Latest news with #Skybolt
The Hill
16-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Potential unrest at home and abroad puts the US in an uneasy position
Israel's strikes against Iran, launched in the early hours on Friday, followed up by attacks against Iran's natural gas facilities, raise an important question: What could go wrong? The consequences of these attacks, which could also cripple Iranian air and other defenses, and which Israel says will continue until Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon over the short and possibly medium term, will be profound and unpredictable. Whether this escalates further and leads to the overthrow of the ayatollahs or a negotiation is among the possible outcomes. As with Ukraine's Operation Spider Web, these attacks demonstrate operational brilliance of the first order. One wonders if the U.S. and NATO could show this level of innovative thinking and planning. Still, the conflict in Gaza is burning. And the war in Ukraine shows no sign of abating — quite the opposite, given the likelihood of an ongoing Russian summer offensive. Events at home are equally volatile and unpredictable. The National Guard and a battalion of U.S. Marines have been deployed to deal with the protests and violence taking place in Los Angeles over immigration policies and the role of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in arresting migrants accused of illegally entering the U.S. and who, in some cases, have committed serious crimes. While this violence could spread across the nation, the parade in Washington marking the Army's 250th birthday, as well as President Trump's 79th birthday, was relatively protest-free, despite the 'No Kings' protests taking place in several cities the same day. However, what transpired in 2020 with the unrest following protests of the murder of George Floyd, or even the protests that sprang up during the Vietnam War, could happen again, putting the country in disarray. That chaos could be intensified as both parties see it in their interest to take opposing stands on immigration, making a bad situation much worse. Where is this headed? History bears some lessons. In a little-publicized story so far, the Pentagon is reviewing the AUKUS submarine deal signed between Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. to provide five to eight nuclear submarines to the latter. Should the Pentagon recommend that the administration modify or revoke the agreement, it will surely be another arrow into the heart of American credibility and reliance as an ally. Some six-plus decades ago, the U.S. backed out of the Skybolt program with the U.K. The aim was to build an air-launched intercontinental ballistic missile. The U.K. had structured its nuclear posture around Skybolt. Canceling the program was another reason why being a friend of the U.S. in many ways is worse than being an enemy, who cannot be disappointed in this way. The AUKUS review coming weeks before the NATO Hague Summit with heads of government was far from ideal, given Trump's uneven behavior towards the alliance and America's commitment to it. The administration is pushing for NATO members to increase defense spending to 3.5 percent of GDP, with an additional 1.5 percent committed to enhancing related infrastructure, including a defense industrial base. That figure is probably unobtainable for most members, including the U.S., which spends about 3.2 percent of its GDP on defense. And it is far from clear how more defense spending by individual NATO members will strengthen the military power of the alliance as a whole, absent a cogent strategy and plan for making the most effective use of these increases. Since World War II, the U.S. has confronted simultaneous crises at home and abroad. Protests over Vietnam and civil rights enforcement during the 1950s and 60s turned violent. The U.S. has fought at least four major wars and one major campaign since World War II — Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice and Afghanistan. The record has not been a good one. Many Americans see similarities between today and the late 1850s prior to the Civil War, and 1914 before World War I, in terms of extreme political tensions. History may never repeat or rhyme. However, rarely have so many potential dangers been present at the same time. The U.S. is facing a crisis point on whether the current government and political process is capable of coping with or anticipating one or more potential hot spots exploding at home and abroad, especially if protests over ICE and immigration spread across the nation and one of the overseas conflicts escalates uncontrollably. At this stage, a great deal could go very wrong. Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington, D.C.'s Atlantic Council, the chairman of two private companies and the principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. He and David Richards are authors of a forthcoming book on preventing strategic catastrophe.
Yahoo
19-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ukraine's path to obscurity
Feb. 19 (UPI) -- This week's meetings in Saudi Arabia between the United States and Russia began with a goal of ending or resolving the three-year war in Ukraine. President Donald Trump is exactly correct. The fighting in which hundreds of thousands have been killed and Ukraine laid to waste must stop. But this should have Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky very worried. Ukraine has not been included, just like a wake that lacked a corpse. The administration argues that Ukraine is involved. The presidents have talked. And a dual and separate track has begun in which the United States is the go-between in talks with Russia and Ukraine. Still, Zelensky should not be happy. President John Kennedy explained why. Kennedy tartly observed that the only thing worse than being an enemy of the United States is being a friend. He was correct. In 1956, the United States and the USSR forced the United Kingdom, France and Israel to withdraw from the Suez Canal after initiating the war. Six years later, the U.K. was abandoned by the United States. The United States' closest ally, and part of the special relationship, had based a substantial amount of its nuclear deterrent capability on an air-launched ICBM called Skybolt. Because the technology was not up to the task, the United States quickly canceled the program, causing quite a strain in the special relationship. When President Richard Nixon entered office in 1969, he put in place the Paris Peace talks with North Vietnam to end the war. The talks, negotiated by National Security Adviser and later Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, ultimately led to an agreement. South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu was forced to accept the terms. The Nixon administration had imposed a "Vietnamization" on the Army of Vietnam to assume responsibility for its own defense against the north, hoping it would work after the United States withdrew. Congress cancelled the funding. Thieu was gone. And the scene of the disastrous U.S. evacuation from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon was a tragic pictorial of a war gone bad. The Trump administration intended to end America's longest war in Afghanistan. In 2019, it entered into the Doha Agreement with the Taliban. The United States would withdraw by April 2020. The Taliban would provide the security. And guess who did not come to dinner -- Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The Biden administration took office in January 2020 and debated about Afghanistan. Despite the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommending retaining 2,500 troops at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Biden chose a complete withdrawal, extending the date to August. But like Thieu, Afghani President Ashraf Ghani played no part in negotiating away his country. The withdrawal was a debacle. Thirteen U.S. service personnel were killed in a terrorist attack. Images of panicked Afghans trying to force themselves aboard the landing wheel compartments of U.S. air transports filled TV, computer and smartphone screens. Ghani and his administration had fled the country earlier, leaving Afghanistan without a government. Despite forecasts that Kabul would hold out for months, everything collapsed. The Taliban took over just as quickly as it fell after the U.S. 2003 intervention. The talks have a long way to go. Ukraine cannot survive without foreign support. But if European states who are members of NATO deploy troops to Ukraine and conflict breaks out, will Article 5 -- an attack against one shall be considered an attack against all -- be invoked, committing the alliance, including the United States, to war? This question is one of many profound and perplexing quandaries that must be addressed if an agreement is to be reached in Afghanistan. Zelensky, like Thieu, will be given a fait accompli. His only leverage is the threat to fight on, no matter. In that case, the outcome seems predictable. Russia will win. Perhaps shuttle diplomacy will work. Separating the two combatants may be the only way to conduct the negotiation. Still, will Zelensky's and Ukrainian interests be preserved? Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth's remarks at the Munich Security Conference last week were called a "rookie mistake" by U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., tipping the administration's hand. Ukraine would not join NATO or regain its pre-2014 borders before Russia occupied Crimea. While the White House tried to modify the remarks, it did not. Ukraine must see how this could turn out. The Vietnam and Doha talks are important indicators. If Trump really wants to end the war, he can -- at Ukraine's expense. And if the talks move to Paris, Zelensky needs plans A, B, C, D and so on. Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud deBorchgrave Distinguished Columnist, senior adviser at Washington's Atlantic Council, chairman of two private companies and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. His next book, co-written with General The Lord David Richards, former U.K. Chief of Defense and due out late next year, is The Arc of Failure: Can Strategic Thinking Transform a Dangerous World. The writer can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman.
