Article

2005-03-21 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-21 3:29:24 PM|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Ultimately, warfighting is way more important than peacekeeping. It's one thing to lose a few thousand troops in an insurgency. Losing a shooting war with China could involve tens of thousands of dead Americans. No question here about priorities - situations like Iraq are little more than skirmishes extended over time, whereas China poses a threat of a much larger scale, in terms of the resources required, and the assets at risk.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-03-21 8:25:54 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-03-21 8:25:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 I am confident Mr. Rumsfeld will make sure that the QDR focuses on China. However, the U. S. will never create a military capability sufficient to defeat China during peace time. Fortunately, what we need do to prevent China from defeating us is to maintain naval, air and space supremacy, something much easier than amassing sufficient military capability to defeat China.

A shooting war with China would involve tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dead Americans regardless of the outcome.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-03-21 8:58:21 PM|| 2005-03-21 8:58:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 ZF your comments reminded me of passages in Robert Utley's book Frontier Regulars, chapter three, The Problem of Doctrine -
"Neither West Point nor the postgraduate schools addressed themselves more than incidentlally to the special conditions and requirements of Indian warfare. Indian campaigns found their way into professional literature as interesting history rather than as case studies from which lessons of immediate relevance might be drawn...Military thought continued to focus on the next foreign war, as General Hancock make clear when he advised a congressional committee in 1976 that the Indian service of the Army was 'entitled to no weight' in determining the proper strength, composition, and organization of the army. Yet for a full century, with brief interludes of foreign and civil war, Indian service was the primary mission of the army."
"Instead, for a century the army tried to perform its unconventional mission with conventional organizations and methods. The result was an Indian record thta contained more failures than successes and a lack of preparedness for conventional war that became painfully evident in 1812, 1846, 1861 and 1898."

BTW, I'm not aware of anyone in a position of responsibility or authority advocating any campaign plan or potential fight on the Chinese mainland. However, I'm sure you can point me to one.

Posted by Thans Anginetch3773 2005-03-21 9:13:33 PM|| 2005-03-21 9:13:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 Mrs D - apparently maintaining that military superiority now involves not sharing our miltech with NATO countries. Sad, that countries can be such ~~business~~ money whores that past alliances and past ass-saving is forgotten for the pieces of silver, no?

Posted by Frank G 2005-03-21 9:21:03 PM|| 2005-03-21 9:21:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 ZF - peacekeeping is being ready (really ready) for warfighting. That's why we won the cold war. Nobody wanted to fight it, but the military was ready to win - even at the expense of most of the rest of the planet, if it came to that!

Posted by Bobby 2005-03-21 11:13:11 PM|| 2005-03-21 11:13:11 PM|| Front Page Top

23:05 Sobiesky
23:05 Sobiesky
10:09 Cyber Sarge
10:09 Cyber Sarge
00:06 ed
23:30 Barbara Skolaut
23:21 DMFD
23:17 Bobby
23:14 Bobby
23:13 .com
23:13 Bobby
23:11 AzCat
23:10 Sobiesky
23:09 Asedwich
23:07 Bobby
23:03 Frank G
23:00 Sobiesky
22:58 Bobby
22:53 Phil Fraering
22:52 Bobby
22:49 Sobiesky
22:41 Bobby
22:41 phil_b
22:35 mom