Where Will the Next War Be?

The 92’ Line

Steven Wishnia

Revision History
• April-May 1992	Newspaper: Funded by Syracuse University students.
The Alternative Orange: Vol. 1, No. 5 (pp. 23)
• August 27, 2000	Webpage: .
DocBook XML (DocBk XML V3.1.3) from original.

---

The Cold War is over, but that doesn’t mean peace is here. The United States is still the main military power in a global political-economic system that needs to stamp out any opposition to its domination anywhere in the world.

The Soviet Union’s collapse means U.S. intervention is more likely in some countries; for example, in the past, invading Cuba would probably have provoked nuclear war.

There are also advantages for the establishment in keeping the population infected with yellow-ribbon fever. War, as George Orwell wrote in “1984,” requires that a citizen “be a credulous and ignorant fanatic whose prevailing moods are fear, hatred, adulation and orgiastic triumph “—not exactly the sort of person to cause trouble for politicians and corporations by demanding a peaceful, egalitarian nation or to tolerate those who do. Oceania is no longer at war with Eurasia — but it still needs an enemy.

On a more mundane level, if George Bush is doing badly in the polls this fall, he may want to pull his own “October Surprise.”

Our basic criteria for picks are geopolitical value (a conceivable threat to U.S. corporate/military interests and/or dominance); propaganda value la [sic.] plausible villain to sell to the public); and a good chance of a relatively painless victory for “our side,” as in Iraq, Panama or Grenada. Latin America is the most probable site: Any country in the region is a candidate if it gets a remotely leftist government or a revolutionary movement makes significant gains.

Who’s next? Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.

TOP PICK: PERU

The top pick in the version of this chart published last May in Downtown, a New York City weekly. We said, “Drug angle very playable, Maoist Shining Path very plausible as fanatical evil horde, and small, ill-armed country.” Since then, Washington has sent “military advisers.” Need we say more? ODDS: 2-1

BEST BETS

IRAQ AGAIN: Would certainly be easy enough to win militarily, and Saddam Hussein is still around and intransigent, so there wouldn’t be any problem with creating a pretext. But how much would it obligate the United States to stick around for the aftermath? ODDS: 4-1

CUBA: If there is one government in the world the United States wants to get rid of, this is it. Castro is a tempting target now that his Soviet backing is gone. An unprovoked invasion would be difficult both militarily and politically, however. Unlike Iraq or even Peru, Bush would have trouble getting away with the slaughter of 100,000 people here; right-wing Cuban emigres may hate Fidel, but they don’t want to see their cousins massacred. However, if there’s an “indigenous” rebellion against Castro watch out. ODDS: 5-1

THE AMERICAS

HAITI: There was a moment when it looked remotely possible that the United States would go in to restore Aristide, an idea that completely boggles the brain. The Bush administration is probably quite pleased that it didn’t take an invasion to get rid of the radical priest and one probably won’t be necessary to “restore stability.” ODDS: 7-1

NICARAGUA: The Sandinistas were ousted without the United States having to invade directly, and it doesn’t look like they’re going to start another revolution to get back in. But if a power grab by right-wing elements in the Chamorro government provokes a forceful Sandinista response, Washington could send the Marines to Nicaragua. Again. ODDS: 7-1

GUATEMALA: One of the most brutal regimes in the Western Hemisphere and a guerrilla movement almost two decades old, but neither one has attracted that much attention here. ODDS: 9-1

EL SALVADOR: Threatened outbreak of peace has dropped the odds on this perennial possibility. Also, death-squad regime has a ton of bad PR to overcome, and opposition is already organized. ODDS: 10-1

COLOMBIA: You can’t bomb the whole city of Medellin or Cali just to obliterate a couple of coke cartel kingpins’ mansions. Well, perhaps you can, given the obliteration of much of Panama City in order to arrest Manuel Noriega two years ago. But Colombia is too big and nationalistic for a Panama-style invasion. ODDS: 12-1

BOLIVIA: The poorest country in Latin America, and a decade of rule by coca-corrupted generals means a revolt is always possible. Drug angle playable, but less than in Peru or Columbia. ODDS: 15-1

MEXICO: Remote possibility now, but give it another 20 years of poverty, pollution and one-party rule, and who knows what there would be to quash—and this time it really would be just across the river from Harlingen, Texas. ODDS: 100-1

THE MIDDLE EAST

LIBYA: Qaddafi’s star had faded quite a bit in the firmament of U.S. demons. But pinning the blame for the Flight 103 bombing on Libya and the attendant U.S. saber-rattling makes the North African nation a more promising pick. ODDS: 6-1

IRAN: Washington would love to depose the ayatollahs — when it’s not selling them arms. But what would the provocation be? With what would they be replaced? ODDS: 12-1

SYRIA: With the hostages out of Beirut, Assad is a natural by the Saddam-Noriega “dictators who have outlived their usefulness” standard, but for what? Not likely. ODDS: 20-1

KUWAIT: “Protecting democracy” does not include forcing the al-Sabahs to hold elections or give rights to women. ODDS: 50-1

ASIA

PHILIPPINES: Strategic importance looks diminished, with the Pentagon apparently not resisting giving up major military bases here. Still, can’t be dismissed easily. ODDS: 7-1

NORTH KOREA: Propaganda machinery for “nuclear potential” and “the last hard- line Communist regime” is already grinding away. Few in this country — on the left or otherwise — would defend Kim Il Sung’s personality cult. A border incident would be very simple to start; a land war could be very bloody to finish. (Isn’t that what we thought about Iraq?) But the recent non-aggression pact with the South makes it less likely. ODDS: 8-1

SOUTH KOREA: High stakes; one of the biggest U.S. satellites in East Asia. Serious insurrection here would have to be crushed. But rebellious students alone do not a revolution make. ODDS: 12-1

AFRICA

With the end of the Cold War, the days of East-West conflict by proxy in places like Somalia and Ethiopia are over. Also, both racism and anti-racism work against any potential intervention: Most of the U.S. public knows little and cares less about the slaughter of Liberians or the starvation of the Sudanese; but invading an African country could attract some strong opposition, especially from African- Americans.

ZAIRE: Mobutu is a main U.S. ally, but there’s 800,000 square miles of jungle to pacify if he falls. A “democratic” neocolonial government would be a lot easier. ODDS: 20-1

SOUTH AFRICA: No way the United States would intervene to end apartheid. They probably would invade to preserve it (or to stop the ANC from winning power) if Paleo Pat Buchanan gets elected president. ODDS: 20-1

MOZAMBIQUE: RENAMO rebels too brutal even for Reagan’s State Department (though not for Jesse Helms). Far away, and the IMF pen can be mightier than the sword. ODDS: 25-1

EUROPE

YUGOSLAVIA: Primarily a European concern plus sides are too complicated for there to be an easily apparent villain. U.S. intervention possible as a small part of a European or U.N. peacekeeping force. ODDS: 18-1

“COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES”: It’s truly bizarre even to consider this possibility; two years ago it would have meant certain nuclear holocaust. But what if the Russian government wanted foreign help quelling food riots in Gorki? What if Ukraine wanted protection from Russian attack? What if Islamic fundamentalists got ahold of nuclear missiles in Kazakhstan? Still highly unlikely — but not unthinkable. ODDS: 40-1

For more information call 1-900-USA-WARS: $1.95 billion for the first day; $500 million each additional day.

♦ ♦ ♦

(Taken from The Guardian)