The Geopolitical Implications of an Obama Presidency

       This article discusses the geopolitical implications of how the current US Presidential Election will affect US National Security in the coming decade. There are sharp differences between the two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain, on foreign policy and national security issues. To date, there has no rational argument presented (at least to my knowledge), that Mr. Obama has demonstrated any real competence in these matters, hence his selection of Senator Joe Biden of Delaware as his Vice Presidential running mate. McCain on the other hand, with the exception of Dwight D. Eisenhower, has a better understanding of the geopolitical implications the US Presidency holds in the state of world affairs than any candidate in modern American history. McCain draws from personal experience in his basic understanding of the nature of the external threats facing the United States today. Communism, Marxism, Islamic extremism, global jihadism, ethnic nationalism, National Socialism and transnational crime syndicates are movements that have been reenergized and enhanced by the technical advancements of the Information Age and represent a clear and present danger to the security of the Free World and the United States. The top priority of any US President lies in their ability to protect the citizens and national security assets of the United States. As chief law enforcement official and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, the President must be competent in areas of foreign policy negotiation and implementation as well as military and security issues. The President cannot be great at everything however he must be highly astute in these matters.

The Evolution and Nature of the Current Threat Environment

       Nations that have an adversarial relationship with the United States are eagerly watching the United States Presidential race. The last eight years brought about a paradigm change in US foreign policy, largely due to the events of 9/11 and the subsequent actions taken by the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and at home. US predispositions regarding the pre 9/11 global threat environment in hindsight looked naive at best and grossly misinformed and misguided at worst. The lack of a clear mandate from the Bush Administration in early 2001 in regards to defining threats to US national security and implementing a sound policy to counter those threats, reveals how President Bush, at that time, did not view this element of foreign policy much differently than his predecessor, Mr. Clinton; who tended to act more on the basis of political expediency rather than passive indifference. Therefore, the reality of the current view and assessment of America’s vulnerability on 9/11 should be placed along a time line that begins with the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, all the way through to that tragic day in 2001.

       Between the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990’s to September 11, 2001, the United States Intelligence Community and US Defense Establishment underwent a significant amount of attrition that resulted in the diminishment of its capabilities to detect and counter threats from adversarial state and no state actors who wish to undermine US National Security and global influence. More specifically, the dominance of using technical means of acquiring intelligence (TECHINT) and the diminishment of human intelligence (HUMINT) had created a vulnerability to strategic deception operations; a gap in which America’s enemies including al Qaeda, Iran and Iraq would exploit.

The attrition of US HUMINT assets is clearly illustrated in Robert Baer’s work titled See No Evil, William Daugherty’s work Executive Secrets and Michael Scheurer’s book Imperial Hubris. For instance, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had 10,000 operatives worldwide in every corner and dark hole on earth in the 1980’s. By 1998 however, the CIA had only 1,000 operatives worldwide. Without eyes and ears in some very dangerous spots such as the Middle East, The US Intelligence Community had lost a high level of effectiveness in its ability to detect adversarial targets, movements, plans, capabilities and intentions. On top of that, many new managers in the US Intelligence Community appointed by the Clinton Administration had for political expediency, deemphasized the threats posed by Russian, Chinese, Cuban and Iranian infiltration and espionage, which had not abated despite the end of the Cold War. This “politically correct” reconstruction of significant portion of the US Intelligence Community had given these organizations an image more characterized by career civil servants rather than intrepid intelligence operatives and supervisors. The US military also suffered cutbacks during the Clinton Administration which resulted in a diminishment of the United States military’s ability to project power around the globe.  In other words, the United States had dangerously exposed itself to emerging global threats that would immediately fill the vacuum left by the former Soviet Union while at the same time establishing a culture marked by careerism, political expediency and risk aversion.

Seven years after 9/11, despite attempts by al Qaeda, America has not been attacked and as a result, a sense of complacency among the US citizenry as well as many academic and political observers concerning domestic terrorist activity has taken hold. However, there is credible evidence to believe that should such a decimation to the ranks of the US Intelligence Community and Defense Establishment occur in the next four years as it did during the 1990’s, the United States could fall victim to strategic surprise by any number of adversarial actors who wish to diminish and even cripple US power.  The emerging trend of a loose coalition of actors including Russia, China, Iran, Sudan, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, a number of criminal organizations and drug cartels among others, who have a vested interest seeking America’s demise are dedicated towards pursuing that end. The sum total of this threat includes not only conventional methods of warfare but more importantly unconventional and asymmetrical means of undermining the US and the West. While the threat of nuclear war was always a serious concern during the Cold War, America’s internal strength and political resolve never wavered and eventually emerged victorious in that struggle.

The solid political resolve toward countering Soviet and Chinese Communism characterizing the US foreign policy mandate of the 1940’s and 1950’s, has slowly given way to political corruption, divisiveness, cynicism and uncertainty. In 1960, both Jack Kennedy and Richard Nixon represented themselves as staunch supporters of the military and national defense. Their debates in 1960 did more to separate their personal traits rather than their political positions of key issues. The debates characterized the similarities of their positions rather than their differences, unlike the political paradigm today that reflects the very sharp, distinctive and uncompromising positions on issues of national security that have created a gridlock environment on Capitol Hill. Since 2001, the political paralysis resulting from this condition reduces the US Federal Government’s ability to move forward towards dealing with the evolving nature of the national security threat environment.

Fast forward to November 2008; the years 2009-2012 will represent a crossroads in American history similar to the 1938-1941 period before the US entry into the Second World War. The rise of an expansionist Russia, hell bent on retrieving the former Soviet satellites, the neo colonial policies and massively expanding economy of the Peoples Republic of China and a global insurgency fueled by the rogue state Iran, its proxy Hezbollah as well as its association with militant Islamic organizations such as al Qaeda, all represent a clear and present danger to US National Security. Add into that mix North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Venezuela and other sponsors of terrorism and Marxist Revolution teaming up with transnational criminal narcotics organizations such as the Russian Mafia, Chinese Triads, MS-13 and Mexican Drug Cartels and you have a lethal cocktail that is mobile, elusive and difficult to pin down and track. Recent actions taken by Russia, China and Iran including Russia’s invasion of Georgia, China’s cyber attacks on key US assets, and Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and exportation of terrorist assets in Venezuela all point towards a head on collision with the United States

The United States in 2008, just like in 1938, is unprepared for the coming conflict; just like it was unprepared for 9/11.The only real difference between these two periods comes from a political perspective where President Roosevelt realized early on that war with Hitler was inevitable but could do little to convince the American people of the danger and the need to participate in another European conflict. This brings us to the current race for the American Presidency between Barack Obama and John McCain. When it comes to national defense there are very sharp distinctions that separate the two candidates. McCain, who has a strong military background and heritage, has a clear understanding of how the military establishment and intelligence community buttresses foreign policy, whereas Obama has shown the same deference toward the military and intelligence community as Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Carter and Clinton both drastically cut defense spending and distrusted the CIA. US National Security has been an afterthought on the Democratic Party Platform since the mid 1960’s and continues to be so today by any measurable benchmark. It would be safe to assume that an Obama Presidency would bring on similar actions from the White House and Democratic Party controlled Capitol Hill. As a result one would probably expect the same negative consequences in foreign policy that has famously characterized the Carter and Clinton Administrations; with one ominous difference.

In many ways, the global threat environment today is more dangerous than the conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Today, America is besieged on many fronts, both internally and externally. The fight against militant Islam is a serious threat that has been enhanced by the infiltration of hundreds of sleeper cells, the establishment of paramilitary compounds such as Islamburg, right here on US soil, and hundreds if not thousands of spies that hold high level security clearance working in the US Government, Defense Establishment, Intelligence Community and US defense contractors.  According to Dr. Paul Williams, author of Day of Islam; in 1965, there were 10,000 Muslims living in the United States. Today, there is over 10,000,000 and continuing to rise. Even a small percentage of these becoming radicalized could prove disastrous and provide a dangerous fifth column in the US. The struggle between militant Islam and its more moderate practitioners will more than likely be problematic in the US in the near future as it already has in Western Europe, which is threatened to be overrun politically by Muslim majorities in the next ten to twenty years.

Iranian and al Qaeda’s incursions into South America have been significant in the last fifteen years. Hezbollah has established itself in Venezuela as well as the lawless Tri Border Region (Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay). Many tens of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East have migrated to South America. Many of them have been trained as sleeper agents for Iran and al Qaeda. They learn Spanish as well as English and culturally assimilate to blend in with the Hispanic communities in Venezuela and Mexico where they obtain false documents and other necessities to cross the US southern border. From there they go and seek out Muslim communities in Dearborn Michigan, Los Angeles or Newark New Jersey where they can begin recruitment and planning operations. Their intentions and agendas are sinister and their means violent in nature.

Much the same can be said of the Chinese who have many tens of thousands of spies in this country under the guise of every kind of cover imaginable; from university students to engineers, businessmen and government workers and researchers at high tech defense contractors and nuclear power facilities. America’s business relations with Beijing have clouded the extreme threat China poses to US national security and political stability.  The China lobby in Washington DC is a very powerful one among US policy makers. Right under the United States’ nose, China has been subtly laying a solid infrastructure for exporting its Marxist Revolution into South and Central America. The infusion of billions of dollars into countries such as Nicaragua, Cuba, the Bahamas and Ecuador along with its alliance with Venezuela has left behind a significant presence of the People’s Liberation Army and MSS (the Chinese Foreign Intelligence Service) which operate from a mandate of undermining democratic institutions and supplanting them with Marxist inspired governments. So far they have been very successful in fermenting anti American sentiment and undermining US influence. Hutchinson-Whampoa, a Chinese Army front organization has leased and purchased port and customs facilities in a number of Latin American countries as well as in the Bahamas, where they control the WMD inspections for imports into the United States. The Chinese military also occupies former bases and jungle warfare training facilities once used by the US Army and SOCOM in Panama and South America. This deteriorating condition for US national security in the Western Hemisphere is not what Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, “Ike” Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan had in mind when they made references to the Monroe Doctrine in US foreign policy statements.

The Russians have also stepped up their offensive intelligence operations and “active measures” programs according to a very high level Russian SVR defector. Russia has made it clear that it will not tolerate a high level of US influence in Eastern Europe and intends on reclaiming its former satellites. It considers the US its number one adversary and Great Britain number two as evidenced by the number of assassinations and assassination attempts of British government officials, Russian expatriates, Russian, British and American journalists and key critics of the Putin government. Russia, like the Chinese use cyber warfare against US targets and US allies in Eastern Europe like Estonia and has a spy network in the US that may exceed levels the Soviets had in place during the Cold War. This should not come as a surprise as Putin is a former KGB colonel and has installed former KGB members into key governmental positions. Russia today is a KGB state that is fueled by a Russian National Socialist ideology that is more in line with German Nazism than Soviet Communism. The KGB is now known as the FSB and SVR; a different name for the same thing.

Russia is desperately trying to counter US and NATO efforts to bring neighbors such as Georgia and Ukraine under the NATO umbrella. The US anti ballistic missile program (ABM) scheduled to be installed in Poland in the near future, has also drawn the ire of Moscow to the point where they have threatened a nuclear strike on that country should the US carry through with the treaty. While some dismiss this as bluster and saber rattling, one must understand the role history plays into Russian foreign policy and how it perceives Eastern Europe to be its “playground” as well as a buffer against the West. This is a geopolitical game of “chicken” to see who is going to blink first. Relinquishing the US commitment to the freedom loving Poles would be a foreign policy disaster for the United States and would allow Russia to run roughshod over the rest of Eastern Europe while it intimidates Western Europe into submission, and as a result, extinguishing US influence on the continent.

What does it all boil down to?

In a nutshell, little has changed in Russia in the past one hundred years except for one thing; they are more dangerous than ever. There are no components within the Russian government that can temper the bold aspirations of Putin and his political allies inside the Kremlin. All resistance has been systematically crushed, the government is flush with $750 billion in petro dollars and its recent military success in Georgia has served to embolden the Kremlin in the planning of their next strategic move. Normal diplomacy is totally useless when engaging a country that knows no law and has no integrity. We learned that lesson with Herr Hitler in 1938 and 1939. Ukraine will be their next move along with threatening to cut off heating oil and petroleum supplies to Eastern and Central Europe One of the problems with US policy toward Moscow in the past two decades has been the ignoring of Russia’s history and culture which is inclined to reject Western political institutions over the more familiar totalitarian Asian formats. In other words, Western attitudes toward Russia have been based more on wishful thinking rather than the obvious facts.

The Chinese government is the most dangerous of all US adversaries because they are truly the masters of deception. The Chinese mindset is so alien to the average American, who understands more about Klingon physiology, than about Asian military history, it staggers the imagination. The Chinese Communist Government has always felt racially and politically superior to the United States (and the rest of the world for that matter); much the same as the Japanese during World War II. Their government is classified as a “revolutionary” entity designed to export its Marxist ideas by means of propaganda, subversion and violence if necessary. They have a vastly different value of human life as the Communist government has deliberately murdered tens of millions of their own people during the 1950’s, 1960’s and 1970’s by forcibly implementing draconian policies such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution on its unwilling citizenry. It can then be safe to say that their consideration and esteem for Westerners is not too high. They consider Communism and Capitalism irreconcilable ideologies; therefore in their mindset, strategic conflict with the United States is inevitable. They consider any negotiation, a means to buy time to gain an immovable advantage in the future. Still the US is conflicted as to the threat the Chinese pose to long term national security.

The folly of misguided US foreign policy however can be best exemplified in its dealings with Iran during the Carter Administration. Removing CIA and US military support from the Shah of Iran in the late 1970’s was one of the greatest political tragedies in American history. President Carter, who we now know has always had strong anti Israeli sentiments and favored the Islamists in the Palestinian issue, is in large part responsible for many of the geopolitical problems the US faces today in the Middle East. Iran and its ally al Qaeda have set forth an apocalyptical vision for its followers in their quest to wage jihad on the West.

The President of Iran waits patiently to develop nuclear weapons and at the same time plant its terror cells through its paramilitary arm Hezbollah, all over the Western world as it is currently doing in South America and the United States. They threaten to commit atrocities and acts of terrorism in any country that opposes their views or defends themselves from Iranian attacks. This threat will also come into play when Iran sets off a weapon of mass destruction against Israel, with whom Iran has threatened to “blow off the face of the earth” According to the Iranian President, any nation who defends Israel will suffer a mass of terror attacks. Iran has also experimented in recent missile tests in the Caspian Sea from a naval platform in a mock nuclear (EMP) attack which would take place in a strategic spot over the US. An attack of this kind would in effect cripple the US electronic infrastructure and military command and control capability which is totally dependent upon satellite communication networks. In their eyes, there is no reconciliation between Islam and Western culture and politics. Negotiations are seen as a sign of weakness and will always use them to gain strategic surprise over their naïve Western adversary.

The next president of the United States is going to have to come to grips with some irrefutable facts that are based on the historic record of global politics for the last one hundred years. Evidence based on historical record as well as forensic investigation point toward the direction of a national security threat environment that is defined by a global insurgency conducted by a loose affiliation of state, rogue state and non state actors who are dedicated to diminishing the power, wealth and influence of the United States at home and abroad. The parallel of today’s geopolitical issues to the year 1938 are very apparent, implying that the next US President will more than likely have to guide this country through its next global conflict. The President of the United States, who ever it may be, must have a clear picture and understanding based on the breadth and depth of this very real and serious threat to America’s future. A US President can get by without being an economist or a sociologist or an environmental engineer, but he or she better darn well be astute at a very high level in the area of national security. He or she must also have the courage, conviction and good judgment to formulate and implement policies that will ensure America’s position in the world.  The historical record paints a bleak picture for the Democratic Candidate Obama, whose focus on National Healthcare, expanding government bureaucracy and raising taxes, leading the voter to wander if that party has any comprehension or any concern of the geopolitical implications of the US Presidency. As one remembers the Carter and Clinton years looking forward to the upcoming 2008 Presidential Debate on September 26, the image of Ronald Reagan saying to his opponent Jimmy Carter in 1980, “There you go again” comes to mind as John McCain and Barack Obama will take to the podium and lay out their case to the American people.

Sources

Baer, Robert, 2002, See No Evil, New York, Three Rivers Press

Daugherty, William, 2004, Executive Secrets: Covert Action and the Presidency, KY, University of Kentucky Press

Gertz, Bill, 2002, China Threat, New York, Regnery

Scheuer, Michael, 2004, Imperial Hubris, Washington DC,Potomac Press

Williams, Paul, 2007, Day of Islam, Amherst NY, Prometheus Books