-level C.I.A. analyst confides to his superiors that he believes their Saudi Arabian contacts can no longer be relied upon to provide intelligence. Tracing back a suspicious pattern of behavior exhibited by some of the contacts, the analyst shows evidence that many of their contacts seem to be “on the take.” Large exchanges of money between executives of major Saudi Arabian companies and even some of the wealthiest members of the House of Saud with various independent groups and individuals have led many to believe their so-called allies have been working with the criminals, insurgents, and terrorists all along.

Troubled by this development, the DCI suggests to President Obama that he order all U.S. nationals be evacuated from Saudi Arabia immediately. Meanwhile, advisers to the House of Saud suggest that members of the royal family begin dispersing in order to mitigate and preempt any possible attempt on their lives. King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz requests that he be taken to Cairo, Egypt, where he and his immediate family will hide until he decides it is safe to return. Rather than fly directly to Cairo, however, he decides to fly to Jeddah on the western coast of Saudi Arabia. From there, he and his family will take a boat to Egypt. Other members of the House of Saud will go to Abu Dhabi and Dubai of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, and even as far as London and Paris. This protection plan becomes rather shady, however, when both the C.I.A. and private military companies (i.e., Blackwater, DynCorp, etc.) offer to provide protection and safe haven for the royals. Some, particularly the C.I.A., believe the House of Saud is being lured into a trap and are in danger. While the King and many members of his family and his allies refuse outside assistance, some do accept and many are flown to safe haven in the United States.

Saturday, January 9, 2010: On AboveTopSecret.com, another mysterious poster emerges, this time, named “AEMan78.” This member posts in the Aliens/UFO section and begins a thread in which he identifies himself as a civilian contractor working at Fort Lewis. He claims that not only were the lights seen over Seattle and Fort Lewis indeed alien spacecraft, but two of them landed in a forest near the base, one of which was approached by a high-ranking Army officer, who proceeded to make contact and communications with the craft’s occupants! This allegation is met with the usual skepticism and/or reserved fascination, but it is intriguing enough the keep the thread going for a few days.

Later that day, Reuters reports that preparations for a strike on Iran are being dogged down by the breakdown of British Army equipment. Likewise, the report also alludes that U.S. forces are suffering similar problems. This raises questions about the true state of readiness Coalition forces are in when it comes to carrying out the strike/raid on Iran.

Another miserable Saturday ends with the Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel letting President Obama know that Israel's participation in the strikes "does not imply Israel will adhere to the timetable set and agreed upon by the U.S. and U.K.."

good story progression, but the story doesn't move forward very far. In light of world affairs, as you sketch them out, I'm wondering how the global econony reacts to ehse events.

Its funny, because I could literally write hundreds of different stories for each event that occurs in my history. For example, I could've spent this ENTIRE thread going over the machinations behind the crisis in Saudi Arabia and all the intricate cloak-and-dagger stuff going on.

Likewise, I would need two separate threads to fully depict the story of the 2009 U.S.-China nuclear stand-off.

I guess my next installment will be a brief overview of the world economy after these most recent events.

You make a good point. It's hard to know just how "narrow" the focus needs to be for a discussion of this type. Where do you draw the line? One reader's interesting detail is another reader's boring moment.

So far as I can tell, you're running all the bases. I find myself wondering how the U.S. economy holds up during this scenario. Given the recent twists and turns of the commodities markets, I expect to see the Obama administration deeply mired in domestic economic issues.

I don't doubt for a minute that a future President Obama will have to use his military opitons. Recent events involving Georgia, Ossetia, and Russia make this quite clear.

Global War: Trend, Accident, or Conspiracy?

Trend, No, "trends" are usually new. War has been around from before we were human.

Accident, No, accidents can often be avoided and don't involve planning. (usually :lol.

Conspiracy, I suppose it is. How else would the big decision makers get the outcomes they require unless it was a manipulated situation to cause planned reactions from those partaking and those spectating (corporate news etc).

-----------------------------------

I'd like to add the word "Inevitable" to your choices Justin.

Since before man was "man" he has been warring against the fear of non-survival, against nature and eachother. To try and convince ourselves we are "truly" civilized would be wrong IMO, basic instinct can't just be evolved away or denied;

We may live in boxes instead of caves but some of us still metaphorically beat our chests to control the world around.

I find these are usually the people with no SELF control!

War in some form is all around us if you think about it....

Sports competitions.
Politics.
Religion.
Soap Operas.
Nightclub Bouncers.
Movies.
Music.
Driving.
Store cameras.
Anti-tobacco advertising.
Advertising.
Video games.
Bingo.
In the workplace.
In the home.
In love.
With friends and relatives.
Reality TV.
Religion.
Heck, even the "Harrods" sale can turn ugly.
etc, etc...

--------------------------------------------------

Competition is what got us where we are....So, inevitable in my opinion that all the little "wars" that were fought over water and hunting rights by our predecessors to protect their very existance would end up in one BIG punchup orchestrated by those who are arrogant and intelligent and informed enough!

Thing is, people are SO desensetised to it by the above list and more that no real priority is given to "the big one" anymore.......everyone's so busy fighting their own little battles and will probably carry on regardless.

Global War... the gorillas WILL beat their chests, stand tall and look down on their subjects and victims. They will take their spoils and continue.

And someone will always oppose them.......they'll make sure of that!

But eventually they'll kill themselves and eachother too, old habits die hard!

Conclusion:

Go back to the cave or all die.

Destiny?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
You make a good point. It's hard to know just how "narrow" the focus needs to be for a discussion of this type. Where do you draw the line? One reader's interesting detail is another reader's boring moment.

A part of me wants to write a novel chronicling the "Famous Four Days" in which the U.S. nearly went to nuclear war with China, maybe from a first-person perspective of some high school student, a kid who is coming of age in such a time. Or I could write a spy novel of a C.I.A. agent's quest to save the Saudi royal family. The possibilities are endless.

So far as I can tell, you're running all the bases. I find myself wondering how the U.S. economy holds up during this scenario. Given the recent twists and turns of the commodities markets, I expect to see the Obama administration deeply mired in domestic economic issues.

I hope that I'm making it very obviously clear that the U.S. economy is in the worst possible (functional) shape by January 2010. As you saw, 2009 was the worst year on record for America. By January 2010, gas is on average $8/gallon, NOTHING is cheap, even subsidized corporations are scuffling, businesses, big and small, are closing down everywhere. The only places in the U.S. where the economy is dragging itself through are places like Dallas and Houston, where they are getting by on huge fuel profits. and D.C., where the ever-expanding federal government keeps things going. Otherwise, everyone is feeling a major squeeze.

I don't doubt for a minute that a future President Obama will have to use his military opitons. Recent events involving Georgia, Ossetia, and Russia make this quite clear.

That's funny you mention that. Just a year ago, you and I were discussing a possible World War III scenario that involved a Russian invasion of Georgia. Remember that? I ended up discarding that scenario, but man, I was onto something, don't you think?

I do remember those e-mail exchanges. The chances are slim, but I can see how the current conflict over Ossetia could sprial out of control, in to something much bigger.

--Imagine what happens if the Georgians launch a pre-emptive strike on the russian's Black Sea Fleet?

--What happens if a Russian air strike severs the oil pipeline that feeds in to Europe?

These are just two of the possibilitiesthat S.M. and I talked about.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
--Imagine what happens if the Georgians launch a pre-emptive strike on the russian's Black Sea Fleet?

The military analyst in me finds that unlikely. The Black Sea Fleet is quite formidable for a green-water force. Georgia does not appear to have much offensive capability, let alone against naval forces.

--What happens if a Russian air strike severs the oil pipeline that feeds in to Europe?

In such a situation, we'd better start discussing how to get a U.S. carrier strike group into the Black Sea. Various military flight simulators, such as Electronic Arts' U.S. Navy Fighters and the more recent Lock On: Modern Air Combat, features carriers in the Black Sea, but never explains how they got there.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
--Imagine what happens if the Georgians launch a pre-emptive strike on the russian's Black Sea Fleet?

I stand corrected. Apparently, a short time ago a Georgian missile boat tried to attack a Russian Navy warship but was annihilated in the process.

I admit that on a personal level when I first heard about the conflict between Georgia and Russia I was reminded of how World World One formally started . Having said that I think that the conflict wont lead to any kind of a wider war . I am still very much hedging my bets that the US next entanglement will be Africa for reasons that I have outlined elsewhere on ATS .

Originally posted by xpert11
I admit that on a personal level when I first heard about the conflict between Georgia and Russia I was reminded of how World World One formally started . Having said that I think that the conflict wont lead to any kind of a wider war . I am still very much hedging my bets that the US next entanglement will be Africa for reasons that I have outlined elsewhere on ATS .

I'm not too far from where you are. I feel like Bush's last major presidential decision will be just like that of his father. He'll deploy peacekeepers to bolster the failing U.N.-A.U. peacekeeping force in Sudan.

I do say, however, that this Caucasus situation will continue to deteriorate.

I'm doubtful that we'd put a carrier battle group in to the Black Sea. Remember that we've got NAtO friendly air base in Turkey, and Greece. I doubt that our carriers would go any closer than the Dardonelles. I have no dobut that Georgia will join NATO and the EU, within the next fhour years. I think this iswhat their President was angling for, all along. the Georgians get rid of hteir rebel provinces, and they get on the fast track in to NAtO an the EU.

If that was what he was angling for, then he picked a very piss-poor way to do it. He condemned his country since NATO and the E.U. have absolutely no way to intervene using force and he's now put the U.S. in a position where it has to choose between plunging credibility and image versus a confrontation with Russia. A lose-lose situation.

I know in my conversations with you last year that I found a way for the U.S. to put troops down in Turkey and Azerbaijan. I think I was wrong in that assessment. I think its safe to say at this point that we won't be seeing any liberation of Georgia anytime soon.

I can see how Saakashvili would go for a gambit of this nature. If the Russians do invest hiscountry, he's virtually guaranteed NATO membership, and a gold-plated invite to the EU. His people stand to pay a harsh price for this "benefit," but you've got to understand that Presidents play politics at a very high altitude. What's not acceptiable to you and me is incidental to them. Who knows? Machievelli might be proud.

Everyone wrote an 80-billion word response...all I will say is, as long as this man is lurking, he will always bring death:



So to answer the question: trend.

[edit on 12-8-2008 by pluckynoonez]

I just read this whole thread over 3 hours and am completely enjoying it. I applaud your hard work on these subjects. here here.

Now the only thing I have noticed you haven't really touched on is the social aspect of how people react to the increased rates of crime. The underlying social structure of America would be threatened with the prospect that your neighbour might have murdered someone and gotten away with it due to the preoccupied authorities trying to regain peace.
Catch my train of thought?