Log in

The Price of a Crisply-Creased Pair of Pants: The Coming Decade of Genocidal War - jordan179
January 23rd, 2014
07:37 am


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Price of a Crisply-Creased Pair of Pants: The Coming Decade of Genocidal War
In 2008, America voted a crisply-creased pair of pants into office.  The pair of pants quickly showed itself incompetent at executing the primary duty of the American Presidency:  defense and foreign policy leadership.  In 2012, America -- deciding that it really liked this pair of pants -- re-elected it into office.  We are now living with the consequences.

It's not just the diplomatic errors, the fundamentally-flawed foreign policies.  It's also Obama's deliberate drawdown of our military strength, to the point that we are approaching levels of weakness not seen since four decades ago.  Either he really believes that he improves world peace by weakening America, or he is an out-and-out traitor weakening America in the hopes that we lose the wars his fecklessness is making inevitable.  The effect is much the same in either case:  we are immobilized, and will be immobilized for the first years of the next President's first term.

From an Aggressor State point of view, this may be the best historical chance for decades.  Obama's probably going to be in the Oval Office until January 2017, and after that it will take at least a few years to begin undoing the damage he'll have done in eight years to the US military.  We've cut classes of weapons that can't be built-back rapidly, such as warships, warplanes and nuclear missiles.  So China -- and Russia, and Iran -- have a window that lasts them till around 2019-2020 or so.

Basically, the 2010's are going to be like the 1970's were, in terms of the fortunes of the Free World.  There will be death and destruction in the Third World, gloom and doom in the First World, and probably several promising Third World countries falling to enemies of one or another stripe.  In particular, the Muslims will advance in Africa, Russia in Central Asia, and China in East Asia.

Iran and/or Pakistan are likely to commit national suicide around this point, or set themselves up to commit such suicide in the 2020's.  There will probably be, by 2030, at least one medium-scale nuclear war on the Third World -- this will almost in passing put an end to fears of Global Warming, after a nuclear autumn or two gets icecap deposition back up.  This will be a shame, as the systemic problems threatening global warming won't have been cured -- unless we plan to have a medium-sized nuclear war every decade or so, which is not something I think human civilization could survive for more than a few decades.

This is the optimistic scenario.  In the pessimistic one, Russia feels frisky enough to attack Poland and Germany, or China to attack Japan and Australia.  In that one, the 2010's are more like the 1930's, and we find ourselves fighting a global war in the 2020's -- probably a strategic thermonuclear one.  And in the very pessimistic one, we lose the wars of the 2020's.

In either case, a heck of a lot of human beings are about to die to pay for Obama's crisp pants creases.

Tags: , , , , ,

(4 comments | Leave a comment)

[User Picture]
Date:January 23rd, 2014 04:01 pm (UTC)
Seems to me the "very pessimistic scenario" requires no more than the next President being a Democrat. Or a major US financial crash, which could happen literally any day now. Either would mean no US military buildup.
[User Picture]
Date:January 23rd, 2014 04:32 pm (UTC)
There are Democrats and there are Democrats. Barack Hussein Obama is the first American President I can think of since James Buchanan to feel more loyalty to the enemy than to his own country, and the only one to feel such toward a foreign foe. And his arrogance is such that he has learned nothing from any of his mistakes: he just blames them on everyone else.

By contrast, both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton loved their own countries, and learned from their mistakes. At least the ones having to do with foreign policy.

A "major US financial crash" is exactly what has happened now and happened repeatedly from 1929 to around 1936 or so. I will point out that we won the ensuing war.
[User Picture]
Date:January 24th, 2014 03:04 am (UTC)
For me... I think these things are slower than that. Most of what your "optimistic scenario", from what I can see was inevitable since the beginning of Bill Clinton's second term of office.... maybe before, and has gotten consistently worse in the intervening time.

While W was hugely less awful than the presidents bracketted by him, he still kinda sucked. He did nothing at all to reduce spending, cut back "entitlements", reduce union power, reduce monopoly powers, wean the US off of foreign energy, or truly confront the Jihadist threat. The best that can be said of him is "at least he didn't deliberately make it worse". Which is, indeed, something. He *tried* to be a good US president, rather than a deliberate saboteur. But during his tenure, all the challenges still got worse.

Obama, OTOH, is a true Manchurian candidate. A saboteur placed in the office by a literal massive conspiracy specifically to inflict damage. The question we need to ask ourselves is "who owns him?"

I mean, he has alienated literally every ally we had in years prior, and ingratiated himself to most of our enemies, without going so far as to get them to actually *do* anything. so it's pretty clear that his foreign policy goals are not those of most advantage to the us. But what ARE they?

To answer that, we've got to examine his treatment of Jihadist Islam. He *consistently* acts to the greatest favor of Islamists. From his failure to act in support of the iranian protesters, his rapid efficacious actions in support of the Jihadist revolutions in Libya and Egypt, his attempted support of the Syrian Jihadists (but only AFTER the originally secular revolution became Jihadist), His support of the Iranian Regime, his outright hostility to the Israeli... What's most interesting about his treatment of this is that it's *clearly* an "outsiders" behavior. A true Jihadist would have picked a Sunni/Shia side, but O hasn't. So long as they're Jihadist, they're good by him. Saudi is *furious* with him for his behavior inre Iran, and Iran holds him in no particular esteem for his treatment of the Muslim brotherhood.

This is oddly typical of westernized academic Muslims. They tend to believe in the religion, and support all comers, and not comprehend the sectarian divisions within the religion. As Nermin has said "Sunni, Shia, those are a different kind of muslim". And yet, they also see both sets of those Muslims as freedom fighters for an oppressed people.

So the only thing that creally changed due to Obama is that the world favors Islamicists fractionally more than it favors the chinese. With him or without him, we're screwed.
[User Picture]
Date:January 24th, 2014 02:32 pm (UTC)
I while I agree with most of what you say, I do not agree with all of it.

Trying to blame everything that is wrong in American on Obama is as foolish as Russia trying to blame American for everything wrong in the world. Neither of you are wrong that there is some seriously shady stuff going on, but I think that the scope being used is too narrow. There are too many guilty parties to say that This One Person/Country is the GREAT EVIL that has caused everything to go wrong. You could argue that things started going seriously down hill during the Carter/Regan areas.

The one thing I do want to disagree with you on this this: In the pessimistic one, Russia feels frisky enough to attack Poland and Germany, or China to attack Japan and Australia

I do not disagree with you on what will happen so much as the direction - if Russia and China are smart - and they have smart people who can give good advice - Russia will start consolidating their area with the various 'Stans around it. But only after they get the Behemoth back on it's proverbial feet. Yes, it is still a monster and a foe to be reckoned with, but it need to get a lot more money before it can start expanding again. And better control of it's population. With China, they will start south and west first - taking out the smaller SE Asia countries, getting the resources into a new Chinese war-machine - or subjugate them into puppet states they can control. The problem with China taking on Japan is that they will draw the US into it.

The only funny thing I can think of is if China does manager to take out Japan, think of all the poor American Otaku who will raise up arms because they are not getting any new hentai.
Fantastic Worlds. Powered by LiveJournal.com