China's involvement in Afghanistan?

[Pocketman]

Does it make sense for the U.S. to continue borrowing money from China to keep China's neighbor in check? China does not have much experience in peace keeping, and as the article points out, past military interventions have not been successful.

Why China is likely to get more involved in Afghanistan - CSMonitor.com

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Except for their brief tiff with Vietnam in the 70s, the Chinese are more used to providing insurgents with weapons and training than they are fighting on a battlefield themselves. Considering their attempts to bully their western pacific neighbors, maybe the Chinese government is thinking about getting some actual battlefield experience for their army before they have to go up against the Russians again.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Except for their brief tiff with Vietnam in the 70s, the Chinese are more used to providing insurgents with weapons and training than they are fighting on a battlefield themselves. Considering their attempts to bully their western pacific neighbors, maybe the Chinese government is thinking about getting some actual battlefield experience for their army before they have to go up against the Russians again.

Who knows? Maybe they will make us an offer to do it for them in exchange for erasure of part of the debt?

 

[Goodcat]

Who knows? Maybe they will make us an offer to do it for them in exchange for erasure of part of the debt?

Thought provoking, no?

 

[KLB]

Thought provoking, no?

Not for me. Selling the lives of our soldiers to pay off part of our national debt is not a good option. Let the Chinese have the whole headache. If they want to pay for soldiers they can hire mercenaries.

 

[CarmelHP]

Except for their brief tiff with Vietnam in the 70s, the Chinese are more used to providing insurgents with weapons and training than they are fighting on a battlefield themselves. Considering their attempts to bully their western pacific neighbors, maybe the Chinese government is thinking about getting some actual battlefield experience for their army before they have to go up against the Russians again.

There was Korea, of course.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There was Korea, of course.

I'm an "old guy" now, but Chinese participation in the Korean War predates even my Vietnam Era experience. The Russians have all sorts of current combat-experienced troops via their current entanglement in Chechnya and we have a whole new generation of troops with extensive combat experience via Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the private-equivalents of the last Chinese adventure into Vietnam in the late 70s are long past military service age by now. Unless they've been clandestinely fighting the Russians in Manchuria or providing troops to the jihadis (unlikely), they don't have any troops with combat experience - internal policing experience, yes, combat, no. While "quantity has a quality all its own", nothing substitutes for combat experience when you're planning/executing a war.

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm an "old guy" now, but Chinese participation in the Korean War predates even my Vietnam Era experience. The Russians have all sorts of current combat-experienced troops via their current entanglement in Chechnya and we have a whole new generation of troops with extensive combat experience via Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the private-equivalents of the last Chinese adventure into Vietnam in the late 70s are long past military service age by now. Unless they've been clandestinely fighting the Russians in Manchuria or providing troops to the jihadis (unlikely), they don't have any troops with combat experience - internal policing experience, yes, combat, no. While "quantity has a quality all its own", nothing substitutes for combat experience when you're planning/executing a war.

What extensive combat experience did our guys have when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Did it stop us?

 

[cobber]

And India.

China's not really into the overseas military thing like we are. They'll spread influence where they can economically or diplomatically. They'll try to intimidate competitors for South China Sea oil, or the governments in Taiwan or Japan.

But they're very unlikely to stage any Desert Storm ops against Mutha Russia, Tom Clancey fantasies notwithstanding.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

China's not really into the overseas military thing like we are.

You mean other than the Republic of China invasion plans that they redraw every month?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Not for me. Selling the lives of our soldiers to pay off part of our national debt is not a good option. Let the Chinese have the whole headache. If they want to pay for soldiers they can hire mercenaries.

Please note that I did not endorse the idea. I would simply not be surprised to see it introduced.

 

[PINski1015]

But they're very unlikely to stage any Desert Storm ops against Mutha Russia, Tom Clancey fantasies notwithstanding.

The bear and the dragon.

 

[CombatRex]

I think the article totally missed what China is up to. Just ask what is China going around the word trying to get its hands on so they can control them, and what does Afghanistan have that nobody, at least in great amounts is bringing out. Then read this article.

Afghanistan Holds Enormous Bounty of Rare Earths, Minerals: Scientific American

China is bent on controlling as many raw minerals world wide as possible, for leverage and for it's own economic and weapons development.

 

[Pocketman]

I think the article totally missed what China is up to. Just ask what is China going around the word trying to get its hands on so they can control them, and what does Afghanistan have that nobody, at least in great amounts is bringing out. Then read this article.

Afghanistan Holds Enormous Bounty of Rare Earths, Minerals: Scientific American

China is bent on controlling as many raw minerals world wide as possible, for leverage and for it's own economic and weapons development.

Not unlike what Japan did prior to WWII.

 

[Project972]

welcome to drone usa.votedaffy duck as write in. semper fi

 

[cobber]

You mean other than the Republic of China invasion plans that they redraw every month?

Didn't happen in 1949, and in 1950 the 7th Fleet moved in.

I'm sure we have plans to invade Cuba someplace. Whoops! Already happened, my bad...

I think the article totally missed what China is up to.
China is bent on controlling as many raw minerals world wide as possible, for leverage and for it's own economic and weapons development.

Um. Sounds like something we might try to do as well. If our policy makers had had the foresight to realize that rare earths were an economic chokepoint...

 

[cobber]

The bear and the dragon.

That was a truly pathetic offering from Clancey. He should have been embarrassed to have his name on the cover, but if it sells... It was painfully obvious he had no idea what contemporary China is like, his depictions were straight out of 1968. Or the 1930s, circa Buck Rogers and Ming the Merciless.


I bought a copy of this sad novel in Guangzhou, China.


Strange how Clancey did not address Chinese anti-sat or cyber warfare. And boy did the Russians come off like nice guys, just like Texans. Please.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What extensive combat experience did our guys have when we went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Did it stop us?

Can't speak to Afghanistan because that was largely a SOCOM operation, but the guys who went into Iraq the first time had experience in Bosnia and some had experience in Panama. In 2003, the planners had had experience going into Iraq the first time and there was a pretty good leavening of troops who'd been there the first time. Does that make a difference? It seems to; the Germans handed us our butts in North Africa until we gained battle experience, but we'd caught up by the end of the war. When the Korean War came around, the only reason US troops got pushed back to Pusan was the relative numbers of North Koreans they were facing. My point to all this is that troops and troop leaders with combat experience tend to not make the same kinds of mistakes that even well-trained neophytes make. That can make a difference in a battle, if not in a prolonged war.

Added: While there is always a danger for planners to try to "fight the last war", battlefield experience helps smooth out some of the more difficult issues facing a field army; e.g. logistics management. A plus with the Afghan campaign, in my view, is that the military is discovering the limitations of the intermediate cartridge that worked pretty well in Vietnam and in the close-quarter-battlefield that was primarily seen in the Iraqi occupation, but seems a tad inadequate at the longer ranges involved in mountainous terrain.

 

[CarmelHP]

Can't speak to Afghanistan because that was largely a SOCOM operation, but the guys who went into Iraq the first time had experience in Bosnia and some had experience in Panama. In 2003, the planners had had experience going into Iraq the first time and there was a pretty good leavening of troops who'd been there the first time. Does that make a difference?

What's that add up to, about a week, at the most?

It seems to; the Germans handed us our butts in North Africa until we gained battle experience, but we'd caught up by the end of the war.

Not quite the same, is it?

When the Korean War came around, the only reason US troops got pushed back to Pusan was the relative numbers of [STRIKE]North Koreans[/STRIKE] Chinese they were facing. My point to all this is that troops and troop leaders with combat experience tend to not make the same kinds of mistakes that even well-trained neophytes make. That can make a difference in a battle, if not in a prolonged war.

Fixed it.

Added: While there is always a danger for planners to try to "fight the last war", battlefield experience helps smooth out some of the more difficult issues facing a field army; e.g. logistics management. A plus with the Afghan campaign, in my view, is that the military is discovering the limitations of the intermediate cartridge that worked pretty well in Vietnam and in the close-quarter-battlefield that was primarily seen in the Iraqi occupation, but seems a tad inadequate at the longer ranges involved in mountainous terrain.

The U.S. military has a bad habit of wanting a single platform to be all things to all people.