Thursday, April 3, 2014

The "United States Problem."

The central committee [of the Chinese Communist Party] believes, as long as we resolve the United States problem at one blow, our domestic problems will all be readily solved. Therefore, our military battle preparations appear to aim at Taiwan, but in fact [are] aimed at the United States, and the preparation is far beyond the scope of attacking aircraft carriers or satellites.
~ August 2005 speech by former Chinese Defense Minister CHI Haotian.[1]

So China is itching for a fight that will solve the "United States problem." In one blow, no less.

And, in the U.S., over eight years later, the putative president obsesses over the abdominal snow job of ObamaCare, radical defense cuts, harassment of Tea Party political organizations, homosexuals in the military, queer marriage, sexual harassment in the military, debasing the currency, hampering of oil and gas production, bogus catastrophic AGW, and expedited importation of hostile foreigners by the boatload to solve our critical Vibrancy Problem.

Keeps me up at night, anyway. Lack of vibrancy.

The possibility of a sudden Chinese military invasion still seems fanciful even to this writer with his now finely-honed and medication-attenuated alarmism. However, that (invasion) is not the only option of the ambitious, unelected, pissed-off Communist kleptocrats who appear not to have domestic problems of any kind. Any time is a good time to ramp up the saber rattling, I suppose, and wars always work out just they way they are planned.

Known fact.

So, yes, let's exhort the commie faithful on how easy it will be to deliver a knockout blow to the Paper Tiger.

A la Pearl Harbor.

Fortunately, "mutual destruction" is still the operative term vis-a-vis Chinese nuclear war calculations, and, one hopes, calculations involving non- or small scale-nuclear exotica whose development has been facilitated by aggressive Chinese theft of technology (3,000 front companies in the U.S.).

In an earlier time in the U.S. citizens might have been assured of competent preparation and execution of strategic defense plans, but no longer.

Considering who's minding the store these days, that won't change, and your generic concerned citizen has cause for despair. Despair not just because of the absurd cast of characters who are our current political "leaders" but a yet deeper despair at the realization of fundamental flaws baked in to the cake of bourgeois Western society:

The liberal-bourgeois order was flawed at its inception by the relentless logic of democracy, by the anarchy of political parties, by the demagogy of politicians, by a belief in progress, and by the leveling power of equality. Society has become soft, feminine – incoherent to the point of disintegration. This is not merely the work of recent decades, but of recent centuries.[2]

Notes
[1] Quoted in "Further War Preparations?" By J.R. Nyquist, JRNyquist.com, 4/1/14 (my underlining, Mr. Nyquist's brackets).
[2] Id.

UPDATE (4/3/14):

I decided to read the whole speech of this man Chi. Parts of it seem right out of The Onion and the parts that aren't show Chi to be one stellar psychotic monster.

I note that the publisher of this alleged speech says its authorship can't be verified. Nonetheless, I'll leave this post up for the value there is in the opening quotation and the entire speech linked to immediately above.

That value is in getting Westerners to consider that the Chinese might be using their enormous new wealth to prepare for more than just using some muscle in their immediate vicinity to grab possible new energy sources.

And perhaps in getting Westerners to reflect on the actual ineffectual leadership we have, in particular with respect to how it might deal with the problem of China if even a small part of the thinking evident in this speech is representative of Chinese thinking. It's bad enough that we see that leadership fumbling and dissembling in areas that are relatively low-stakes areas, Ukraine excepted. If the "actual" in these areas is as bad as it is, we should consider that the "probable" with respect to a serious challenger like China is likely to be catastrophic.

Not that we shouldn't reduce our armed forces to pre-WWII levels. I'm certainly not saying THAT.

If the speech is questionable, so be it. However, that would not establish that China is to be trusted or that it is our pal, or anyone's pal. Even this kind of possible fiction should be reflected in our military contingency planning.

8 comments:

  1. The language suggests an electromagnetic pulse.

    Radical defense cuts?

    Are we really so mired in MIC propaganda that any reversion to a sustainable national defense budget is met with rabid slobber by those who are supposed to be liberty-minded Patriots?

    It's time to recognize that true conservatism does not equate with having military bases in 63 countries around the world.

    We can better defend our country with a smaller military footprint.

    ReplyDelete
  2. China has a pollution problem which is a people problem. Too many of them to be exact.

    Both Russia and China have been building Nuke shelters for years and they continue to do so. The US? None for citizens.

    I have no doubts that someday, a war will go nuclear, wiping out civilizations worldwide. The elites and their chosen will ride it out comfy cozzy for however long the dust takes to settle.

    We have all seen the repeated elite scripts of the ideal population value of around 500k. Nuke war would be a handy tool to reach that value.

    Hal

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon (8:43):

    EMP would be an excellent option, indeed. EMP is one of our options, too, of course. Hardening facilities and building shelters for a certain segment of the population only works in a limited way, it seems to me. Complex economies would face ugly realities even if some of the population is sheltered and some key capabilities are preserved. Not my area, though.

    I can't tell if my suspicion of pre-WWII (Army?) force levels amounts to an instance of the "rabid slobber" you speak of. I would give Hagel and Obama more credit if I thought there were a genuine understanding and analysis of defense commitments on their parts.

    Agreed that the present multiple bases around the world are a dangerous over-extension. However, we have witnessed Obama bluster about consequences that is detached from present fiscal and military realities (ours and others'). He looked like a chump when the Russians ignored him, as well they should have. He just wasn't credible and had no muscle to back up his weak position.

    Too, we came within a hair's breadth of a stupid involvement in Syria, which came after a stupid involvement in Libya and Egypt.

    Ergo, talk of pre-WWII force levels is dangerously detached from competent strategic thinking. I've heard more insightful analysis in college dorm rooms. And note, too, that discussion of new force levels has not come with any statements that reflect new strategic thinking. So, as of now, it looks like the old mindless overextension of forces around the world married to vastly reduced forces. As the military maxim goes, "He who defends everywhere, defends nowhere." Something like that.

    Case closed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hal:

    The Soviets devoted serious resources to shelters ringing Moscow I read. Mr. Chi indicates identical Chinese efforts. All as you point out.

    There are people who don't bat an eye when they talk of halving the world's population. It's always implicit, I think, that they will be the one doing this "healthy" winnowing of us "excess" humanoids.

    It's also implicit that this cleansing of the population will not interrupt any remnant's cable service or supply of flavored organic lattes.

    China seems just to be poised on the knife edge of civil order. The least hiccup in the supply of food will have serious consequences for the state when you multiply shortfall by population.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Col.,

    I concede that the budget is fooked at just the same time that the strategy is too.

    Where is George Washington?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I despair of having leaders who think beyond the next election. Ryan, Simpson, and Bowles are the only three current and former legislators who exhibit any kind of urgency on fiscal matters, yet we're in a gigantic fiscal crisis.

    I know of no one who opposed the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which was an important check on the banking industry. Bombing of Libya (and the later covert involvement in arming a questionable (!) faction in Syria) were a lurch, as were Iraq and Afghanistan (esp. the "nation building" aspect). The latter two exercises were fantastically expensive and achieved nothing lasting other than scaring Gaddafi into abandoning his nuclear program.

    The U.S. looks like it's chasing a plastic shopping bag in a high wind in foreign policy matters. I don't know what all the bases around the world are for. Why Europeans aren't required to field competent militaries is a mystery to me. I'd trade all those bases for 25 more attacks subs and 20 more boomers.

    Even the rule of law seems not to be understood by our officials. And there's a strong gravitational pull toward importing civilization-altering numbers and types of immigrants that operates on an alarming number of our leaders. They don't even understand the essence of citizenship or national borders.

    The nation is like a car being driven with a steering wheel detached from the rack and pinion gears. Would that we had people with a smidgin of vision to lead us. George Washington, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Just curious: what is the American Problem that is being referred to? Is it US military adventurism? Hegemony of the USD? Defense of Taiwan? Other? In terms of Taiwan the current administration will do nothing except blow hard. The Chinese have to know that. In terms of the USD the Chinese could bring our economy to its knees by (a) refusing to buy any more debt and (b) switching away from the USD as a Reserve Currency. Although maybe even the Chinese don't have the pull to swing thd latter one ... yet. What I mean to say is that the Chinese have meaningful nonmilitary ways of dealing with the US.

    OTOH if they destroy the US economy - at least for now - they also destroy the Chinese economy.


    So what would the Chinese refer to as the Problem.

    ReplyDelete
  8. RobertW:

    I think "the America problem" probably refers to the U.S. as the main obstacle in the path of Chinese hegemony.

    China is not without non-military options but, as you note, the degree of Chinese dependence on vulnerable supply lines and other economies complicates any Chinese plans to expand.

    Charles Hugh Smith made an interesting point about reserve currencies. IIRC, it's not as simple as just teaming up with ten other major countries. The country seeking to have the reserve currency has to import a lot of goods in order to get its currency into the hands of other countries.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. I am entirely arbitrary about what I allow to appear here. Toss me a bomb and I might just toss it back with interest. You have been warned.