The Much-Vaunted US Military

Damian wonders:

> to what extent the Russian military apparatus would be able to stand 
> up to the hyper technological US armed forces.
It seems to me that the "hyper technological" US armed forces are 
somewhat over-hyped. Indeed, it seems to me that that is one of the 
principle lessons to be drawn from the conflicts of the last two 
years, and one that is clearly being learned - in Pyongyang, Tehran, 
Damascus and elsewhere.

In a game in which even showing up demonstrates that the US is not as 
all-powerful as it would like to believe, Iraq has already put in a 
stronger showing than most mainstream commentators expected, and it 
is by no means over yet (even if the regime is indeed now failing, as 
this morning's papers report). Iraq has demonstrated that meaningful 
resistance is possible to the US, even if that resistance should 
ultimately fail. Indeed, even in the much-hyped campaign in 
Afghanistan, the Taliban more retreated than were, strictly speaking, 
defeated, as their current resurgence is demonstrating.

Our analyses have tended to focus on the decline in US economic 
dominance, and for good reason. Evidently, that is much more advanced 
than the decline in US military dominance, and underlies it. But let 
us be clear. However out-gunned they may be, the global South is, in 
fact, standing up to the US militarily - and with increased support 
from the North in each round. The US burned up an incredible amount 
of political capital just to get INTO Iraq. Just as with economic 
capital, that cannot go on indefinitely. And the costs of BEING in 
there have barely even begun.

Russia may no longer be as strong as the Soviet Union was, but, were 
it to actually militarily oppose the US, that would be very serious 
stuff. Hey, they still have a fully-functioning stockpile of 
nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missles over there, aside 
from anything else. If a (relatively) rinky-dink dictatorship like 
Iraq can withstand the full (conventional) power of the US military 
for even three weeks, let's not understate what a state with serious 
arms could do.

In any case, the US's "best" (most destructive, most technologically 
advanced) weapons - nuclear/radiological, chemical, biological - are 
still politically verboten, and the use of "non-proliferation" as 
ideological cover at the current time is likely to make them ever 
more so. "Technology" is only an edge if you can use it.

That said, I'm keeping my eyes on North Korea. It is direct neighbour 
of all three East Asian powerhouses, none of which are happy with it, 
none of which want war there, (and so) none of which are happy with 
the US's stance towards it. If the US tries to go to war there, it 
would be a FAR more devastating campaign than Iraq, on the ground, 
and the political costs are almost incalculable. How far might South 
Korea (in particular), China and Japan go in order to prevent such a 
war? Might this be the catalyst for closer political-military 
cooperation in the region? Might they eject US troops (remember, the 
US's largest permanent overseas positions)?

It increasingly seems to me that the wider significance of all this 
is that the US is cashing in it chips, and is not afraid to bring the 
house down in the process ("apres moi, le deluge"). It's lining up to 
try to take on every state that has ever pissed it off, in a giant 
game of "if I can't have it, then you can't either". Which has to 
make you wonder whether Russia won't sooner or later be *obliged* to 
join in ...

Chris