Posted on 10/08/2001 2:31:32 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
We'll say prayers for your safe return.
But there must be something going on but probably just China moving troops to the border and nothing more!
As did others. This is non-controversial.
The notion that they're going to re-enforce Taliban forces is pure fiction.
A bit extreme. Most unlikely, highly doubtfull, etc... would be a better choice of words, I think, than "pure fiction."
They're securing the border, that's all. Not an unusual event when a neighboring country is going to war
Agree, except with the "that's all" comment.
That is not all. Watching their border is the basic aspect. But this operation is a gold mine for the PLA. They can be near the action taken by the US. It is an intelligence bonanza for them to observe and eavesdrop so closely.
That aspect has to be as high on their list as securing their border, because the border, even in all this, is not going to be much less secure.
Second, they are scavengers for US technology. One of the things the Taliban did for them recently was to give them unexploded US missiles from Clinton's strike a few years ago.
In this current ONE operation they are surely hoping to get more. This is where troops in Afghanistan would come in to play, if there are any.
If the Chinese are going to do anything as a result of this war, they're going to invade Taiwan at the height of the conflict. Then it's World War III.
Which actually is the point of this "pure fiction" article. I am not saying I accept it or believe it. In fact I don't believe the PLA is moving in to Afghanistan to provide military support for the Taliban. I am more inclined to say about that what you said, that it is pure fiction (or highly unlikely, see above).
Yet, as far as the fictional story goes, the idea is that by prolonging the US effort there it makes Taiwan an easier target for them.
I don't think they will attack Taiwan, nor do I think they are in Afghanistan.
But, some PLA special forces very well could be their as part of intelligence operations, to learn about the US military capabilities and to get whatever hardware they can get.
The bigger question on this is, why is China not overtly with us?
Why can we not fly over their territory or use their bases? And, why don't they also join use militarily as Britain has, and other nations will or have. Even japan is taking a role.
Why not China?
Until questions like this are answered there is no reason to make excuses for the ChiComs, even if a report like this is most unlikely to be accurate.
We'll say prayers for your safe return.
That was a mistake. The credibility of Debka is already established. It sucks.
The only problem is that Saddam is such a control freak, although he plays the Islamic card he is not a true Islamic is Osama Bin Ladens sense.
With America gone, Saddam will happily gobble up Kuwait, and then he will take out Saudi Arabia.
He knows that after the pro Western States fall to the radical Islamic movement, countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya are next.
That is why he is so big on talk and low on action.
Sadam is Stalin to Osama Bin Ladens Trotsky, the control freak and the exporter of revolution as opposed to just terror.
China is not a Super Power in the American sense she does not have the force projection, and I don’t think she wants the head ache of the Middle East.
Tony
Sounds about right to me, zog. I've been wondering whether PRC has been the "silent partner" behind a whole lot of "Islamic unrest" for some time now. For one thing, every time the Brits or we Americans take out one of Saddam's anti-aircraft defense sites (incorporating state-of-the-art, fiber optics technology "somehow acquired" by PRC from the United States), it goes back on-line pretty quick -- apparently thanks to PRC, which is thought to be Iraq's single-source supplier of this technology.
Speculation runs rampant.... All I really feel confident about is that China has no reason to wish the United States well, given its global ambitions. That, and China prefers to "work in the dark" wherever possible -- through surrogates, proxies, etc., etc.
But I do hope I am wrong about possible PRC involvement in the present conflict. best wishes, bb.
Thanks, I do think I'll have a good trip and enjoy myself. I'll try not to pull such tricks like this on the REDS while in China! LOL! Those guys are SERIOUS over there! ;-)
The Wakhan Corridor and the entire Northeastern corner of the country are under the control of the Northern Alliance.
Ergo, like most of the DEBKAfiles stories, this report is a fabrication on its surface.
Wei-Chi: The Game of War
by Peter Kien-hong Yu, Visiting Associate Professor, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hongkong
As published in Proceedings, U.S. Naval Institute, March 2000.
Lieutenant Commander Capen argues that Weiqi "is central to understanding the Eastern [read: Chinese] perspective of war." For the most part such an application is structurally and logically flawed because many, if not most, Chinese Communist strategists do not play Weiqi. They strictly think and act dialectically.
Thus, Capen cannot say that "Chairman Mao Tse-Tung required all of his officers to study Wei-chi and become proficient" or that Chinese people from childhood play such a game, which, to the lieutenant commander, is an analogue of real-life. The reason is that we definitely see Maoist dialectics, not Weiqi, being taught at, for example, the National Defense University (NDU) in Beijing. Besides, most Chinese since their early days are gradually taught to associate or correlate things in terms of Yin, Yang, and the Five Elements, which is another basic version of dialectics and which is couched in terms of harmony.
We can point out some other serious problems. We must understand that most Chinese strategists, Sun Zi included, think and act dialectically. If one thinks and acts in terms of two points/concepts (or two extremes to be more specific), one would be able to understand or dissect what Sun said more deeply. All dialectical Chinese strategists make crabwise (or sideways) moves, be it in a word or an action, between the two extremes, if not at this time/space then the next time/space or, for that matter, in this model/framework or another model/framework. (In Weiqi, players cannot do that all the time. They must stick to the same 19-by-19-line grid board.) Sometimes they are closer to the left extreme at a particular time/space. At other times, they are closer to the right extreme at another time/space. Or, they could be in the middle of two extremes.
Capen wrote that Weiqi pits two opponents against one another. If he applied Weiqi between mainland China and Taiwan, for example, it is appropriate. But he also applied the same game to the complex situation in the Spratlys, which may involve the United States, because it may well be the national interest of the United States to wage an active offense in the Western Pacific.
Something is certainly wrong in this kind of application, because how can the mainland and/or Taiwan play the game against the Philippines and Vietnam at the same time in this boardgame of one against one? The only logical way is for the former to play several Weiqi games at the same time, say China versus Vietnam, China versus the Philippines, etc. But, this kind of arrangement is still flawed, because it could happen that Beijing, for example, is dealing heavy military blows to both Manila and Hanoi at the same time. Yet, in reality, a one-against-one game such as Weiqi cannot reflect this important phenomenon.
To give one concrete example, China believes that the Spratlys are historically Chinese. Yet, Capen said Beijing is interested in acquiring territories beyond its coastal waters or that Beijing is making efforts to surge into the second echelon [of countries or states]. To the dialectical Chinese, this island group has been literally encircled by several Southeast Asian claimants. In other words, China is put at a strategically disadvantageous position, at least since the late 1960s. In order to break out, China is trying to find footholds elsewhere and it is doing it by trying to enter some military relationships with some island states in the Pacific Ocean or the Indian Ocean, so as to counter the encirclement. But, because Capen perceives reality in a non-dialectical way, what Beijing is doing becomes expansionist to Capen, which may involve bloodshed in thousands of American sailors and marines.
Does that mean China wants to use these newly arranged footholds to militarily attack those Southeast Asian claimants someday? Certainly not, unless China has been fired upon first by those claimants and/or their allies. China, to Capen, is constructing power. To others, China is a potential maritime threat. But, from a dialectical point of view, the Chinese intention is peaceful or defensive. [emphasis added] As such, it is not necessary for the non-dialectical United States Navy to have a base in India, as mentioned in Capen's piece, because the Chinese only wants peace of mind [sic] , unless the United States is again thinking of breaking the Chinese planned counter-encirclement by encircling the Chinese counter-encirclement ring.
So, it is wrong for Capen to imply that, after getting back Hong Kong and Macao, the People's Republic of China -- which would likely acquire a blue-water capacity including aircraft carriers within the next generation -- will conquer the Spratly Island Group, which is part of the second echelon in the Chinese strategy. The Spratlys belong to China in the first place and, therefore, China does not have to conquer it.
[LOL, see how convenient dialectical thinking can be! Contentious international disputes involving at least four nation-states, settled by unilateral Chinese decree! Gee...if it were that simple, why would PRC need a navy at all? So sorry for the digression....]
I also agree with Capen that the Chinese plan has less to do with armed confrontation. That is because dialectics is mainly political and it can help a player to rationalize all phenomena over a long period of time [emphasis added], say five decades or centuries. Dialectics can also protect the dialectician from internal or external criticisms by saying what he or she had done is within the safety zone. [more emphasis added], which, like danger zone, should always be understood in terms of a spectrum and which is closely related to the left extreme in each model/framework, for, in dialectics, there also exists a danger zone, again closely related to the right extreme.
* * * * * * *
When I first read this article back in July 2000, I wondered whether its message was intended as a threat; or disinformation; or as a prophylactic measure designed to answer and dismiss Lt. Cdr. Capen. (Plus maybe a good joke, its author having "the last laugh" because he could put so much so plainly in sight, but thinks maybe we Americans don't know how to understand it.)
Anyone who wants to, please do flame away. I'm not DEBKA. Just someone trying to see "the Big Picture." That is, the "big wheel" that's turning all the "little wheels."
Those of you who aren't trigger happy might want to drag out the ol' World Atlas tonight and study the map of this critical theatre -- in which America is now engaged up to our eyeballs. (And we had no other realistic choice, I might add. Score a point to the other side right there?) JMHO. FWIW.
Best to you, zog -- bb.
Didn't mean to imply that I would put it past the PLA to support our enemies. Quite the contrary. I'm well aware of the PRC's give-and-take relationship with Iraq, Iran, the Taliban, among others. But at this point, inserting PLA troops into the conflict would qualify as an overt act of war against the United States. And to the world community, in light of the 9/11 attacks, it would be an unjustifiable act to everyone except North Korea. An attack on Taiwan will be deemed an "internal issue" by the PRC, which will give our allies the opportunity to sit on the sidelines and debate the issue while the two superpowers collide.
But, "pure fiction" wasn't the best choice of words. Aside from reading everything Bill Gertz writes, I don't have the expertese to speak so forcefully on the subject... so that's a fair enough point.
Agree, except with the "that's all" comment.
That is not all. Watching their border is the basic aspect. But this operation is a gold mine for the PLA. They can be near the action taken by the US. It is an intelligence bonanza for them to observe and eavesdrop so closely.
Another fair point. If the reports of troop movement are accurate (and Gertz says they are, so we can pretty much take it to the bank), it's safe to assume that the Chinese have more than just border patrol in mind.
Yet, as far as the fictional story goes, the idea is that by prolonging the US effort there it makes Taiwan an easier target for them.
I don't think they will attack Taiwan, nor do I think they are in Afghanistan.
Given their nature, I believe an attack on Taiwan is inevitable. When, that's another issue. Logic says it will be sooner rather than later, for reasons George Will articulated very well over the weekend (the longer Taiwan has to build is defenses, the harder it will be to take the island).
The bigger question on this is, why is China not overtly with us? Why can we not fly over their territory or use their bases? And, why don't they also join use militarily as Britain has, and other nations will or have. Even japan is taking a role. Why not China?
There's no pressure on them to get involved. China gets a pass on everything from forced abortions to murdering students, Christians, Falun Gong members, etc. There's no reason for them to take a stand on terrorism, especially when their military leaders openly admire bin Laden's warfare tactics against the U.S.
The best answer I can come up with is that old saying that we keep hearing: the enemy of my enemy is my ally (I think that's how it goes).
Thanks for the ditto! The ChiComs are having their military do what ours should be doing. Even though they profess to be communists, they can still get the occasional action right.
With a handle like john316, I am surprised at your comments about muslims. Many took part in the original day of Pentecost after the resurrection and ascension. God has not forgotten the children of Ishmael though they be as wild asses. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying ALL caucasians are evil and worthy of death because of Bill C. and Sarah B. This "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out" mentality is precisely what helps keep feeding the war machine. How noble is it for our sons and daughters to die in pursuit of imperial goals? I want justice. I want the %&$#&%%& who put together this assault on my land. I want to see them strung up by their testicles. GW has yet to provide any credible evidence that bin Laden or the Taliban has put this together. All georgie has is hearsay and conjecture, speculation and rumors. And, at georgies backside is the cowardly congress that you elected and that has not declared war.
The antiwar protestors that you whine about, what do you have to fear from them? I have my gun and I hate the idea of war but I am fully prepared to use it in providing defense for my family and home which is obviously much more than the fedgov or LEOs can do. I hate being robbed at gunpoint of my freedom and property by the fedgov to support schizophrenic foreign policies that do nothing but to serve to bring this evil to my homeland. You just don't interfere with fighting dogs because you'll get bitten. America is for Americans at heart regardless of nationality. To heck with the rest of the world. If they wish to fight and kill and injure each other then I say that's their problem. Let them deal with it. Their ignorance and their stupidity and their evil is their problem. Let 'em have the fruit of their labor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.