With Enemies Like These, Who Needs Allies?

Originally posted by The_Doctor
"I also think Africa is likely to be targeted in WOT, maybe even before Iran."

America and her allies cannot attack Iran and heres why...

Iran has it's intellegence agents over in Saudi Arabia and they are also the ones controlling the Shiites in Iraq. If so much as one bomb hits their soild they will blow every oil reserve in SA effectivly crippling the US economy bringing everything to a stand still. The Saudi's are well aware of this and are also to blame since they just let the agents in anyway.

Very Interesting Point, The-Doctor

Did you know that most of the ME oil reserves are actually located in places where shiites are the majority?

Bahrain, for example, is very rich in oil and is 80% shia.

Shiites are the majority in both Iraq and Iran. most of the oil wells are in south iraq where shias are the majority.

In Saudi Arabia, most of the oil reserves if not all lie in the north to north eastern part of SA near PG and kuwait where shiites are the majority.

Small Kuwait has some 40 % shiite population and is very rich in oil.

Oil may already be a driving issue in the Durfur conflict -

Guardian - 10 June 2005

A millionaire British businessman, Friedhelm Eronat, was named last night as the purchaser of oil rights in the Darfur region of Sudan, where the regime is accused of war crimes and where millions of tribespeople are alleged to have been forced to flee, amid mass rapes or murders.

The documents show that Mr Eronat may have been acting for China, which has been prominent in the new "scramble for Africa" and its oil deposits. Two Chinese corporations were given an option to buy 50% of Mr Eronat's newly acquired stake in the Darfur field. The option expired last year. It is not known whether China took it up.

It is good to see more and more people taking a wider view of contemporary events as it seems sensible, to me, to assume that there is a much larger game being played out here, and not just a simplistic, encapsulated, 'War On Terror'.

Hey the thread is back

Doctor:
I doubt the US will waste a bullet on Syria when the benefits lean too much to Israel and not enough to us. With Turkey as an ally and Iraq in our hands, the only reason to invade Syria is to tie ourselves in with the med against the prospect of a major grounding invasion of Iraq from the East.

Nor is Iran safe. They can infact threaten the Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields (more likely with missiles than with saboteurs), but in so doing they throw away their only deterrent. Therefore it should be apparent even to the most short-sighted leaders there that they must not take such action simply because we conduct airstrikes, but must save that to ward off an actual invasion if it is threatened.

I also believe it's a little simplistic to say Iraq is being handed over to the Shi'ites. I think we're setting them up for failure. We can't partition it, so we're making sure it partitions itself when we leave, in hopes that we can start a nationalist movement among the Shia Arabs in Southern Iraq and Khuzestan, Iran, thus taking Iran's oil indirectly and hopefully setting up a second Kuwait.

Don't count on India as a pawn either. India has a strong non-aligned history. They'll follow their self-interest

Africa being peanuts supposedly brings me to my replies to other members

Xpert:
Creating an economic community between the nations I've mentioned essentially does redraw the borders in some respects. Aid money on its own doesn't work because it is squandered. Trade arrangements between these nations are key to getting affordable food out there and creating the basic prerequisite for a functioning economy: that being employed must empower you to gain something you need. It starts with helping them get sufficient food into the local markets, then employing them in subsidized public works programs such as building the necessary road and power infrastructure to support the harvesting of other natural resources. It is not written in stone anywhere that I am aware of that any two groups HAVE to fight. When there's nothing else to do, then why not fight obviously- afterall you can take their stuff if you kill them. There does seem to be a correlation between economic success and domestic tranquility.

Northwolf: I'm thinking more or less along those lines: I'm sort of expecting Somaliland (in the North) to either outright secceed, be taken by Ethiopia in a war, or be given full autonomy through pressure on the transitional government, since Berbera is really the key port as far as Ethiopia is concerned. Mogadishu really doesn't appear, to my ametuer eye, to be all that important to Kenya or Ethiopia; Berbera and Mombasa seem better able to serve routes into those nations more directly.


Back to India for a moment, it seems to me that India has to stay nice and cozy with China unless we offer them something better. India is rather unfortunately boxed in. To their North there's really only one nation for all intents and purposes. It's not like you can go around or thru or over China to get to the next trading partner- China is what's there. Then to their West is Pakistan- not the most agreeable nation towards India, and packing a few too many megatons to just be kicked out of the way. So America, China, and Russia are all important economic and military partners for India and they have to be on at least mildly good terms with all 3, only snubbing them for the most important of gains. Much of India's ability to represent its interests abroad when force is required would hinge on cooperation with coalitions such as those, hence their work with the UN in Africa. Pawns move in straight lines... India is obliged to move in subtle archs.

(On a quick tangent, the straight line criteria probably makes America the biggest pawn in the world- and dont bother saying it isn't. Some nations are pawns for other nations, and some nations are pawns for corporations.)

The Vagabond sorry about the slow response the flu knocked me for six.
The middle east benfited from an oil fuled post war econmic boom but the region is still grossly unstable.
Why would Africa be differnt ?

Heres another key point under present econmic thinking any public work project would be privately owned.
How exactly would foreign ownership of the public work project benfit the local population ?

Originally posted by xpert11
How exactly would foreign ownership of the public work project benfit the local population ?

It would.

Lately, I watched a documentary on the Dutch television about Chinese 'intervention' in Africa. To keep the Chinese economic machine running large amounts of oil and other fossil fuels are necessary. 15 years ago, China was able to fulfill it's demand purely by domestic resources. Since the economy started to develop in such a tempo, the demand exceeded domestic supply.

One option is to purchase expensive fossil fuels from the Middle East producers, such as S.A., but China developed another strategy to fulfill its hunger for fossil fuels: Africa.

China has been lobbying with government of several African countries for quite some time now. Let's take Angola as example.
Angola, a country destroyed by civil wars, has large oil and diamant reserves, and is furthermore the 2nd largest supplier of the African continent. Poor governance and corruption made it impossible for Angola to build up a stable economy.

In 2004, Angola become the world's third largest supplier of crude oil for China (after S.A; Iran). Oil producing companies expect there are many unexplored oil fields in Angola, which makes it a great opportunity to invest in, and thus take the benefits out of it.

In exchange for fossil fuels, China invests large amounts in the Angolan economy, military, infrastructure, etc, by giving loans at a relatively low interest rate.

As well as indirectly (by the supply/export of fossil fuels) the Chinese economy also benefits directly. Chinese construction companies have been active in many infrastructure projects, such as building schools, bridges, roads, railways, low cost housing projects etc. After years of civil war, the country's once destroyed main railroad (Benguela railroad) has been repaired and is in use again. The railroad was rehabilitated by Chinese companies at a contract value of $300-500 million. Soon, Chinese companies will also start the construction of oil refineries. Several thousands of Chinese officials are expected to work in Angola, which automatically increases the Chinese influence and power in Angola, of which both parties benefit.

An additional benefit is that the supply of fossil fuels is not only based on pure business relations, but also on social relations, which is a great fundament in times of war, (in contrast to most western countries, that are dependant of the unstable Middle-East). Besides, this Chinese strategy decreases the level of Western influence in the African countries, a short-term is the example of Portuguese companies that untill recently did most of the construction works in its former colony, Angola, but now are replaced by Chinese companies.

If China applies this strategy on other third world countries, such as Nigeria, it could become a pretty dangerous situation for the Western world. Not in terms of military, but in terms of economy, as it slowly cuts off the third world oil supplies to the western world in this way.

I think we should go after Africa just for all of their bullshiiit scam schemes that always seem to come from there.

You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Excelent work, this all seems very plausable.

These are all the real motives to go to Africa but do you think that average joes in the US will need a CNN motive, massive scale 9/11 style to support it; or do you think it is enough with false accusations, Bin Laden´s recordings etc ?
Also when do you think this is happening?

Just some questions here, great post.

Zeratul
Read the news, it's allready going on. Now it's a proxy war, fought by pro US and Pro China governments using rebel groups in their neighbouring countries to further their aims.

Next step will be direct interventions, for both true humanitarian causes and for the clandestine control of the area.

The Vagabond,

This is a good post, I think you are onto something and you sound like you haven't quite figured out what is going to happen, but you feel you are getting close.

I would like to make a few points.

The US is already engaged on the Horn of Africa from Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, where the US Army has about 2,000 troops, and SOF operates from. The US Navy has used the ScanEagle aboard the USS Oak Hill and USS Trenton to monitor both Iran and areas around Africa from the Arabian Sea. Piracy returned last year as a major issue in the region, and with the Islamic Courts looking the other way, it is likely to continue.

The other African region the US Military is becoming increasingly involved in is the Gulf of Guinea. Both the Royal Navy and US Navy have been sending major warships to the area, and in trouble spots of major value, that typically means SOF. The Gulf of Guinea, which runs along the coast, is believed to hold as much as 30 billion barrels of reserves.

One thing your post did was got me thinking about the UN angle in Africa. As you mentioned, Africa is the focus of most matters where the UN actually takes action, and is currently in the progress of helping establish an African Standing Force. African Standing Force. While the press has largely ignored such events, it is noteworthy this gives the UN its first military force it can control.

You see, where I disagree with you is that you believe the US has a strategy for Africa, where I would argue the US hasn't had a strategy for Africa since, well since 1865 actually. With the exception of the two specific places US troops are operating from, and the working US military alliance with Egypt which already allows the US major access to the Suez Canal, the US has virtually no policy in Africa. The lack of a working policy in Africa makes sense to me, because it would explain why the UN has so much power there.

So, assuming the UN is leading into Africa, the question becomes which countries have the most influence in the UN, and the 3 answers at the top of the list have to be France, India, and China.

If you believe that Africa is the focus in 2006, then you should be aware that China has dubbed 2006 the "Year of Africa." That is a direct quote from Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

After all, when it comes to foreign policy, China usually starts with Military Sales, and Africa would be no exception:

Sudan. China has sold the Islamic government in Khartoum weapons and $100 million worth of Shenyang fighter planes, including 12 F-7 jets. Any military air presence exercised by the government, including the helicopter gunships reportedly used to terrorize civilians in Darfur, comes from China.

Equatorial Guinea. China has provided military training and Chinese specialists in heavy military equipment to the leaders of the tiny nation, whose oil reserves approach and may exceed those of Saudi Arabia.

Ethiopia and Eritrea. China sold Ethiopia and its neighbor, Eritrea, an estimated $1 billion worth of weapons before and during their border war.

Burundi. In 1995, a Chinese ship carrying 152 tons of ammunition and light weapons meant for the army of Burundi was refused permission to dock in Tanzania.

Tanzania. According to the Overseas Development Institute, China has delivered at least thirteen covert shipments of weapons labeled as agricultural equipment to Dar-es-Salaam.

Zimbabwe. The government of Robert Mugabe ordered twelve FC-1 fighter jets and 100 military vehicles from China in 2004 in a deal worth $200 million. In May 2000, China reportedly swapped a shipment of small arms for eight tons of Zimbabwean elephant ivory. In addition, the International Broadcast Bureau says China provided a radio jamming device to Zimbabwe that allows Mugabe's regime to block broadcasts of independent news sources like Radio Africa from a military base outside Harare.

(links for above information removed due to character limit, but sources provided for research)

China is just one angle. The French angle is also interesting. While the French have a foreign policy that includes hugging Hamas, they have also recently revisited their African Policy. It is noteworthy that France is on the UN Security Council because of their influence in Africa, but that influence is in decline. France is still trying to get over their involvement in the Rwanda genocide.

While France may be on the way out, India is a different story. At the World Economic Forum on Africa last month, Africa sent a clear signal.

Africa debates terms for new China and India partnership
Mandisi Mpahlwa, Minister of Trade and Industry of South Africa, stressed that Africa must capitalize on the commodities boom driven by Chinese and Indian demand to “establish new platforms of economic competitiveness to build new capacities."

India has the most foreign troops of any non African country in Africa, all UN Peacekeepers, and the Indian Navy has no problem reaching the shores off Africa, easier than China in fact, at least for now.

You have voted darksided for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Outstanding and well-informed post darksided. I'll be looking into much of what you've said.

I agree that a coherent policy in Africa, if indeed one is being formed as I theorize, is a very new animal, because there certainly hasn't been one for most of US history, not counting the simple policy of resisting the spread of communism in 3rd world nations. Actually our lack of a coherent policy seeded a lot of what we're looking at today. For instance the Janjaweed are basically leftovers from the Chadian civil war- a loose end that we and France never tied up after our 1-dimensional policy in that proxy war was satisfied.

It is also manifestly true that Africa has been both a rationale and a testing ground for a great deal of growth for the UN. Also France, India and China definately take prominent roles there both unilaterally and otherwise, from destroying the airforce of Cote d'Ivoire, leading a UN peacekeeping force, making it a point to trade heavily there, selling arms, etc.


So I agree with virtually everything you've said, and I'm given the impression that you either work or study in a field that gives you cause to be very well informed on this issue, so I'm inclined to defer somewhat to your analysis.


That being said, I think the people at the PNAC might be megalomaniacs, but I don't think they're stupid. I think the growing influence of the UN as well as two of the main economic revials that America must contend with in decades to come will lead unilateralists who are in a position to influence US policy to encourage the formation of an Africa policy.

The objectives of that policy would likely be not only to develop the resource exporting potential of certain regions, but to build up new exporters that could continue to support America's current import/service based economy as the currency value gap between India/China and America narrows. Building stronger ties to India by having a mutually beneficial relationship in Africa would be good too.

Then there's the peak-oil angle. I believe that eventually nations will start isolating themselves from global demand by making deals to monopolize oil in certain suppliers. I don't think that will fly in the middle east, but you could sneak into it with nations that aren't currently exporting and don't necessarily know how much they're sitting on- another big motive to get into Africa.

Thanks for the input- very informative.

Darksided
French do still have the most potent "outsider" combat forces in africa.
Indian peacekeepers posess very little combat value in a S meets the fan situation. Chinese advisors are few in numbers, but growing as you say.

German and French troops are pouring into CDR as I type and as far as my sources go they are armed very heavily compared to usual UN troops. This combined 13th Demi-Brigade, elements of 2e REI and RCS in Djibouti and elements of 1er REC in cote d ivor and 2nd Foreign Parachute Regiment (2e REP), based in Calvi, corsica, France has quite mighty power projection capability in africa.

Myself I believe..

A..Iran,while Israels takes advantage of the media distraction and moves in on Palestine

B..Syria,using the claim of terrorist clandestine support for Iran

C..Joint assault by America/Allies and Israel on Saudi.Due to public outrage of Invasion of Iran Syria and Palestine...

D.Attacks on NK to disable their Nuclear ability.Probably no invasion due to the Blitzing on their country leaving South Korea to mop up what,s left

Only then will they move to Africa and it,s ''terrorist supporters''..
and China,s oil supply.

All the time going unnoticed is Russia taking over most of the minor eastern bloc countries fighting it,s own ''anti-terror'' war

Leaving Communist China and Russia to slug it out with the west

Hmm... Pretty picure isn,t it!!

This is a very nice thread and thank you Vagabond for your info. This all seems very realistic. I like these kind of threads, I dont post much but I do make sure to log in and read up.

But 2 questions Vagabond:

Where does Venezula (Hugo Chavez has Chinese ties) and other South American countries factor into this? (also Cuba)

and what about Taiwain? where do they fator in? as a US military base?

thanks, I look forward to your input Vagabond!!!!

Nick

You have voted The Vagabond for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Yet another grand slam, Vagabond. Good work.

Anyway, all this talk about Africa reminds me of the 1998 PC game Total Air War by DID (defunct). It was an F-22 simulator combined with an AWACS and air campaign simulator. Highly detailed, great game. The reason why it reminds me of Total Air War is that in the game, there were 10 scenarios, all taking place in the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea. The basic premise was that all the scenarios were a long-term result of the Horn of Africa nations (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan) discovering massive deposits of oil and gold. As a result, these countries basically become regional powers overnight as well as big bats in the world economy. They use a large portion of their newfound wealth to build better militaries, purchasing equipment from mainly Russia. But the age-old conflicts between the African countries and cultures mix with the modern-day civil and geopolitical issues and thus, the 10 scenarios occur.

My own theory is that in the near future, the Middle East will become obsolete. Terrorism, increasing instability, and a possible U.S.-Iran debacle, combined with Peak Oil and division in the U.S. will all come together to plunge the Middle East into chaos, chaos that'll make the Middle East a place where the U.S. can no longer safely secure sufficient energy supplies. As a result, we will have to look elsewhere for that energy, and if the Horn of Africa/Red Sea becomes a hotbed of petroleum and gold as conjectured by Total Air War, then that region will become the new Middle East, so to speak.

Another thing the scenarios emphasized many times was the involvement of both China and Russia. Russia seemed more or less like a Wild Card, supplying arms and they were inconsistent, as in they were friendly, neutral, and hostile all at once. China on the other hand, was consistently hostile, and all this adds up to point out China's increasing energy demands and their ability to dominate on a world stage, only second to the U.S. Our involvement in Africa could, in the near future, be our first taste of what the Chinese are.

My WOTS nomination for you was based less on the quality of the post but because you were just about the only other person (besides me) who has predicted that the future international battleground will be none other than the Forgotten Continent. Good work once more.

I will diverge slightly, though, and add onto my first point that as the Middle East becomes obsolete, the U.S. presence in the Middle East is also drawing to a close. I feel like one more misstep and in about 10 years, the U.S. will cease to exist as an entity in the Middle East, leaving that volatile region to destroy each other and rot into the sand.

[edit on 8-7-2006 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Yeah, I know, I've got an ego problem that just won't quit, but I was right.
Six months ago I said:

...now Bin Laden is calling us out for Sudan and Somalia... Ethiopia is looking at a natural opportunity with newly "stabilized" US puppets to either side, and will want to behave with respect to Somalia (where the Euros are working on a port in Berbera) to curry favor in regards to their border conflict with Eritrea.

ETHIOPIA AGAIN! Believe it or not, after the ARPCT was driven out of Mogadishu by the ICU (the bad guys), some of them have apparently found refuge in good old Ethiopia.

Also, a few of the ARPCT leaders are ministers in the interim government which has been "condemning" our funding of ARPCT.

Others as well as the transitional government itself, are hiding out in yet another member of my orange gang... Kenya.

Seems to me that Ethiopia and Kenya are on board and are making sure that the Somali ports are there to tie them in with India when the time comes.

Meanwhile, the US is resisting calls for peacekeepers in Somalia. We wouldn't want the African Union or UN meddling in our sandbox.

Have you been reading the news?
2 weeks after this thread went quiet in July, there was a movement of Ethiopian troops into Somalia and the Islamic Courts called for a Holy War.

Now it's open war. The Ethiopians declared war and began airstrikes on Christmas.


Not the US, not the UN, but the pawn I suggested is making the move, and they are working in cooperation with the interim government (which I told you wasn't serious about "condeming" our support of ARPCT).

The front stretches about 400km in the Bay and Hiran provinces, and a smaller offensive from Autonomous Puntland to the North.

The Somali ambassador to Ethiopia says that Somali troops and their Ethiopian support intend to surround Mogadishu and force the surrender of the Union of Islamic Courts. They have already captured the town of Jowhar, putting them within 50 miles of Mogadishu after already having advanced over 125 miles from their starting point in Baidoa.

Troops from Eritrea have joined the Islamic side, though Eritrea denies it, and Ugandans are alleged to be participating on the Ethiopian side. If the Ugandans are infact participating, it is implicit that they have been allowed passage either through autonomous Southern Sudan or Kenya, both of which I have named as parties to the interests Ethiopia is serving here.

I will be spending the better part of this afternoon looking for any indication of the Ethiopians outperforming expectations that might suggest the assistance of American SOF from Djbouti or American intelligence.

and a smaller offensive from Autonomous Puntland to the North.

Do you mean Somaliland?

[edit on 27-12-2006 by sardion2000]

No. Somaliland is at the extreme North and a little further West. It has declared independence but is unrecognized and as far as I can find out is ignoring the war.

Puntland has proclaimed only autonomy and is cooperating with the recognized interim government.

Puntland

Oh, I thought Puntland was some sort of nickname or psuedonym for the same country. Just a note, Somaliland isn't officially a country.

Good thread btw.

[edit on 27-12-2006 by sardion2000]

Well I for one hope we go into nigeria and cut every freaking phone line T1 line and cable in the country I am so sick of that nigeria scam

Wait maybe thats why bin laden is doing it! He hates spam email too!