From the Hew York Times

Op-Ed Contributor
Lost at Sea

By ROBERT D. KAPLAN
Published: September 21, 2007

THE ultimate strategic effect of the Iraq war has been to hasten the arrival of the Asian Century.

While the American government has been occupied in Mesopotamia, and our European allies continue to starve their defense programs, Asian militaries — in particular those of China, India, Japan and South Korea — have been quietly modernizing and in some cases enlarging. Asian dynamism is now military as well as economic.

The military trend that is hiding in plain sight is the loss of the Pacific Ocean as an American lake after 60 years of near-total dominance. A few years down the road, according to the security analysts at the private policy group Strategic Forecasting, Americans will not to the same extent be the prime deliverers of disaster relief in a place like the Indonesian archipelago, as we were in 2005. Our ships will share the waters (and the prestige) with new “big decks” from Australia, Japan and South Korea.

Then there is China, whose production and acquisition of submarines is now five times that of America’s. Many military analysts feel it is mounting a quantitative advantage in naval technology that could erode our qualitative one. Yet the Chinese have been buying smart rather than across the board.

In addition to submarines, Beijing has focused on naval mines, ballistic missiles that can hit moving objects at sea, and technology that blocks G.P.S. satellites. The goal is “sea denial”: dissuading American carrier strike groups from closing in on the Asian mainland wherever and whenever we like.

------------------------

Gus: with the US showing to the rest of the world that "war" is the solution to "problems" — how fictitious these problems like WMDs are — the rest of the non aligned world, including those countries who have chosen Fidel Castro as their "president" for the second time running, are weary of what this example in violence shows. Other countries like China and those mentioned in the article can also manufacture more weaponry than ever before and thus sell as well as arm themselves to the teeth. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Cold War was like a focus that stuffed up many a way to pacify the world with proper intent — but it was a reasonably precise focus. And we were fearful of someone sneezing over the "red" buttons. Now the "war on terror" decidedly waged by the US is like a broken frosty mirror... We end up with a multitude of thuggish acts and reactions, under a vague leaky umbrella, while the arms race is getting way beyond what we feared then. We have no clue as whom or why someone would sneeze but having lost this focus does not mean the dangers have passed. All it means if some cocky country like the US or Israel surgically bomb something in Syria until the threshold is reached, something will give — apparently unaligned forces will coagulate and hell will break loose... I smell war... I hope my nose is wrong.

From the NYT

Israeli Raid on Syria Fuels Debate on Weapons
By MARK MAZZETTI and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: September 22, 2007

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 — American concerns about ties between Syria and North Korea have long focused on a partnership involving missiles and missile technology. Even many hawks within the Bush administration have expressed doubts that the Syrians have the money or technical depth to build a serious nuclear program like the one in Iran.

But the Sept. 6 Israeli airstrike inside Syria has reignited debate over whether the Syrians are trying to overcome past obstacles by starting their own small nuclear program, or by trying to buy nuclear components from an outside supplier. It is a particularly difficult question for American spy agencies, which are still smarting from the huge prewar misjudgments made about the status of Iraq’s weapons programs.

American officials are now sorting through what they say are Israel’s private claims that what their jets struck was tied to nuclear weapons development, not merely to missile production. So far, American officials have been extremely cautious about endorsing the Israeli conclusion.

------------------

Gus: "which are still smarting from the huge prewar misjudgments made about the status of Iraq’s weapons programs"? Hey, They were told to lie, fudge and break all rules of proper "intelligence" gathering to suit the goal of the Whitewash House!!! The invasion WAS ABOUT OIL... nothing else... Look, as mentioned on this site many times, with all the power of US intelligence gathering — a mighty force that comprises 14 different major agencies, four defence agencies, all led by very bright people, 175 spy administration satellite and 88 private spy satellites used by these agencies, ten of thousands of people working on the "procurement, analysis and processing of information, how could they get this "weapons of mass destruction" problem that did not exist, so wrong? Because the US wanted to invade Iraq no matter what and removed the inspectors who would not find anything, before the inspectors did not find anything thus removed the "purpose" of war...

Bush should be tried for war crimes, alongside Bin Laden and other loonies.

Israel admits air strike on Syria

It is still not known why Israel carried out the strike or what was hit
Israel has confirmed that it carried out a strike on a Syrian military installation last month.

Syria accused Israel at the time but Israeli officials refused to comment, and the Israeli military censor imposed a strict blackout on information.

The censor's office has now allowed some details to be released.

On Monday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told the BBC that a Syrian military construction site was hit in the Israeli air strike on 6 September.

President Assad said the raid demonstrated Israel's "visceral antipathy towards peace" - and that Syria would retaliate.

An Israeli Strike on Syria Kindles Debate in the U.S.

By MARK MAZZETTI and HELENE COOPER
Published: October 10, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — A sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration about the significance of the Israeli intelligence that led to last month’s Israeli strike inside Syria, according to current and former American government officials.

A familiar administration divide: Vice President Dick Cheney says Israeli intelligence was credible, while Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice questions whether there was a real threat.

At issue is whether intelligence that Israel presented months ago to the White House — to support claims that Syria had begun early work on what could become a nuclear weapons program with help from North Korea — was conclusive enough to justify military action by Israel and a possible rethinking of American policy toward the two nations.

The debate has fractured along now-familiar fault lines, with Vice President Dick Cheney and conservative hawks in the administration portraying the Israeli intelligence as credible and arguing that it should cause the United States to reconsider its diplomatic overtures to Syria and North Korea.

By contrast, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her allies within the administration have said they do not believe that the intelligence presented so far merits any change in the American diplomatic approach.

“Some people think that it means that the sky is falling,” a senior administration official said. “Others say that they’re not convinced that the real intelligence poses a threat.”