Site Community for

Denial and deception is a low cost, potentially high impact way to level political,
military, and economic playing fields, particularly against strong opponents.

Concerns about the threat of denial and deception have waxed and waned since
the end of World War II

lessons learned from historical experiences,

minimize future challenges

tempts to assess how these instruments
of denial and deception can be used in the early twenty-first century.

of interest to students, security planners, and general readers
interested in political science, security, and foreign and military policy.

ew faultline underlying world politics has gained attention in recent years, one that could increasingly define our future conflicts.

by natural resources: who's got them, who needs them, and who has the means to secure them.

No blood for oil

energy resources, and not counter-terrorism, might lie at the root of America's Iraq war policy

many experts of international conflict see international competition for increasingly scarce natural and energy resources as a core, and increasingly salient, cause of conflict between and within states.

ees natural resources at the heart of conflicts past, present and future

The New Geopolitics of Energy is due out in April 2008.

ichael T. Klare, the Five College Professor of Peace and World Se

the causal link between natural resources and international conflict

increasingly important faultline in world politic

mpetition has been a decisive factor in driving conflict

he pursuit of resources—land, timber, gold, minerals, spices, slaves, furs, rubber, and oil, among others

Great Britain and France over the control of resource-rich territories in North America, India, Africa, and Asia.

Cold War, resource-related conflict of this sort was largely subordinated to the ideological struggle between the two superpowers but

radical nationalist regimes in the oil-producing areas of the Middle East

a key role in shaping U.S. foreign policy during this period.

to block the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf—a declaration widely known as the "Carter Doctrine."

The basic tenets o

Doctrine were cited by President Regan to justify

Bush I chose to quarantine Iraq and seek "regime change" through economic warfare—a strategy then embraced by his successor, Bill Clin

or their original inspiration.

Is resource competition playing a greater causal role in the outbreak of armed conflict now than in the past?

itter conflicts over land in many parts of the world

tragic struggle in Darfur is emblematic of this trend.

Virtually the entire planet has been scoured in the search for valuable sources of energy and minerals,

e rise of China, India, and other newly-industrialized countrie

ll of the conditions that might have prompted conflict over resources in the past are likely to become magnified.

In addition to petroleum resources, what are some of the other natural resources whose (potential) scarcity could (or already do) contribute to international conflict?

at are some of the resources that might cause future wars?

hina and Japan

natural gas

Neither side has been willing to compromise on the matter

military mean

ecessary to protect their interests

isputes over the possession of offshore natural gas fields could also be a source of conflict between Iran and its

on nuclear power for a greater share of their energy supply, uranium could also prove to be a source of international conflict.

Diamonds, minerals, and valuable timber supplies have also been a source of conflict in the past, and are likely to be so again in the future

Conflicts over these resources are unlikely to involve the major powers, but will more likely involve rentier states, warlords, ethnic militias, and assorted non-state actors.

Is the strategic competition between the United States and China over resources contributing to the perpetuation of armed conflicts around the world

ascendant powers

ecause both powers often seek to cement their ties with potential resource suppliers in the developing world by providing them with arms and other forms of military assistance

internal conflicts.

scorched earth"

ikewise, the United States has assisted the Nigerian government in its crackdown against tribal militants in the Niger Delta region,

providing arms and military aid to the various regimes in Central Asia,

ill strengthen the tendency of these regimes to rely on force and repression to rule, rather than to allow greater democratic participation.

affect resource competition and international conflic

global warming's effects

roduce diminished rainfall in many parts of the world, leading to a rise in desertification in these areas and a decline in their ability to sustain agriculture

ight over remaining sources of water and arable land

ome analysts believe that the conflict in Darfur is partly driven by such phenomena

Global warming is also expected to produce a significant rise global sea levels, and this will result in the inundation of low-lying coastal areas around the world

closing comments to share with us on the relationship between natural resources and international conflict?

a new world power configuration

possession of energy and other key resources is the principal indicator of national streng

ather than the possession of military arsenals, as was the case in the Cold War era and in prior centuries

defeated has-been of the post-Cold War er

the supposed victor of the Cold Wa

vulnerabilities because of its deep dependency on imported petroleum

he more we look into the future, I believe, the more a nation's relative standing in the world will be determined by such criteria—this, at least, is the argument I will make in my new book,

: I would say that resource competition has played a key role in the outbreak of war throughout history, so it is hard to say if it is playing a greater role today than in the past.

Because oil futures
prices provide more information than spot prices, movements in these markets
were used to explore the effect of naval forward engagement and crisis response.
Oil futures markets serve as an efficient substitute for the bulk storage
of oil. Instead of stockpiling oil reserves, futures markets such as the New
York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), and the London (Brent) allow companies to
purchase contracts to buy or sell oil at some future time. These contracts
are transacted for individual months in the future. Traders base their offers
on the best economic, political, and military information available to them
at the time the contract is traded. As a result, futures prices are considered
to be the best unbiased estimate of the likely spot or daily price of oil
when the contracted delivery date actually arrives.

future availability of oil is in doubt and traders
attach an uncertainty or "war premium" to their ask price

he most common answer, as a staunch critic
>

of this position points out, is that power politics has become obsolete "as
>

democracy extends its sway, as interdependence tightens its grips, and as
>

international institutions smooth the way to peace." (Waltz, 2000:6).
>

Does terrorism breed in an environment of dire
poverty as is now quite prevalent in Pakistan? Or is it more likely
to take hold in an environment of dashed expectations and limited
opportunity of economic success for not only the common man, but
the educated as well—an environment that is also felt by
many Pakistanis. Or is terrorism simply a reflection of militant
Islam stemming from the rapid expansion of the madrassahs or religious
schools? (

As for the underlying causes of terrorism, initial post-9/11
speculation focused on poverty and low educational attainment
as critical elements. With time and more rigorous research a different
picture has emerged.

Instead of viewing terrorism as a direct response to low market
opportunities or ignorance, they suggest terrorism is a response
to political conditions and long-standing feelings (either perceived
or real) of indignity and frustration.

By offering support, U.S. officials in New Delhi acknowledged that “Musharraf was sticking his neck out dangerously.”[5] Another senior U.S. policy analyst described the U.S.–Pakistan relationship as “alternating engagement and withdrawal,” but a retired Pakistani diplomat indicates the historic on-off U.S.–Pakistan partnership is in part due to neither country having “shared perspectives.”[6] He indicated that neither country has “continuity, a larger conceptual framework, and a shared vision” beyond issue-specific problems and solutions.[7] Observers have said that U.S.–Pakistan cooperation is tied to one core issue: the global war on terrorism.

Disabling al-Qaeda through the country’s “capture and kill” policy includes the arrest and death of more than 700 al-Qaeda militants and dozens of Taliban activists operating inside Pakistan.[11] While this policy has permitted Pakistan to score a few successes on the war on terrorism, the President noted that “military action is never a solution. Eliminating terror networks in the long-term depended not on the military’s prowess but sustained development, education, and economic growth—all of which the government takes credit for within the past six years. According to Musharraf, “Military action against extremism and terrorism buys time for a long-term strategy to be executed, it busy time for other instruments to be used to get to the root. It is not the solution.”[12]

According to a senior Pakistani official, the answer to U.S. expectations and demands of increased Pakistani counter-terrorism cooperation is “what is the limit?” How much more Pakistan can do given its internal security threats from “extremism, obscurantism, and religious bigotry” and external challenges from neighboring countries remains to be seen.

In both urban and rural areas of Pakistan, al-Qaeda and its supporters, the Taliban, and local militants—who call themselves the mujahidin—have proven to conceal their identities, whereabouts, and activities in densely populated cities like Karachi as well as the sleepy hillsides of Khyber. Urban centers such as Rawalpindi and Mardan have offered temporary residence to key al-Qaeda leaders, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaida.[20] And the tribal belt that includes the Northwest Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) have been coined ‘safe havens’ for terrorists and religious extremists as well as offer safe passage to the Taliban to and from the Afghan-Pakistan border.[21] It is these regions of Pakistan and the presence of jihadi groups in all the three bustling metropolitan cities of Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad that some U.S. policymakers are “hinting” at the need for rule of law, free and fair elections, and a working judicial system in Pakistan.

The additional challenge of managing sectarian groups, which continue to serve as a buffer against New Delhi and allow Islamabad to yield some influence over Kabul’s political future, may stall reform and distract Pakistan from increasing its goodwill efforts to improve relations with neighboring states to mitigate terrorism in the region.

While a crackdown against the Taliban suits Pakistan’s immediate interests, it is not clear how Pakistan will be able to sever its ties completely with Kashmiri separatists.