Posted on 09/25/2001 4:29:58 PM PDT by ChaseR
Mr. President, I want you to listen again. I am going to pick up on the incredible but true story of the Clinton Administration's betrayal of national security and the scandalous coverup that continues as we speak. In doing so, I fully realize that the majority of Americans will not believe me. They have continued to believe our President even after he has demonstrated over and over that he has no regard for the truth. Though you would never realize it by listening to the national media or the Clinton spin doctors, the recently released Cox Report has revealed a wealth of information on how the Clinton Administration has undermined national security to simultaneously pursue its misguided foreign policies and self-serving domestic political agendas. On the one hand, there is the mind-boggling story of how the Clinton Administration deliberately changed almost 50 years of bipartisan security policies--relaxing export restrictions, signing waivers to allow technology transfers, ignoring China's violation of arms control agreements and its theft of our nuclear secrets, opening up even more nuclear and high technology floodgates to China and others–thus harming U.S. national security....."
October 7, 2001
BY GEORGE WILL
The elemental lesson to be learned from Sept. 11 is that nothing is unthinkable, although many possibilities are unthought, particularly by peaceful nations. So perhaps now Americans should think about the possibility of a swift, remarkably brutal, conquest of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China.
It is U.S. strategic doctrine that the armed forces should be sufficient to successfully fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. Forces sufficient for one are being deployed to Southwest Asia. A second such conflict could erupt in Southeast Asia, explains professor Richard L. Russell of the National Defense University. His ''devil's advocate analysis''--written before Sept. 11--appears in Parameters, the U.S. Army War College quarterly.
America's sanguine assumption is that China lacks the necessary force-projection capabilities. It is deficient in amphibious ships and other means of delivering troops by water, particularly given that Taiwan's pilots and aircraft (F-16s and Mirage 2000s) are superior to China's.
But China could confound that assumption using surprise, a ''force multiplier.'' China could use amphibious assaults only as diversions to draw Taiwanese ground forces away from the primary invasion points--air bases. And China could employ unprecedented ruthlessness--tactical nuclear weapons and chemical weapons.
Such surprise and ruthlessness may seem far-fetched--as far-fetched as the idea of using commercial aircraft as bombs to level skyscrapers would have seemed a month ago, had anyone imagined it. However, Russell notes that Pearl Harbor, Germany's attack on the Soviet Union, North Korea's invasion of South Korea, China's intervention in Korea and the 1973 Yom Kippur War were all surprises.
Besides, Russell says, a nation contemplating aggression considers the dangers of peace as well as of war. China sees that time is on the side of Taiwan's improvement of its economic strength, political links to the world and military capacity for self-defense--particularly if Taiwan acquires defenses against ballistic missiles.
Russell says China could secretively increase sealift and air transport capacity, and paratrooper training, for a conflict that would begin with a bolt-out-of-the-blue barrage of hundreds of missiles to ''decapitate'' Taiwan's military by striking command-and-control facilities. China has an estimated inventory of 240 missiles capable of striking Taiwan from the mainland.
Missile warheads loaded with persistent and nonpersistent chemical agents could incapacitate Taiwan's air and air defense forces. Hence Chinese fighter aircraft could escort transport aircraft that would deliver paratroopers. Their drops onto Taiwan's air bases would be timed to coincide with the evaporation of nonpersistent chemical agents that had disabled those bases. Once the bases were secured by Chinese paratroopers, Chinese transports could land more troops.
By striking hard and fast, even with tactical nuclear weapons, China could hope to conquer Taiwan before there could be any U.S. military buildup in the region. And Westerners might be projecting their values on China by assuming that China regards nuclear weapons exclusively as means of deterrence and weapons of last, desperate resort.
There is evidence that Chinese military doctrine, unlike America's, holds that nuclear weapons can be applicable even in wars in which less than national survival is at stake. And Russell writes that the Chinese might argue that the use of weapons of mass destruction would set no international precedent because they would be employed against a province in an ''internal affair.''
Tiananmen Square demonstrated Beijing's readiness to use violence for political objectives against Chinese who challenge it. As for the price China would pay for international disapproval of such ruthlessness, Beijing may be willing to pay the price because it would be transitory: Just 12 years after the Tiananmen Square violence was telecast to the world, China was awarded the 2008 Olympics.
Russell wrote his scenario to emphasize that ''improbable'' is not a synonym for ''impossible,'' and to induce ''a sense of caution and humility about the limits of foresight in knowing the prospects for war.'' On Sept. 11 America received a violent lesson about those limits.
The aggression Russell describes is not unthinkable. Nothing is.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo07.html
Please try and stay, you will and would be missed so much.
What is the record for most threads on one article?
Well maby those adjectives are correct, maybe they're not...but lookit; don't you want to pick the hill you'll die on?
IMO...this ain't it, Jeff.
Cool down, my friend.
If I were in Houston right now I think I should throw you in the back seat of the SS, drive you to the local watering hole, & water you but-good.
Then maybe, we could forget about all this crap for just a while, & share an honest to goodness laugh.
Leave the Robinson people alone, Jeff; they're not your/mine/our enemy.
They have enough headaches as it is & throwing a tantrum isn't any way to thank those people for what they've already done for us. ~Really.
Amoung the most damnedable of all sins Jeff, is ingratitude.
Not really sure, but I believe I've seen (over the past 31/2 years of lurking/posting - threads as high as 45.
bttt with this...
I full well understand that. Sure do. I haven't received any reply from administration, and might still be in jeopardy. (this letter to me did not pick out any particular statement of mine, but I'm sure this polite reprimand was not in reference to my usage of the word/words "communist apologist" or "communist sympathizer/sleeper" when addressing certain posters. What you might not know Landru, is that I did post in another thread - earlier today - a public apology - anyway...)
One more thing I've must be allowed to point out Landru - is the fact that as we all look back on -
- - all the great Civil War books we've read - is that in all of them - one frequently finds the following:
"Yankee sympathizer"
[BTTT]
Of course, your & their activity as well as my concern doesn't mean squat without a site for us to plug into.
Which was & remains the primary message.
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.