The Syrian Missile Tests & The Emboldened Response To The Bush Militarism Policy

Despite so much opposition to the Bush militarism policy, one hoped for legacy was for a pale to sweep over a number of belligerent states to back down from their brutal militaristic goals. However it seems like this is hardly the response of so many states, and now an expanding number of very dangerous potential world trouble spots exist. It seems like the Bush Administration which won a narrow mandate in the November election with a "national security" message has now spurred a belligerent response in a number of nations to stand up to American policy. Part of this self-protection for their regimes, hoping to deter American aggression by a new commitment to WMD weapons systems. Another part is to assert national strength in their regional power relationships with other states.

Syria joined this dangerous club last week with the tests of two North Korean designed NoDong 1 Scud D missiles, one breaking up over Turkish airspace, and the test of an older 70's era Soviet-style Scud B missile. All of these missiles, especially the newer North Korean Scud D designs are being developed to carry chemical or biological weapons. And the longer range Scud D missiles can travel over 400 miles, which can hit targets in every inch of Israel.

There is no internationally independent evidence that any Iraqi WMDs were transferred to Syria, rather any chemical or biological weapons programs are of their domestic design, however the missile technology ranges from early 70's style Soviet designed missiles, to Chinese Scud C and the most powerful and longest range North Korean Scud D missiles. And while Syria possesses no nuclear weapons, it could always seek this technology to counter Israel as well. And in addition, Syria has also exported some Scud C and Scud D missiles as well WMD components to Sudan, although the government of Sudan officially denies this claim.

But Syria is not the only nation to assert some WMD or military potential buildup to counter the Bush militarism. In a new statement by Donald Rumsfeld in Singapore, Rumsfeld has bluntly challenged China's policy in the last few months of a massive military buildup of it's People's Liberation Army. Using the wealth from so many American manufacturing jobs closing up shop and traveling to China, this nation has added six new major naval destroyers to it's People's Liberation Army Navy in the last few months. Two are Russian Republic built, and four are from the Luhu and Luhai class, including nuclear tipped Sunburn cruise missiles which are designed to kill American aircraft carriers with 100% mortality. It is only 90 miles to Taiwan, whose military is far weaker, and Japan is limited since WWII in it's military potential, as well as lacking a desire to expand it's military or be forced to enter the nuclear club. But Japan and Taiwan are forced to rely on increased American military presense as the balance of power tips farther to China, or else enter an arms race with China and expand more and more weapons in this part of Asia.

The main players in the nuclear club are the United States with over 10,000 weapons, the Russian Republic with over 20,000 weapons(although down from the 45,000 of Soviet Union era days), China has 400 nuclear weapons, Israel has as many as 200 nuclear weapons, the U.K has about 200 nuclear weapons, France has 350 nuclear warheads, India possesses enough nuclear material to produce as many as 90 nuclear warheads, and Pakistan has enough nuclear material to produce as many as 50 nuclear weapons. But it is North Korea, the major world exporter of missile technology to developing nations and Iran which both have nuclear ambitions that are seen as the most dangerous threats to peace as most likely to develop and use such weapons, lacking the restraint of other nations not to use such dangerous WMDs.

The Bush policy of attacking the weakest of world renegade regimes, Iraq, has not caused states like North Korea, Iran, or Syria to backdown, but instead encouraged more WMD efforts to deter the United States from an "Iraq invasion" of their regimes. And even China has entered this mix with their massive pouring of their economic boom into a crash military buildup for a possible invasion of Taiwan or retailiation against Japan due to sour feelings over Japan's refusal to accept more responsibility for crimes against Chinese civilians during WWII, such as the "Rape Of Nanking". The Bush policy of militarism has not made Americans more secure. In Iran, an organization raises funds to train one million terrorist fighters to enter Iraq, or to fight American or Israeli interests. And the Bush Iraq War has only spurred more terrorists from Saudi Arabia, Syria and other states to join with local antiAmerican forces.

At some point the Bush Administration should realize that it's goals to make Americans more secure are horriby failing and making Americans less secure by the day. America should look to South Africa for a possible change of policy. At one time Nelson Mandela was a radical head of the ANC. But America realized that he could be "coopted", freed from prison and made into a responsible democrat. South Africa also left the nuclear arms club as well. In Syria, Iran and China, "cooption" is most most likely, but in North Korea far more difficult.

A military conflict with any state like North Korea, could also bring many states in for support such as Syria, Iran, Libya and a host of other supporters. The United States would be acting in the best interests of world peace to see if any aspect of "cooption" could defuse the growing danger of armed conflict or even WWIII. But with the current militarism mindset in the Bush Administration a loggerheads with some equally belligerent regime is far more likely. This is unfortunate. And must frustrate the heart of God as well.