| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| The Emerging Russia's Terrorism Issues |
| 2008-08-14 |
| I am not a Russia expert and defer to Robert Kagan and others to paint the macro picture of what Russia's incursion into Georgia means. But there are several issues, outside of these, that need to be looked at in terms of Russia in the greater world, and our relationship to Russia, particularly in counter-terrorism and weapons proliferation issues. What is clear is that Russia is set on selling weapons to those who want very badly to hurt us, and who buy their weapons with the stated purpose of using them for that. Everyone sells weapons, and yes, the United States plays in the game. But Russia's willingness to arm non-state actors and states that are facing international sanction is qualitatively different. The three clearest examples are the arming Hezbollah in the summer 2006 conflict (courtesy of their favorite delivery person with almost-plausible deniability, Viktor Bout); Venezuela, which recently purchased an additional $2 billion worth of weapons from Russia, in addition to the $4.4 billion already purchased in the past four years-including two AK-47 factories; and Iran, receiving advanced missile systems. As noted above, Chavez's pitch for purchasing the weapons was the formation of an anti-US coalition with strategic interests in Latin America. Bout was also known to be delivering, on behalf of the Russian government, weapons shipments to forces in Georgia's separatist regions, helping to pave the way for the armed incursion. One can argue that sovereign nations can buy and sell weapons as they choose, and that is true. But Russia's willingness, and downright eagerness, to arm those who want to hurt us and have established ties to international terrorist organizations with a demonstrated willingness to attack, should give policy makers pause. |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #4 This is a parlor game, but destruction of the Soviet Union was doable by 1947. Stalin put most of his tyranny's troops in defense of Moscow, based on the pivot of his military doctrine: "central command." When the Nazis reached within 20 miles of Moscow, Stalin encircled same and forced general retreat. In 1945, crippled Russia was Moscow plus a strong military. Their air force was never strong, thus Moscow was vulnerable to nuclear destruction. I believe that act would have caused collapse. Did the US have the capacity to make sufficient N-bombs for the task? The Manhattan Project was mostly directed to creating a workable design plan. Once that was achieved, the only outstanding issue was: fission fuel. Everything else was in place. Given ample resources to direct at fuel production, there were really no obstacles to delivering a massive attack on our former ally. However, there was peace euphoria in 1945, and most people wanted the slaughter halted. And the Cold War didn't get going until the Soviet espionage cases were made public and Churchill spoke of an "Iron Curtain," in his Fulton, Missouri speech. Lesson: we need to need to recognize our worst enemy - Islamofascism - and annihilate them on a global scale. We don't have a Cold War with that enemy; we have indulged them with a Cold Surrender. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2008-08-14 21:20 |
| #3 #2 We should have let General George Patton have his way at the end of WWII, i.e. take care of the commie ba$tards. Posted by: JohnQC 2008-08-14 12:57 The problem with that, John, is that we'd probably still be fighting that battle. The logistics of supplying a warring army in a nation that spans twelve time zones are almost unbelievable. The amount of raw territory occupied by the then Soviet Union were astounding. We didn't (don't) have the manpower to do that and keep up the industrial base to supply such an operation. It was logistics, not firepower, that halted both Napoleon and Hitler. The same thing would have happened to the United States. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-08-14 19:18 |
| #2 We should have let General George Patton have his way at the end of WWII, i.e. take care of the commie ba$tards. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2008-08-14 12:57 |
| #1 Reagan knew the answer to this one. We GIVE weapons to everyone who is of a mind to cause russia trouble. And not just rusty AKs, lets give em air defense stuff and rockets too. We're all about sending trainers, why don't we be real dicks like NKor and send weapons in UNICEF containers. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-08-14 08:18 |