Current Tension in South America and the War on Terror

The recent tension in South America between Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and now Nicaragua had me thinking about a potential situation in Asia, more specifically, Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Last weekend, the Colombian military killed FARC's second-in-command, Raul Reyes.  However, as the Colombian people celebrated, Venezuela and Ecuador fumed and spewed their anger towards Colombia.  The reason being, Colombian forces crossed the border into Ecuador and performed the raid without Ecuador's consent, which the Ecuadorian government calls a violation of state sovereignty.  In my limited knowledge of Public International Law, the Ecuadorian claim is definitely valid.  After the raid, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez blasted the Colombian government, recalled the Venezuelan diplomatic mission, and sent 10 troop battalions to the Venezuela-Colombia border.  In addition, the Ecuador's President, Rafael Correa, sent 3200 troops to the Ecuador-Colombia border and cut diplomatic ties with Colombia.  The rising tension has somewhat calmed as of late, even after Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega cut diplomatic ties with Colombia.  With all of this maneuvering in Central and South America, one must keep in mind that Colombia receives billions of dollars in U.S. aid every year to combat the FARC, a left-wing terrorist organization.  Whereas, Nicaragua and Venezuela have clearly allied with each other and Cuba as a quintessential thorn in the side of the United States and probably do not mind FARC's marxist ideals.  Nevertheless, tensions were high and cooler heads have prevailed after the OAS became involved.  So how does this pertain to the United States and the War on Terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan?  Early in the Presidential campaign, Senator Barack Obama, now the leading Democratic Party candidate for President, stated that if the U.S. had intelligence of Al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, then he would order a strike without Pakistan's consent.  So would all of this tension in South America be similar to the fallout if an AQ leader was taken out in Pakistan?  In my assessment, it would be much higher considering that a majority of Pakistanis view President Pervez Musharraf as an American puppet.  This is a sentiment is similarly felt by many South Americans outside of Colombia towards Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.  But back to Pakistan; what if this was AQ's number two, Ayman Al-Zawahiri?  What if he is taken out in Pakistan by a drone or even a Marine/CIA/Army raid?  What would be the fallout following that move?  I can foresee many countries like Syria, Iran, and maybe even Saudi Arabia complaining about the U.S. usurping state sovereignty and acting unilaterally.  Maybe then, one can find out who is really "with us" versus "those against us."  Hopefully, the U.S. will not have to resort to violating the most basic tenets of International Law; instead, relying on the Afghan or Pakistani armed forces to do the work for us.  I highly doubt this will ever happen.  Pakistan would not want AQ eradicated because it would lose out on billions of dollars in U.S. aid.  Meanwhile, the Afghan army is not yet capable defending areas outside of Kabul.  So this leaves the United States with two options; the first is acting on intelligence and violating International Law or the second option, which is waiting for the AQ leaders to die off by some disease.  I'm not a betting man, but my money is on option one, regardless of who is in the White House.  The firestorm following this move will be immense for the commander-in-chief, but taking out AQ's leadership will outweigh the diplomatic tensions that will undoubtedly follow this action.  As far as the Colombian situation is concerned, there is a precedent going on as I write this post.  Recently, the Turkish army ventured into Northern Iraq to take out Kurdish rebel forces (the PKK).  Of course, Turkey is defending this action by arguing that the PKK is a terrorist organization and the army raid is important in defending Turkey's homeland.  Similarly, the Colombians have been battling the FARC for over 40 years and they argue along the same lines with Turkey.  So, where does that leave the U.S.?  Taking out an international terrorist organization's leadership in another country without consent could be argued as protecting the U.S. homeland.  Inevitably, this dilemma will be on the table for the next U.S. President, however, the it remains to be seen how he or she will act.  

U.S. Spy Satellite Shoot-Down - Star Wars Revisited

The recent shoot-down of a defunct U.S. spy satellite had many reverberations amongst the international community, especially from Russia and China.  Personally, I think U.S. missile strike was an excellent idea for a few reasons.  First, and most importantly, the missile strike prevented the possibility of injury or death to many people if the satellite was left unchecked.  Second, it was a proper response to Russia's recent saber-rattling towards the U.S. and Ukraine.  Third, the missile strike was also a proper response to China's secret missile shoot-down over a year ago.  Obviously, there is no arguing the first reason; preventing the possibility of harm to humans was important no matter how remote.  I cannot imagine the outrage if satellite debris injured people, property, or even the environment.  Thus, the shoot-down was well-worth the $30 to $50 million cost.  Another reason the shoot-down is important is to answer Russia's recent actions and remarks towards smaller Eastern European nations.  Ever since President Vladimir Putin won the Russian presidency in 2000, he managed to position Russia back into a military power and a thorn in Europe's side.  The recent threats towards Ukraine will probably become muted as a result of the satellite shoot-down.  This spectacular display of firepower will keep the Russians from even thinking about firing missiles into Eastern Europe, knowing that their missiles could be shot down in outer space.  Now that a modified missile can take out an object in outer space, it should rein in Russia's vitriolic tongue and keep Eastern Europe at ease.  Furthermore, if the U.S. goes ahead to plan missile interceptors in Ukraine, Poland, and/or other Eastern European nations, then these countries can rest at ease knowing the U.S. missile shield can deter Russia (or maybe Iran) from launching a missile attack.  I would not be surprised if Russia conducts a outer space missile test of their own to keep up with China and the U.S.  As far as China is concerned, the satellite shoot-down was the proper answer to the PRC's test a year earlier.  Immediately following the successful missile strike, China voiced concerns over the shoot-down.  However, a year ago, China needed to explain herself over a secret shoot-down of their own weather satellite; albeit, after the U.S. and the international community condemned her actions.  I personally do not understand why the U.S. should have to explain reasons for shooting down a defunct, but potentially dangerous, satellite when it gave notice to the international community before taking the appropriate action.  It seems that China likes to "shoot first and answer questions later."  It pleases me to see the U.S. will share information about the shoot-down maybe with the hope that China will do the same next time.  But I highly doubt it.  "Governments change... the lies stay the same" (James Bond in Goldeneye, 1995).  Getting any information from China, regarding military actions, is as difficult as getting Russia to stop holding Europe over a barrel of natural gas.  In any case, time to strum John Williams' famous Star Wars composition, especially the one from The Empire Strikes Back.  Anyone for some "The Imperial March" action?  

2008 Presidential Election Nomination Process

After reeling off 10 consecutive state primary victories, Senator Barack Obama took the lead in the Democratic nomination race.  That begs the question of when (or if) Senator Hillary Clinton decides enough is enough for the good of the party?  Meanwhile, with Senator John McCain nearing the finish line in the Republican race, the same question should be asked of Governor Mike Huckabee (and Representative Ron Paul).  As a recently naturalized citizen, I will vote in my first election in November, however, I must say that this nomination process is too long and arduous.  As former Speaker Newt Gingrich stated, the road to the White House "verges on insane."  These candidates have beaten our heads with the same speech for a full year and yet we still have no official Presidential nominees (granted the Republicans are almost done).  I think a better process would be to have a national primary day in all states so that we can all determine the nominees for each party.  Why should Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and the Super Tuesday states determine who should run for each party?  I understand tradition as a lot to do with it, but the actual Presidential campaign will be less than four months of debates, mudslinging, and other controversies.  But more on that later.  This year's nomination process seems to give Senator McCain an advantage over Senators Obama and Clinton.  One can compare and contrast this to sports, where one team advanced to the finals (Colorado Rockies) and waited a week to find out who they would play (Boston Red Sox or Cleveland Indians) in the World Series.  The Rockies blew threw the National League playoffs and waited a long time until the Red Sox finished the ALCS tilt against the Indians. Undoubtedly, the long delay kept the Rockies from continuing on their torrid pace and eventually led to their sweep at the hands (rather bats) of the Red Sox.  Will the same happen to Senator McCain? Will he have an advantage or disadvantage in waiting to find his opponent? Or will the Senator Obama/Clinton train continue towards the White House unimpeded?  I tend to think this year's Presidential election will not be similar to Baseball.  Instead, Senator McCain's extra time will help him formulate a coherent plan in trying to defeat the Democratic nominee.  In addition, the Arizona Senator will probably have a running-mate in hand before we even determine the Democratic nominee.  My bet is on Governor Huckabee.  It seems that he is still garnering the conservative vote in rural areas whereas Senator McCain takes the urban votes.  Plus, Governor Huckabee will need a job if does not pull off, in his words, a miracle (similar to the US Hockey team at Lake Placid in 1980?).  Therefore, in order to address the advantage/disadvantage one nominee will have over the other, I propose to have one, big national primary day (and make it a government holiday - call it "Super Duper Tuesday").  If we had a national primary day, then everyone would have a say on who becomes the nominee for each party.  This way, you can have a Presidential campaign between the two nominees for a longer period of time, thus, eliminating any advantage or disadvantage for either nominee.  I know the systems is not perfect, but a few tweaks here and there might make it a bit more palatable and interesting.  At least for me.