Obama's War?? Afghanistan. . . .

If you've spent any time dealing with the Chinese government, then you'd pretty much understand that some sort of conflict is likely.

Pakistan's nuclear weapons are supposed to be disassembled, with the components in various parts of the country, if one is to believe what Pervez said. Hitting all the components might be a crap shoot.

Noah Body said:

How do you figure this? The DPRK has a central military focal point--the ROK--and it is unlikely that the Eighth US Army will be withdrawn from that long-standing commitment.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it has long been known that the Eighth could do nothing more than fight a delaying operation against a full invasion of the ROK. Last simulations I was a part of estimated complete occupation of ROK within five days to a week of invasion.

However, the rest of this ties into this second portion:

Along similar lines, the PLA is in the midst of a military modernization wherein its target is to be able to oppose the US military, or at least beef itself up enough to deny USN intervention in the Taiwan Strait. Even though they are dropping billions of dollars into their modernization process, they are at least two decades behind the US in terms of mass...and it's not like the US military will forgo perpetual modernization itself.

Click to expand...

You are making the common mistake of believing that technological superiority trumps all. It doesn't. Yes, the US military is stunningly advanced technologically. However, politicians for the last two decades have made the mistake of assuming that because a modern carrier is as powerful as three older carriers, that one carrier can do the job of three carriers. In other words, the downsizing of the American military which has severely crippled force projection.

Force projection is an important concept in global security. All the military technology in the world does no good if you can't get it to hot zones in sufficient numbers to be effective.

Back to the first point. The US cannot prevent a DPRK invasion of ROK (or a China invasion of Taiwan). What prevents this from happening isn't the forces stationed there. Right now, it is primarily our nuclear deterrent, but also the fact that we can rapidly project our military power to the region.

However, in the last few years this has changed. We've been bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. This, coupled with downsizing, has severely crippled our force projection. If we were to increase the manpower in Afghanistan, this even further downgrades our ability, leaving only nuclear deterrence, which with the further proliferation of nuclear weapons in recent years, is becomming less and less viable.

It used to be US doctrine that our military would be able to fight a fully engaged two front war, as well as have enough reserves to respond to a global crisis. We've fallen so below that we can't even fight a fully engaged single front war without a massive call up of reserves.

If we bog down deeper into the Mid East, we further limit our ability to respond in other areas of the world (which is already severely limited now). As they say, when the cat's away . . .

Noah said:

If you've spent any time dealing with the Chinese government, then you'd pretty much understand that some sort of conflict is likely.

Click to expand...

Please, explain to me what dealings you've had with them, and elaborate on that point.

It seems to me that China does not possess the means for major aggression, and is not actively working towards gaining them. Quite to the contrary, I think all indications show that China's focus is on developing their economy and internal improvements.

The main reason I'm confident of this is quite simple: The One Child Policy. You can't take over the world with a shrinking, aging population.

And then there's the other fact that China has had far fewer conflicts with foreign nations over the past 50 years than the USA has.

Then there's the fact that we never came to direct conflict with the USSR, even though our relations with them were consistently worse than our relations with China are. We seem to have few major disagreements with China at all.

Sarpedon said:

It also seems that wars that we were well prepared for, such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganistan, have been disappointing.

Click to expand...

This makes the mistaken assumption that the military was prepared for wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It was not.

The US military has been conceptualized around open conflict, and in such areas it performs marvelously. Witness the absolute destruction of the Iraqi army in both Gulf War conflicts. However, in non-conventional warfare, we fare far worse.

MOUT training in the military has been severely lacking for decades, despite warnings as far back as the early 80s that this would become the landscape of modern warfare.

The Eighth has always been a tripwire defense. And it's well known should that wire be tripped, then the DPRK will have some serious issues to deal with. We don't need troops on the ground to take care of a heavy mechanized force, which is what the DPRK has.

The same holds true for China. The misconception is that we need US troops on the soil to unravel the PLA. That's simply not the case. We have sufficient distance weaponry which is not being tied up in the ME to inflict substantial harm on the centrally-controlled PLA, as well as take care of a great portion of eastern China's infrastructure, should we choose to do so. And no, I'm not speaking of a nuclear response, though the silos in Xinjiang might get just that.

The last time we could 2 and 1 was when George HW Bush was in office. After BRAC and the cashing in of the so-called "peace dividend", you're right, the US doesn't have that same capability...which is why it's no longer our doctrine. Maneuver warfare, littoral ops, and a strong reliance on SOF/LIC replaced that in 1995.

This makes the mistaken assumption that the military was prepared for wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. It was not.

The US military has been conceptualized around open conflict, and in such areas it performs marvelously. Witness the absolute destruction of the Iraqi army in both Gulf War conflicts. However, in non-conventional warfare, we fare far worse.

MOUT training in the military has been severely lacking for decades, despite warnings as far back as the early 80s that this would become the landscape of modern warfare

Click to expand...

Point taken, thank you. However, you will accept perhaps that we were better prepared for these conflicts than we were for, say, World War 2?

Sarpedon said:

Please, explain to me what dealings you've had with them, and elaborate on that point.

Click to expand...

I've gone through two passports dealing with the Chinese since 2002, as they insist on using a full page for their visas...and I get multiple entry visas at that. As for the reasons behind my visits? So sorry, I'll have to keep that private.

Sarpedon said:

It seems to me that China does not possess the means for major aggression, and is not actively working towards gaining them. Quite to the contrary, I think all indications show that China's focus is on developing their economy and internal improvements.

Click to expand...

You are misinformed. The PLA's budget has been expanded drastically since 1998, and it is modernizing in the absence of valid threats. The CCP doesn't allow much transparency in the reasons of their buildup, but it's quite true that it is happening. Do you really know anything about the region?

Sarpedon said:

The main reason I'm confident of this is quite simple: The One Child Policy. You can't take over the world with a shrinking, aging population.

Click to expand...

And there are other internal stressors as well...the cultural imperative for boys over girls, which will lead to a strong imbalance between the sexes. The inability of the central government to respond to emergencies such as SARS in a way that is actually meaningful until it gets out of hand. They have a banking system which is so corrupt it makes the one in the US look golden. The environmental damage caused by the Three Gorges Dam alone is going to cost them billions...billions of dollars, not yuan.

Sarpedon said:

And then there's the other fact that China has had far fewer conflicts with foreign nations over the past 50 years than the USA has.

Click to expand...

There's also the neat trick that China was in isolation for over thirty years, too.

Sarpedon said:

Then there's the fact that we never came to direct conflict with the USSR, even though our relations with them were consistently worse than our relations with China are. We seem to have few major disagreements with China at all.

Click to expand...

The USSR was a wholly different ball of wax. The good old Soviet Union wasn't in a circular game of trying to sell products to the US consumers while trying to finance US debt at the same time.

"They want our women" is the scariest thing I've heard about China. No joke.

No matter how good our military, there's no way they could stand up against millions of testosterone-laden teens, even if they were only armed with chopsticks. I know. I remember being a teen. Give me a sharp stick and promise me a woman, and I'd have taken on a regiment all by myself.

I'd put a smilie after that, but I'm serious.

LOL

I'm quite aware that China has increased its military spending vastly. I am also aware that their GNP has expanded at more or less the same rate, and they still spend a smaller percentage of their GNP on defense than the world average.

And there are other internal stressors as well...the cultural imperative for boys over girls, which will lead to a strong imbalance between the sexes. The inability of the central government to respond to emergencies such as SARS in a way that is actually meaningful until it gets out of hand. They have a banking system which is so corrupt it makes the one in the US look golden. The environmental damage caused by the Three Gorges Dam alone is going to cost them billions...billions of dollars, not yuan.

Click to expand...

And all these = aggression, how?

There's also the neat trick that China was in isolation for over thirty years, too.

Click to expand...

And this indicates aggressiveness, how?

The USSR was a wholly different ball of wax. The good old Soviet Union wasn't in a circular game of trying to sell products to the US consumers while trying to finance US debt at the same time.

Click to expand...

And this indicates aggressiveness, how? Why would China attack its biggest trading partner/debtor?

I think China being in isolation was probably a response to your comment that it's had fewer conflicts over the last 50 years.

I understand that, thanks. However if we are talking about China being an aggressive threat, I think that the fact that it has been in (largely self imposed) isolation is indicative of a general lack of aggressiveness.

You haven't been paying attention...China is modernizing its military in the absence of a valid threat. This has not only captured the Pentagon's interest, it's also risen the levels of suspicion in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam as well.

China is trying to develop its own aircraft carriers. For what reason?

China is fielding boomers. For what reason?

China has entered into a nascent advanced attack helicopter program. For what reason?

China is re-equipping its soldiers with a new assault rifle, the Type 95, even though the AKs they've been using for decades remain reliable and sustainable. For what reason?

China's military leadership has in the past made comments about being able to hit a CVG with a nuclear missile. For what reason?

They're steadily increasing hostile C4I capability, ostensibly directed at US infrastructure. For what reason?

Only the Chinese know for sure, because they curtail military exchanges with the US every time they agree to one, and they rebuff the Pentagon's requests for clarity. There are white papers about this on the internet that are released by the Pentagon. Read them.

Then visit a PLA HQ if you can, because that in itself will be enough inspiration for at least five or six really good books.

You don't think that they could perceive us as a threat? I think its really disingenuous for you to claim that there is no valid threat to China. You perceive them as a threat, why shouldn't they perceive us as a threat? Especially considering that we spend more money on defense than any other nation, China included.

Its all about deterrence. They have to deter us just like we have to deter them.

It amazes me that someone can justify the US having 12 aircraft carriers, in spite of no valid threat to us, but starts beating the war drums when China starts thinking about getting 1.

The reality of the fact is, there is only one area where the US might consider imposing its "military will" against China: Taiwan, by way of the rather ambiguous Taiwan Relations Act signed by Carter in 1979.

There is no way the US would consider campaigning against China, unless it's retaliatory. While we don't need troops on the deck to seriously mess up that nation, the fact of the matter is, it's a nuclear power, and the US hasn't gone head-to-head with one of those ever.

For sure, the CCP feels threatened by the US military. But under what conditions would the PLA find itself acting the part of the anvil to the US hammer? There's no guarantee that even if China went to guns on Taiwan that the US would become unilaterally involved. In fact, if the enmity between the CCP and the former Nationalists can be defused through political means--and with the Kuo Min Tang essentially running Taiwan now, that does seem likely--why go through the expense of modernizing a military that is already so large it can keep Chinese interests secure?

The fact that the CCP and PLA continue to say little about the pretext for the modernization makes it seem prudent to the Pentagon to plan for a shoving match at some point in the future.

I agree wholeheartedly. I sincerely believe that the USA has no aggressive policy against China.

However, putting myself in the shoes of the Chinese government, I don't really expect them to believe that. Especially considering that the US president has the power to make war arbitrarily,and in fact has recently done so.

And I did some reading, it looks like China's looking at 3 carriers, not one. (however, so is India, and I don't hear any of this rhetoric directed in their direction)

I never indicated a number when I said aircraft carriers, but of course, it would be more than one. One would be a token, and would not provide much in the way as a force multiplier.

India is also of some concern, but unlike the Chinese, they are a little more open about their military affairs. However, in true inimitable Chinese style, the CCP and PLA never answer the Pentagon when it requests clarity on the Chinese plans. One might think that if they did, then it might defuse some of the tension.

There's also the underlying sentiment in China that the time has come for China's great "ascendance"--their term, not mine--meaning that China is entitled to become a global leader. Of course, the US is not so eager to give up the brass ring.

BTW, sorry to all for the rampant thread derail.

An interesting interview by M. J. Totten with Robert Kaplan that touches on the issues about China, India etc.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/07/a-conversation.php

Noah Body said:

China is fielding boomers. For what reason?

Click to expand...

:O

dmytryp said:

An interesting interview by M. J. Totten with Robert Kaplan that touches on the issues about China, India etc.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/07/a-conversation.php

Click to expand...

That is a great interview, thanks for posting it.

Obama's War???

So...the former administration had nothing to do with this; it's all Obama's fault/mismanagement.

Ah...history in the rewriting...

Rather depressing
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/01/yon-the-greatest-afghan-war/?page=2