H&I* Fires 17 SEP 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite.

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

**********************************
Just a question that’s been rattling around in my head that first roused itself when I couldn’t sleep back in CA (it was fargin’ hot even at night, not as hot as what Chief Bill was putting up with but more than 90) and had been reading Julian Corbett’s Principles of Maritime Strategy. Why is almost everything I can find about conflict with the PRC over Taiwanese independence take the form of a highly kinetic Red on Blue scenario? Granted my knowledge gathering net can be both small and full of holes at times, but why is so much of the thought on this potential conflict so rooted in a Jominian battle of annihiliation being the focus of warmaking paradigm?

Is such a move really playing to our strengths, or to their’s? Is it pitting our strengths against their weaknesses? I’m not just talking about battle group capabilities here---look at the domestic political possibilities too.

Oh, you want links instead of the ramblings of the Castle idiot? Okay.
--
Just War Theory presents two sides, one severely truncated, of the argument about the Constitutionality of having in uniform mil personnel being forced to defend or criticize national plans. (It’s the first link at the top of the page.)
--
CNA presents a report on the interplay of security and climate change.
--
Shloky has a piece about how PRC internet hacking may have moved from simple spiking of DoD networks to defense related industrial espionage. Not such a good thing for us imo.
--ry
******************************

They're crossing another line. Protesting in front of (and incidentally blocking) a recruiting office is one thing. Consciously interfering with a recruiter's job is another. It's actually criminal, and anti-war types are actually doing it.

There was recently a discussion on this site about what it meant to say that "Democrats are invested in defeat." Here's another way of getting at that idea. - FbL

******************************

This is in response to Ry's question, "Why is almost everything I can find about conflict with the PRC over Taiwanese independence take the form of a highly kinetic Red on Blue scenario? "

Ry, the answer is in the geography not the the policy or the politics. In this post, I wrote "the importance of being Taiwan", I noted it's geographic position in regards to maritime shipping routes, international borders, energy resources and American allies, ports of call or bases. If the PRC challenges Taiwan's independence with physical intervention, it changes the entire dynamics of the region, can impede or squeeze maritime trading routes and gives China a base, much further out from which to possibly launch attacks against other nations, including Japan, or even against US bases in the region.

Literally, there is no reason for China to be concerned about Taiwanese independence beyond their own desires to expand their control of the area [Update: let me adjust that, the PRC must be concerned with the future possibility that the control of Taiwan can be used to blockade China in a time of war; literally cutting off or controlling any access to energy, food, etc, from the sea and no nation can take that risk - in fact, the possibility of one sea board that could be interdicted or harassed is one of the reasons that the US sought to expand its borders and become "ocean to ocean" with the Louisiana Purchase and other annexations, such as California after its independence]. You won't be surprised to find that the area the PRC wishes to control also has a number of possibilities for energy exploration that sits just outside of the currently recognized international boundaries. China's expansion into the area or any attempts physically intercede will be viewed as an act of war and that would be met by "kinetic" warfare.

Of course, it goes without saying that, kinetic warfare between two huge armies with nuclear weapons to back it up must be a fearful proposition, including possible "annihilation" since China's naval capabilities are limited comparatively speaking to US forces and would possibly be quickly destroyed which would leave China only a choice between capitulation and escalation.

On the other hand, why the US has always conceded that Taiwan is part of China is to keep such possibilities limited while we simultaneously provide Taiwan cover for its democratic independent state. When will we recognize Taiwan officially as independent? Maybe never or maybe when China, as a real democratic nation, does so. Or maybe, when China becomes a real democracy with all the rights that entails for its people, we won't fidget too much if Taiwan wants to reconcile with big brother China. But, I doubt the last because an independent Taiwan serves our trade needs and those of the globe much better than any other scenario, IMHO.

On Iran, I have some more to say, but I want to look over the links a little more. Still, the same discussion over whether a "war" with Iran will be totally "kinetic" with possible "annihilation" as opposed to a "cold" war with sanctions, etc seems a little too black and white. There are many more options that can be applied including "kinetic" war without total annihilation of the nation. Insisting that we would have to put boots on the ground in any significant way to change the Iranian regime seems over kill. We could literally pick off targets with tomahawks, UAVs and bombers, "annihilate" much of the army and leave the nation in chaos though hopefully have contacted and provided arms, money and other assistance to "democracy" resistance in Iran.

At most, we would want to secure the ports, some areas with nuclear or other materials that we need to be concerned about with armed forces.

Still, I don't see that happening either. With France and Germany discussing tougher measures, I believe that the Iranian Implosion is a much more likely, desired and sought after situation. Further, it's a possibility that such an implosion would allow certain government agencies and security of nuclear and other sites to be maintained.

Last but not least, we should not take the option of military attack off the table. We may be willing to take some knocks from a proxy war that we think we can ultimately win, but there are some acts and continuation of such that would place Iran firmly beyond the pale. That's my take on that though I have some thoughts on the Iranian internal conditions I'll discuss later.

-Kat
*****************************
Continuing on with the above discussion, in regards to both China and Iran, the concern over the possibility of energy interdiction or even military interdiction should China choose to "re-integrate" Taiwan forcefully, is one of the reason's that China and Russia had signed a pact with the SCO that, should one be attacked the other nations will consider it an attack on all. Similar to the NATO treaty. Not only is Russia concerned with US activities in the Caucasus, but control of the eastern seaboard of Asia also places Russia in a difficult situation since their own access to sea ports has become limited, particularly after the break up of the Iron Curtain and the loss of several republics. This concern over sea ports, the potential blockade of such and the inability to improve Russian economics without these sea ports for export and import of goods, has been a reason for Russian aggression literally for centuries (think Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, The Crimean War, Stalin at Yalta and the agreement to part out control of parts of Europe post WWII, etc).

However, you can consider it a part of China's good sense and the desire not to be at war any time soon that it has not been particularly accepting of Iran joining this little adventure any time soon. It is a sign of the real possibility of war with Iran that China has been quietly opposing Iran as more than an "observer" to the SCO.

When a country joins such an organization it doesn't do so in anticipation of going to war within a year or so. It is for deterrence, not because a country is looking for war. Iran, one might be able to argue, is already in a "proxy war" and is definitely making "war noises". China likes Iran's energy resources a lot, but not enough to go to war today. They still don't have a significant navy. That is still a real impediment to any "expeditionary" force or "offensive" war.

-Kat