Posted on 10/13/2020 10:33:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
"The Indians are seeing 60,000 Chinese soldiers on their northern border," Secretary of State Michael Pompeo ominously warned on Friday.
He spelled out what he meant to commentator Larry O'Connor:
"The Chinese have now begun to amass huge forces against India in the north. ... They absolutely need the United States to be their ally and partner in this fight."
Pompeo had just returned from a Tokyo gathering of foreign ministers from the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or "Quad," the group of four democracies -- U.S., Japan, Australia, India -- whose purpose is to discuss major Indo-Pacific geostrategic issues.
Exactly what kind of "ally and partner" the U.S. is to be "in the fight" between India and China over disputed terrain in the Himalayan Mountains was left unexplained. We have no vital interest in where the Line of Control between the most populous nations on earth should lie that would justify U.S. military involvement with a world power like China.
And the idea that Japan, whose territorial quarrel with China is over the tiny Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, thousands of miles away, would take sides in a Himalayan India-China conflict also seems ludicrous.
Yet, tensions are rising between the U.S. and China, as the list of ideological, political and economic clashes continues to lengthen.
And there is a transparent new reality: China seems in no mood to back down.
When, after a year of demonstrations for greater democracy, the Hong Kong government failed to quell the uprising, Beijing stepped in and took control. The U.S.-led democracies that had been cheering on the Hong Kong marchers and protesters did nothing, and they have done nothing since to reverse Xi Jinping's political coup but prattle on about "values."
Lately, the democracies have been protesting, and rightly so, the inhumane treatment of the Uighur peoples in Xinjiang in China's west.
Han Chinese have been moved into the region to swamp the local population of Turkic and Muslim Uighurs and Kazakhs and bring about the demographic change Beijing desires. "Reeducation camps" have been established to cleanse Uighurs of their ethnic and religious identities and convert them into loyal and reliable Chinese Communists.
In a speech in late September, Xi declared that Beijing's policy of eradicating the ethnic and religious identity of the minorities of Xinjiang through state-driven education has proven "totally correct."
He vowed to imprint a Chinese identity "deep in the soul" of the peoples living there. "Our national minority work has been a success," said Xi, "It must be held to for the long term."
Xi makes no apology for -- indeed, he is proud of -- using state power to impose the state ideology upon the peoples he rules, and he openly repudiates our democratic values as inapplicable in his country.
Our rejection of China's claims to virtually all of the reefs and atolls in the South China Sea is also being ignored. Beijing's warnings grow louder and more pointed as the U.S. continues to send warships, the latest being the USS John McCain, close to islets claimed by China.
What is our strategy here? Are we prepared for a naval and air clash in these waters? What would be the U.S. strategic goal?
The Chinese are now responding angrily and defiantly to what they see as the provocations of sending high-level U.S. officials, and selling new weapons, to Taiwan, which China regards as its lost province.
Again, what is our purpose in playing the Taiwan card now?
If it is to provoke a fight, then are we prepared for a war in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea? Do we think the Chinese will capitulate?
Is this being done to "stand up to China" before Nov. 3?
Which is the party here that is engaged in bluster and bluff and which is the party that seems deadly serious as it views its vital interests and territorial rights as challenged?
There has been talk of the Quad evolving into an Asian NATO that embraces the major democracies in the Indo-Pacific Theater.
But the essence of NATO is Article V, where the U.S. commits itself to treat an attack on any one of some 30 nations as an attack on us.
Is there anything like this in the cards?
Australia, Japan and the U.S. are not going to war with China over its border with India, or its ethnic concentration camps in Xinjiang, or its seizing Hong Kong and atolls in the South China Sea.
When this election is over, this country has to think through what we are and are not willing to fight China for.
Xi Jinping dismisses our concerns over Hong Kong and the Uighurs, and he appears willing to fight for Taiwan and for what Beijing holds in the South China Sea, rather than see it permanently lost.
Are we?
If Joe & Blow win, there won’t be a war. China will take over “peaceably”. The
Direct war is a losing bet for both China and the U.S.A. We will indirectly support proxies with weapons and intelligence."
What if China wants to get rid of a couple of million men between the ages of 17-35 that are unemployed or underemployed unable to find wives because of prior policies discouraging multiple children and have gaining a common enemy that the country can unite against?
What if there are American "intellectuals", corporate boards and policy makers that think we have an over-population problem and wouldn't mind getting rid of a couple of million patriotic American men in order to consolidate their power and control over the proles/sheep here in the US?
In 2006 a Chinese general said just what you did about their one child policy. Said they needed a war to clear out lots of them.
We already had the first one, in Korea.
Times right now remind me of right before WW1.
[In 2006 a Chinese general said just what you did about their one child policy. Said they needed a war to clear out lots of them.]
We won’t be sending armies to fight the Chinese, but our air and sea forces could remove their offensive naval capability in short order. Same for coastal air defenses...
Regarding China: it takes money, equipment and resources to move millions of soldiers across the Pacific to the U.S.A.
Regarding the U.S.A.: it takes money, equipment and resources to move millions of soldiers across the Pacific to China.
Wars are cheaper to run with proxies. China really doesn't have many proxies, while the U.S.A. does in the Pacific region. China would lose, and they know that.
No direct war with China (for now).
If I were to mention what I think needs to be done to get our house in order, I would get in trouble. Goes beyond not voting for Biden. The left is having a war in our country, burning, looting, assaults and general mayhem. And that's without China attacking us.
I was reading emails that were army internal, and I don’t recall the source. I remember that I read it in 08, but he’d said it in 06. It was definitely said, and I haven’t heard that since. Anyone that has some situational and historical awareness would realize that this was the case anyways.
[I was reading emails that were army internal, and I don’t recall the source. I remember that I read it in 08, but he’d said it in 06. It was definitely said, and I haven’t heard that since. Anyone that has some situational and historical awareness would realize that this was the case anyways.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
* Within living memory, Deng Xiaoping mounted a coup against Mao’s handpicked successor, making himself China’s 3rd leader since the 1949 victory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hua_Guofeng#Ousting_and_death
I need to read up on Chinese history more. I know quite a bit, but not as much as I should. Interesting stuff.
The logistics of moving the men to India, Vietnam, Korea, Taiwan or Japan...is not that much....
What do "we" do? Let them roll in?
Regarding the U.S.A.: it takes money, equipment and resources to move millions of soldiers across the Pacific to China.
Didn't really stop us when we did that to Japan... If it becomes an "existential" war... we can print money like there's no tomorrow.
and that's how empires end... just like everyone before it. Not with a bang, but a whimper.
Let me know when China bombs Pearl Harbor, then I might entertain your idea of sending millions of our soldiers to China. Meanwhile, ain't happening.
Are you paying and coordinating? I think you don't understand the logistics of moving men and materials during war. Estimates are that it would take China several months to slog their way towards the capital of Taiwan, and that's if they manage to land at the shore of Taiwan. Logistics are difficult. Even more so if China were to attempt to send troops to the U.S.A. across the Pacific. Ain't happening.
[I need to read up on Chinese history more. I know quite a bit, but not as much as I should. Interesting stuff.]
A troop mutiny in Wuhan kicked off the revolt that toppled the last de jure emperor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuchang_Uprising#New_Army_mutiny
The mutiny succeeded because the equivalent of the ancien regime’s military chief decided to join in the festivities, as part of a scheme to set himself up as the founding emperor of a new dynasty. It would be as if Milloy decided to cast his lot with Antifa to make himself King.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Shikai#Wuchang_Uprising_and_republic
Bottom line is that the scenarios being thrown around re projected Chinese actions lack any grounding in Chinese historical fact. China’s dictator is seriously constrained by (1) what the hoi polloi will put up with, (2) his mutually-hostile rivals in competing factions who are gunning for his seat and (3) potential unrest within the military rank and file, if things don’t go as planned.
There’s an amusing subtitled Chinese series about one of the numerous Chinese equivalents of Nero/Commodus/Caligula. PG, because of a high (mostly off-screen) body count:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESdGtY0B0pk
While some aspects of the fictional adaptation were preposterous, they nonetheless gave me an excuse to look up the differences between the diverting plot and the historical account. Wikipedia has been surprisingly great in terms of the nitty-gritty on both Chinese rulers and officials. The somewhat unique aspect of the main non-fictional main character? A princess with a royal harem of 24 men.
The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian
https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/
The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian
https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/
[The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian
https://jrnyquist.blog/2019/09/11/the-secret-speech-of-general-chi-haotian/]
There are a couple of other problems with the essay, anachronisms almost. It keeps referring to Comrade Xiaoping. That’s like saying President Donald. Another problem is the repeated references to foreign personalities that the average Chinese military man probably has no idea about. It’s got the feel of Tom Clancy’s Chinese characters in The Bear and The Dragon - an under-researched caricature of the real thing.
A third problem with the essay has to do with the historical fact that a lunge for the Americas would be a complete flip of China’s tendency to go for territory close to home. The reasons are completely practical. Faraway territories are hard to conquer and hard to keep within the empire once conquered, given that commanders have every incentive to strike out on their own. Vietnam was once part of a Chinese empire. Then the local Chinese govenor decided he preferred to be king in his own domain than a governor in somebody else’s empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhao_Tuo
The casual talk about nuclear war is antithetical to Chinese strategists. Their principal concern is preservation of kith and kin, followed by their place in history. No general who gets 500m Chinese killed is going to look good in the history books. Leaders go to war to enhance, not blacken their reputations.
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.