I agree. They telegraphed this troop movement last month. They are probably responding to the US coalition’s request.
Posted on 10/08/2001 2:31:32 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Long Chinese convoys were carrying armed Chinese Muslim servicemen through northwest China into Afghanistan to support the Taliban militia prior to today's U.S. offensive, according to the intelligence sources of DEBKA-Net-Weekly. The DEBKA sources report the troop strength of the Chinese columns at between 5,000 and 15,000. The first troops reportedly crossed the border Friday. The troop movements are reported along the ancient Krakoram Road to the Afghan-Pakistani border, through the Kulik Pass of Little Pamir, which is situated in one of the highest and most remote regions of the world. Beijing is reportedly deploying this force in two places: 1. Whakyir, the Kirgyz tribal encampment near the Little Pamir-Tadjik frontier, opposite the swelling concentration of U.S. and Russian Special Forces and air strength. The Chinese have brought with them Kirgyz fundamentalist militants from the Ferghana Valley of Central Asia, as interpreters. From Whakyir, the Chinese generals believe, with bin Laden's and the Taliban's tacticians, they will be able to block off the movement of the U.S.-led force from its rallying point in Dzhartygumbez, Tadjikistan, no more than 35 miles from Little Pamir, into the mountains of Hindu Kush. 2. Jalalabad in north Afghanistan, at the foot of the Hindu Kush range. DEBKA's Chinese sources say that, immediately after the terrorist strikes in the United States Sept. 11, the Chinese intelligence service, MSS, handed in to the defense ministry in Beijing its estimation that the U.S. would go to war to overthrow the Taliban regime, for the sake of which it would sign a pact with Russia. The Chinese leadership viewed this eventuality as the most significant shift in the global balance since the 1962 Chinese-Russian feud, with dangerous implications for China's world standing and its interests in Central and Southwest Asia. Beijing reportedly concluded such an alliance must be counteracted.
FROM DEBKA INTELLIGENCE FILES
Is China moving in?
Sources report thousands of troops deployed to back Taliban
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
October 8, 2001
China and Taiwan
WASHINGTON--The elemental lesson to be learned from September 11 is that (BEG ITAL)nothing(END ITAL) is unthinkable, although many possibilities are unthought, particularly by peaceful nations. So perhaps now Americans should think about the possibility of a swift, because 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 September 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 airbases 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.
President Bush has modified the long-standing policy of ``strategic ambiguity'' enough to say that America would do ``whatever it took'' to defend Taiwan against attack. But China says it reserves the right to use force to keep the ``renegade province'' of Taiwan a part of one China. Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., a thinking person's Cassandra, warns that China may be understating its military spending, which it says increased 17.7 percent last year. He worries that Chinese preparations for aggression could be, like the terrorists in America before September 11, ``hiding in plain sight.''
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 September 11 America received a violent lesson about those limits.
The aggression Russell describes is not unthinkable. Nothing is.
"China has gone on record supporting the American strikes against the Taliban."
gee for some reason that does not inspire confidence to me.
Just a thought.
Its not supposed to, China has given your government its tacit approval to take out the Taliban, the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden is as much an enemy of there's as the ours.
It doesn’t mean they like America anymore than America likes them, they are just being pragmatic, and if you can say one thing about the Chinese they are a pragmatic race.
Tony
Yes, winter is coming on and extensive damage to the Taliban infrastructure needs to occur prior to its' harshest onset I think. . .
Thanks for your post, friend!
Thanks for your post!
China has gone on record supporting the American strikes against the Taliban.
Thanks, Tony!
Its not supposed to
FYI that was a rhetorical sarcastic statement.
me :Its not supposed to you : FYI that was a rhetorical sarcastic
statement.
me : rssssssspppppp
Have a great day tony
Clancy wrote about it in "Debt of Honor" and several lesser known books have used similar story lines. What is the big mystery? Baffles me.... Oh yea and the secret Service has had Stingers on the roof of the White house for years to prevent just such an attack from happening.
That says it all folks. Worldnetdaily now reiterating whatever info the get from Debka.... !! talk about a decline in reporting.
Not to worry, Think about this, the Chinese have basically outlawed religion of any sort, so they are not about to back any "muslim" forces. They may be securing their borders, and that would be the wise thing to do.
Right now the Chinese top priority is to be admittid to the WTO. I cannot imagine that they would jeopardize this for any reason. One fact that you can count on, and it has been widely reported, is that they have just ordered 30 new civilian transport planes from Boeing, at a cost of $1.6 billion. I will not go so far as to say that they want to be our allies, but they have publicly supported our actions in this war.
The main point to keep in mind -- it seems to me -- is that China in no way could be happy with the United States increasing its presence or influence in China's backyard for whatever reason. The international "coalition" that President Bush has put together (who knows how well it will hold up over time) increases U.S. prestige. Since China is our main "rival" and competitor in the post-Cold War world, they can't be exactly jumping for joy about any of this.
Keep your eyes peeled -- best, bb.
China is NOT an ally of any sort. The ones who bankrolled the islamic regimes, including our so-called "moderate" allies, insist that bankrolling china is going to result in the chinese becoming "nice guys" and I have seen zero evidence of this. It certainly hasn't worked with any of the islamic countries, no matter how many hundreds of billions in US dollars they have received for the oil. And it's not going to work in china either, that is going to backfire on us as well-at some time, and with much glowing radioactive dust most likely. Ya, they most likely want to kill off a lot of islamics, but then again, exactly WHO is providing these various islamic regimes with advanced weaponry? I see china as more being a behind the scenes player to instigate a war between the west and the islamics, kill both of us off.
Wheels within wheels here.
Who else would benefit?
Saddam Hussein (would invade Kuwait)
Iran (would invade small Gulf states)
China
I would say the strongest cooperation is between Osama and Saddam. They are prolly in cahoots. They have the most to gain from the US leaving Arabia. China would be the superpower that would rush into the vacuum left by any US departure from The Gulf and the Arab world. China has the weaponry to make this all stick.
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.