Editor's note: WND's J.R. Nyquist is a renowned expert on America's
fatal illusion of an international balance of power; diplomatic and Cold
War history; the survivability of a thermonuclear world war; and is the
author of
"Origins of the Fourth World War." Each month Nyquist provides an
exclusive in-depth report in WorldNetDaily's monthly magazine, WorldNet.
Readers may
subscribe to WorldNet through WND's online store.
We are now hearing reports of intensive military activity in China, Iraq and North Korea. On Aug. 27 the People's Liberation Army was ordered to deploy crack troops to bases on the Chinese coast, opposite Taiwan. At the same time, Arab journalists have reported that Saddam Hussein is dying of cancer, and that Iraqi reservists have been mobilized. In North Korea, despite recent talk of peace and friendship from the communists, there have been threatening deployments and ongoing troop maneuvers.
It has been suggested by a leading South Korean defense analyst, Jee Man Won, that North Korea's recent "peace offensive" might be treacherous. According to Jee, attempts by the communists to foster greater openness from the South Korean side could prepare the way "for a possible North Korean invasion" of the South.
TRENDING: Greatest Show on Earth: The Hur report hearing
North Korea has been building its armed forces for a number of years. According to a recent U.S. intelligence report on the North Korean threat, 70 percent of North Korea's 1.2 million combat troops are forward deployed to within 100 kilometers of the Demilitarized Zone.
In terms of force balance, South Korea is outnumbered almost two-to-one by the communist armies in the North. America's relatively small troop deployment to the region might not be sufficient to bolster the defense. The North Koreans have been massing heavy artillery and rockets for the past year. The possibility of a sudden and devastating bombardment, followed by an overwhelming assault, cannot be ruled out.
Despite recent claims by Vice President Al Gore that America's military is prepared for trouble, a number of disturbing reports have emerged in the last month about poor U.S. readiness.
In late August the Marine Corps suspended its use of three different types of aircraft. Flights by AH-1W "Cobra" attack helicopters were canceled, as were operations involving the MV-22 tilt-rotor and CH-53 transport helicopters.
Also in late August, "Stars and Stripes" ran a headline that read: "Pacific Fleet Running Short of Gas Money." Ships in the U.S. 7th Fleet have been forced to cancel four visits to Far East ports. Many other ship movements were also scrubbed.
The Navy is so short of funds it doesn't have enough money to pay for spare parts and fuel. So a decision was made to buy the spare parts and forget the fuel. According to "Stars and Stripes," the 7th Fleet has cut back its at-sea days to "60 percent of what they were during the summer of 1999. ..."
Americans may not realize this, but some U.S. aircraft carriers are not nuclear-powered. The USS Kitty Hawk, for example, consumes $75,000 in fuel per day while at sea. A typical cruiser uses $17,000 and a typical frigate uses $7,000 worth of fuel per day.
The Air Force is also having problems. Insight Magazine recently published a piece entitled "Air Force Losing Altitude?" The article is based on official documents which reveal pathetic levels of air combat readiness. According to Insight, between January 1996 and June 2000 U.S. Air Force readiness sank from 91 percent to 67 percent.
Relating to the issue of America simultaneously fighting two conflicts, the Washington Times published a story on Sept. 1 by Rowan Scarborough, "Pentagon sees woes in two-war strategy." The bottom line is simple. The United States military is underfunded and cannot operate effectively on two fronts. In other words, if Saddam marched on Kuwait at the same time North Korea invaded South Korea, the U.S. military would be unable to cope. Add a Chinese blockade of Taiwan to the mix and the crisis would be catastrophic. Allies would be in danger of collapse, the world's oil supplies might be compromised, U.S. diplomacy would lose its credibility, the dollar would fall and markets would plummet.
It is fascinating, in this context, that Clinton's regime has downplayed the Iraqi threat. The reasons for this are obvious. The legacy of George W. Bush's father was one of military victory and diplomatic triumph in the Middle East. Trouble in that region, at this point, might remind voters of the kind of leadership we don't have today -- and won't have under Al Gore. Therefore, not only has Clinton's Pentagon denied Arab reports of mass Iraqi mobilizations, but two weeks ago National Security Advisor Sandy Berger fell over himself to deny that any trouble was expected from Saddam Hussein at all.
Berger's denial came after a U.S. Patriot anti-missile battery was put on alert for possible deployment to Israel. According to the Washington Post on Sept. 2, trouble was expected from Iraq. Berger insisted otherwise.
The Israelis have also been quick to deny a problem with Iraq, pretending to be puzzled by the alert status of the U.S. Patriot missiles. This pretense becomes understandable given the current precarious position of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak since the breakdown of the Camp David peace talks.
It is unclear what the situation in Iraq is, but Berger's earlier denials of impending trouble have been contradicted by more recent headlines. It is said, by some sources, that Saddam Hussein is dying of cancer. Of course, nobody knows what a dying megalomaniac might do. On Sept. 14 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned the Iraqi dictator that America had a credible force in the region.
Albright's verbal threat was seconded by French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine, who warned Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz that an Iraqi move at this time would be "an extremely serious mistake."
Something is definitely up.
In the last two months Saddam's government has referred to the Saudi ruling family as "aggressors" and the rulers of Kuwait as "traitors." Recent Iraqi propaganda has accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi oil. Even more alarming, the Iraqi government says it is planning to act against Kuwait. But nobody knows what that might signify.
As if to clue us in to what Saddam has in mind, Iraqi military aircraft violated Saudi airspace last week. The incident was dismissed as unimportant, but there may have been a military purpose behind the violation.
Aside from the potential for military difficulties, America is facing a possible economic crisis. The West is caught in the worst energy crunch since the Iranian hostage crisis. Europe has already been disrupted by high gasoline prices. With U.S. inventories of heating oil down 39 percent from a year ago, and crude oil inventories at a 24-year low, we've got a serious problem. Saddam could make trouble. He could march on his oil-producing neighbors, disrupting production, or he could simply stop pumping Iraqi oil.
In this context, Yasser Arafat did not declare a Palestinian state on Sept. 13. It appears that he is waiting for the U.S. presidential election to be over, and for the Russians to deploy their carrier battlegroup into the Mediterranean.
It is interesting, in this context, that
Johnny Chung's Friday
column on WorldNetDaily warned of great danger to Taiwan after America's presidential election. Could it be that our enemies are waiting to see how the U.S. election plays out?
Perhaps they are putting things off so that the wrong man will win.