'China assisting Taliban in war against US'

Times of India ^ | 10-22-01 | PTI

[dirtboy]

It's just he doesn't seem to appreciate the critical distinction between the "order of the anthill" and the "order of human being" in any great measure so far.

No, I just think it's irrelevant. The Chinese may think they can use alternative warfare. It might even achieve a short-lived measure of success. But in the long run they will not be able to hold that success. That is the lesson of naval history. And I do not see that changing any time soon. Warfare is 80 percent logistics. And if you have to move your supplies overseas, you have to control your seaborne lines of communication. It's that simple.

[betty boop]

Warfare is 80 percent logistics. And if you have to move your supplies overseas, you have to control your seaborne lines of communication. It's that simple.

All this is true, dirtboy, as far as it goes. But what we've got here is something entirely new: This is not any kind of "conventional" war in which "traditional" military doctrine and methods will be decisive all by themselves. They are merely one arrow in the quiver, the other arrows being financial, economic, diplomatic, political, technological (e.g., cyberspace), and in the last analysis, ideological and moral forms of power projection.

In a war like we've got here, battlefields aren't necessarily purely territorial or geographic. In a war like this, there is no distinction to be made between a combatant and a civilian: Both are equally targets. There is also no distinction to be made between civilian and military assets: Anything anywhere is "fair game."

In a war like this, there is no "exit strategy" -- we have to "feel our way along" on imperfect information/intelligence and try to survive long enough to learn from our mistakes. A war like this is a state of more-or-less "permanent" hostilities -- at very least in the sense that there is no conceivable way for us to know in advance how long it's going to take to prevail. The game and the players will keep changing -- and by this I refer to the supposed international "diplomatic support" that President Bush has been trying to build into a pro-U.S., pro-West coalition against terror. Many of these so-called "allies" would peel off in a heartbeat (with a few exceptions) if they perceive it in their interests to do so (and our opponent will be working full time to secure that result).

And let's face it: Some of our "allies" are state sponsors of terrorism; and if you believe the President's rhetoric (and I do), that makes them candidates for "our adversaries" in the longer run.

In short, on my view, we simply have never seen this type of war before, ever in human history. Traditional ideas of warfare, and standard military presuppositions and doctrines, will not be enough to win it. Although they have a role to play, they cannot be decisive all by themselves. Maybe China doesn't need a BWN as much as we suppose they do: They've got plenty of other types of "arrows."

Which brings to mind the Chinese proverb: "May you live in interesting times." How sweet of the Reds to make sure we do. best, bb.