Asian alies say US can't defeat China

[Q-ball]

I'm not going to comment on the Army vs Marine topic, it's been pretty much beat to death. I'll just say what Gen Jones said a few years ago in regrards to the subject.
"The Marines win battles, the Army wins Wars."
That pretty much sums it all up. Also, if anyone is curious about China (or any other country's) capabilities check out this site.

http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

It's a very good open source site.

 

[KBayDog]

I think that once an all out war starts with another legitamate, uniformed army from a non-third world country the people of the United States will become more patriotic. Maybe not as patriotic as we were during World War II, but I thinkt the country will have a majority of seriously patriotic people who will make sure those who are not patriotic either leave the county or keep their views to themselves.

Have to disagree with you there, my friend. The face of the "news" has changed considerably since those days. In this day and age of 24-hour cable news, internet, and agenda-driven news outlets, "those" voices will always have a forum in which to second-guess any- and every military action we take. Unfortunately, "those" voices will receive 99% of the attention, and thus "represent" the thoughts of the entire country.

Gone are the days of Dr. Seuss drawing slant-eyed comics, Donald Duck beating the drums of war, and CBS cheering our victories. Basically, we will no longer have mass propaganda to unite the country (even when it is in our best interest).

 

[eddie]

Have to disagree with you there, my friend. The face of the "news" has changed considerably since those days. In this day and age of 24-hour cable news, internet, and agenda-driven news outlets, "those" voices will always have a forum in which to second-guess any- and every military action we take. Unfortunately, "those" voices will receive 99% of the attention, and thus "represent" the thoughts of the entire country.

Gone are the days of Dr. Seuss drawing slant-eyed comics, Donald Duck beating the drums of war, and CBS cheering our victories. Basically, we will no longer have mass propaganda to unite the country (even when it is in our best interest).

I guess we'll all just have to wait and see on this issue... we can't prove our opinions either way on it, because everything about war with China is so hypothetical.

 

[KBayDog]

I guess we'll all just have to wait and see on this issue... we can't prove our opinions either way on it, because everything about war with China is so hypothetical.

Eh, you can wait and see if you'd like. I'm not going to hold my breath about going to war with China. I'd like to think that the U.S. has bigger fish to fry right now (which is probably why this kind of talk is going around in the first place...)

I just don't have confidence that the media and the vocal minority in this country (and others, for that matter) will ever allow for "popular" support of any future military actions, no matter how just and/or necessary they may be.

I hope and pray that I am proven wrong.

 

[Cornellianintel]

Enjoy your trip, Brett. Huntington's views are pretty alarmist (and therefore easy to dispute), but most academics (even neo-cons) seem to assume that we've all somehow grown too civilized, enlightened, and economically interconnected for large scale war. Without burdening everyone with another long post, I'd direct anyone interested to do some reading on economic interdependence in Europe (it was great) leading up to WWI--a huge conflict that came on the heels of 100 years of effective peace. The strategic situation of 1900-1914 is far (FAR) from analagous to the world we live in, but both involved the alarming rise of a destabilizing power (German unification in 1879 (I think that's the year)), a strategic allignment that supposedly guaranteed the security of respective alliances, and a presumption that another great war would too terrible to fight (Europeans had the Napoleanic wars to draw upon) and therefore inconceiveable. But miscalculations were made, and leaders and their intentions misread. Then, of course, sh!t happens.

I honestly just don't believe that there is any conceiveable framework for another multi-polar military strategic arrangement--just as an unintegrated militarized Europe proved itself incapable of sustained peace. According to the stated policy of the Bush administration, the powers that be share my skepticism of a world in which our forces aren't recognizably irresistable in every part of the world. If China attempts to supplant that dominance--and they probably will--I think that a series of events (sanctions, embargos, etc.) will lead us down the road to armed conflict.

But, as they say, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[eddie]

Eh, you can wait and see if you'd like. I'm not going to hold my breath about going to war with China.

Just to clarify, my "wait and see" comment was directed specifically at the issue of the media/vocal minority forever being antiwar, not the possibility of war with China.

 

[KBayDog]

^ That's cool. Like I said, you're a bit more of an optimist than I. I certainly hope you are right, if/when the time comes to throw down.

 

[Flash]

I know this kind of thing comes up a lot, but I'd like to hear everyone's take on this.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

One thing caught my eye:
"Mr. Ishihara [Tokyo Governor] said U.S. ground forces, with the exception of the Marines, are "extremely incompetent" and would be unable to stem a Chinese conventional attack. "

I'd be interested to know what his basis for saying that our Army is incompetent. Sounds like a Marine must have been translating for this guy.

To go back to the original quote used in this thread, I wanted to point out a few things about the Mayor of Tokyo. Mr. Ishihara is well known for being one of the most vocal nationalist Japanese politicians since the end of WWII. He has said some pretty nutty things and is not very friendly to the US sometimes (or Korea, or China......). Among other things, he has said the Rape of Nanking (Nanjing) was a fabrication, a semi-popular view in Japan that has garnered a lot of attention recently. He also authored a book called 'The Japan That Can Say No', and he means 'no' to the US. In short, he is kind of like an Al Sharpton in Japan, think someone who says nutty and inflamatory things to get attention, but with a lot more power and prestige. I would not exactly call him an 'ally' or an expert on the US military.

Wikipedia profile: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishihara_Shintaro

Korea Times editorial: http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200311/kt2003110417310311330.htm

Profile: http://www.ezipangu.org/english/contents/news/naname/ishihara/ishihara2.html

Amazon Page on his book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671726862/104-0749939-1371122?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

 

[gaijin6423]

Flash, I think it's important to point out that it's not just this whacko that thinks things like the Rape of Nanking and other attrocities the Japanese committed during WWII never happened. I've seen their textbooks, and there's virtually nothing in there about those things. It's a very, very hot point between Japan and China, Korea, and other countries litterally and figuratively raped by Japan during those years. It's a function of Japanese mentality and mannerisms that has caused what really happened to be left out of their schoolbooks: "What happened was unpleasant and embarassing to us, therefore, we will not speak of it." That sentiment is encountered/expressed on any number of different levels and on a daily basis in Japan. If someone gets tanked and tells off the boss, well, he was drunk, it was unpleasant, so we'll just not talk about it and everything will be OK. Now, I am by no means defending this guy (I have also read/heard of the gentleman in question before), but it's important to realize two things: 1. Why he is as crazy as he is; 2. He is definitely not the only person in Japan who actually believes none of that stuff happened.

The Japanese made innumerable, vengeful enemies during their imperialist days, whether they'll admit it or not. With their constitution in its current form (Article 9), who is going to stave off China or even South Korea when they decide to get some payback? I have many friends serving in th JSDF, and they're incredible people, but they're forces are small, underfunded, and generally train more to peace keeping/humanitarian/support type missions, vice open conflict. (Except for the JMSDF 'Frogmen', who aside from having some very hot women in their ranks, are hardcore, modern-day ninja assassins with automatic weapons.) The point is, if this guy doesn't think that the US can stand up to China, who's going to keep Japan safe? Sure, economic and political containment is all well and good, but the Chinese haven't exactly displayed logic in the decisions they've made in the past. Granted, it was in another timeframe, but it wasn't so long ago that how many tens of millions of Chinese citizens fell victim to the Great Leap Forward/Famine and the Cultural Revolution? If they'll let so many of their own people die, what are they willing to 'let' happen to Japan, which they hate with a passion?

 

[Flash]

Flash, I think it's important to point out that it's not just this whacko that thinks things like the Rape of Nanking and other attrocities the Japanese committed during WWII never happened........1. Why he is as crazy as he is; 2. He is definitely not the only person in Japan who actually believes none of that stuff happened........

I realize that he is not hte only one over there who has this point of view. But while he is arguably more powerful and visible than any Mayor/Governor in the US, he not a decision maker in their national security policy. I was pointing out the fact that he is a politician who is no friend of ours and should not be classified as an 'ally'. It is kind of like saying the Mayor of London speaks for all that country (he too is a bit of an idiot). I give no credence to what comes out of Ishihara's mouth.

 

[gaijin6423]

I see where you're coming from, and I agree with you on Ishihara and London's mayor. I wasn't disagreeing with you, just expanding a little bit. And just trying to say that there's a big portion of the Japanese population which might approach the gov. of Tokyo's level of ignorance. Come to think of it, that might explain how he was elected in the first place.

 

[Recidivist]

There is an important point that may be missed right now, although I think that Mr. Cornellian Intel touched on it at little:

[/ride.high-horse.exe]
China and the US are doing a lot to benefit China right now with trade, and China's banks are using that to their advantage as well. A great portion of the US debt is held by Central Asian banks; were they to unload our currency rapidly, we would be in a sh!tstorm on the world market. Right now they have craftily tied the Yuan to the dollar to prevent the trade deficit from shrinking. There is an outstanding, and I believe quite objective article, about this precisely topic in either June or July's Atlantic.

The other issue: Can the US kick China's ass? The simple answer is yes. The United States has the most potent military in the world, but the problem is what to do after we kick their ass. Same problem we have in Iraq. Our conventional forces have a difficult time dealing with unconventional fights. To win a war where its mere presence instigates an uprising, an occupying force must be able to build relationship with the people. In addition to the response at home, incidents like Abu Gharib take a lot of our credibility away, and take time to repair.

After the rush for victory, everything else is bland and unexciting. It’s a long road, and with the American people having some ADHD, things become boring to them. We like to see ourselves kicking ass, Stormin’ Baghdad; we can tolerate casualties then. We cannot tolerate casualties when the war becomes unglamorous. To reduce the time soldiers spend in the gun sights and on TV, the war has to start long before the first shots: Language training for occupying soldiers, Special Operations to build ties with the indigs, a plan for the new government, etc.

Vietnam showed another problem that has become significant: the war was fought from an office in Washington. If it were corporate America, this would be called "micro-managing." Not only is it bad for morale, but in a situation where intel is only good for a few hours, it needs to be used ASAP. Military officers are trained to make decisions, they should be trusted in the field where they can accurately assess the situation and use their intel before it expires. Management By Objective (MBO): (1) Tell someone qualified what to do (2) let them do it.


Bottom line, in my humble opinion (not all supported in above statement):
1. The US can defeat China in a military duel
2. China would be foolish to engage in war with the US because it can accomplish its objectives more covertly with less cost
3. The US is capable (and would be justified both at home and in the world's eye) to defend Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, etc.
4. Any war where the US is bound to foreign soil, fighting an unconventional army, is going to take lots of time, money and a lot of crap from the people back home.
5. Bureaucracy can kill more people and demoralize more troops than bullets.

...[/End Pontification.exe]

 

[skidkid]

Ok boys there was a great article in The Economist that made an interesting point that China really isnt that big a threat right now. Their threat status is inflated by the "Military Industrila Complex" you know the guys who want to sell stealth bombers rather than have another Army division funded. The biggest threat is in terrorist/rogue states much more so than China.
China though I do believe have regional/world superpower ambitions are our number one trading partner, why risk that.
I cant find the link but read the article.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I am guessing it is this.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Ok boys there was a great article in The Economist that made an interesting point that China really isnt that big a threat right now. Their threat status is inflated by the "Military Industrila Complex" you know the guys who want to sell stealth bombers rather than have another Army division funded. The biggest threat is in terrorist/rogue states much more so than China.
China though I do believe have regional/world superpower ambitions are our number one trading partner, why risk that.
I cant find the link but read the article.

It's been said several times. General Zinni in "Battle Ready" wrote about that quite a bit... that so many in the Pentagon's top brass have no appetite for asymmetric warfare, low-intensity combat and counter-terror operations... they want to get back to 'real soldiering' where you charge the castle, fight Rommel mano-a-mano, plant your flag on the battlements, and declare victory. Hence the fantacization over an up-and-coming China who can provide us that "near peer" competitor and the obsessive waste of money on weapons designed to fight that imaginary war (the F/"A"-22, anyone?)