I HATE being right about bad stuff. Hope I'm not this time.

[arbusto_baboso]

Okay, back in the early '80's, I was predicting German reunification before the end of the 20th century. I had a college professor tell me, in so many words, that I was crazy. History proved me correct, even earlier than I thought it would.

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the debate over what to do with the "peace dividend", while others were basically wanting to reduce our military to a fraction of its Cold War strength, I had different ideas. "Go ahead and reduce our nuclear arsenal to bare bones," I told everyone, "and pare down the mechanized units severely, too." I maintained that our future wars would all be small, counter-insurgencies and anti-terror ops, for which conventional arms are ill-suited. I figured Desert Storm was an anomaly, which only fooled folks into believeing our wars of the future would be mechanized, set-piece affairs. I wanted to build up our Special Ops forces, and pay for it by cutting all other military forces way back.

The past few years, I've been shouting long and loud that we'd better start to worry about China. Especially since we give China favorable trade terms even despite her human rights record. I thought Clinton's move to rebuild the port at Cam Ranh Bay was the most brilliant stroke of foreign policy in his administration, and will in future provide necessary anchorages in the Pacific.

So, why the hell are we pulling much-needed garrison troops out of South Korea to bolster a stupid, unnecessary failed effort in Iraq? What message will this send to Peking? Are we just sending them an engraved invitation to roll their tanks on Seoul?

I'm worried that our ill-advised actions in South Korea, as part of an attempt to CYA for our ill-advised actions in Iraq will inadvertently start a major conflict with the only other nation on earth which could conceivably claim superpower status: China.

God, I'm worried. Such a clusterfuck. I hope to hell I'm wrong this time.

[Sequoia]

1. Well, Cassandra

maybe that's our Achilles heel. Or Trojan Horse?

[ContraBass Black]

2. We live in an age

when the wildest conspiracy theorists and doom sayers are correct. My own ridiculously dire predictions about the Iraq invasion have all been proven truth.

However, I still don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell.

[SoFlaJet]

3. I was the one

walking around my kitchen in the summer of 2001 saying I wouyldn't doubt they(Bush admin)would nuke US-then 9/11 happened.Do I believe the mihop?you better fuckin belive it

[arbusto_baboso]

5. But I'm not even talking conspiracy theory...

I'm just making (I think) sensible extrapolation of future happenings from current decisions.

It doesn't take an f-ing rocket scientist to see a possible showdown with China within the next 15 years, or even sooner. But then, it didn't take a rocket scientist to see an Iraqi occupation would eventually cost us as many lives as were lost on 911 (that was my initial prediction, and I'm sticking with it). Yet the Administration fuckwits did it anyway.

Do they even CARE about future consequences, or are they all just that damned dense?

[Tosca]

4. Don't worry about China rolling into S. Korea

Worry about China becoming an economic engine that will leave us in the dust. Oh, and throw Taiwan into the mix.

[stinkeefresh]

6. the culture of China-

I think they just want to be left alone. I mean, this a culture that built a wall you can see from space. Can't we just take the hint?

I'll give you television!
I'll give you eye's of blue!
I'll give you man who wants to rule the world!

But when I get excited,
my little China girl says:
baby, just you shut your mouth.
She says:
shhhhhhhh.

-David Bowie (on the topic of western/Chinese relations)

[Renew Deal]

7. I agree that China is a problem, but for a different reason.

I doubt that they will invade South Korea. That doesn't make sense. I am more worried about NK doing that. I think that this is a good time for China to invade Taiwan. We are short on troops and they are in the wrong places. This is a good opportunity for China to take back Taiwan. We promised to defend them, but how are we going to do that. Fighting China means major death and destruction for both sides and that's before Nukes are launched. There will be ICBM's flying all over.

[HereSince1628]

8. Well, this is

making an appeal that cannot obtain a whole lot of logical credibility, regardless of its possible veracity.

To gain our trust you suggest that you have made a number of prognostications that have come true. But your record is only your assertion. The predictions cannot be verified. Even if they are correct how can we assess them against the other, unstated, assertions that you made which might be entirely contradictory to these ( point being if you make enough assertions on all sides of every issue, some of them must be correct).

But as a matter of trying to consider the unknown through examining alternatives to see which "resonate" with available evidence, I would ask you...

Do you think that having American troops within the range of North Korean battlefield weapons (and possibly nuclear weapons) is really a good idea?

Don't you think that if N. Korea invades the south, or incinerates Seoul with an atomic weapon the US could, and would, still respond, regardless of not having 35,000 troops positioned on the DMZ?

I'm not denying that China is an impressive military and economic power. But I am unwilling to believe that the US needs forces positioned as a "tripwire" in Korea. That is a mistaken notion of having troops "leaning forward." No doubt we can spin up the internal navigation systems of hundreds of cruise missles in 72-96 hours in response to any N. Korean provocation.

[arbusto_baboso]

11. Well, of course, the veracity of my claims...

can't be verified on-line (nor can the PhD you claim in your profile, either), but why would I make-up any of these things?

Second, your comment about cruise missiles betrays a horrifying ignorance of military affairs. Missiles are excellent for blowing shit up. But only troops can take and hold ground. Don't make the mistake of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz in assuming that technology is the answer to every military question; it is not.

Finally, yes I do believe that American troops are useful forward positioned in South Korea. Containment has worked thus far, and any assumption that North Korea would lead off with nukes only buys into what we've been told about the madness of North Korea's leadership. And frankly, I just don't buy that.

[HereSince1628]

17. Actually the PhD in my profile CAN be verified. Contact me by PM

if you really want that I can arrange to send you a copy of the awarding of my degree. Can you provide similar third party verification of your 1980's prognostications?

But, without making this too personal, why would anyone make things up? Well, stated simply, to claim credibility. From your original post there is no way to know if your past prognostications are real, are based on psychic powers, special analytic ability, or dumb luck. In general, meaning nothing particular about you, the arguments of people who need to assert credibility usually lack it.

American troops currently in S. Korea are NOT holding ground. They are "pre-positioned." South Korea holds its own ground and many South Koreans would like to see US forces leave.

American forces in S. Korea are largely a legacy of the limited military capability of the 1950's, and as part of cold war strategic thinking... they contribute to a "necklace" of American bases around the communist menace which ran from Norway through Europe and Asia to the Aleutian Islands.

This obsolete thinking is included in the concept of "containment." That genius led me to service in the Vietnam fiasco via the "domino theory." IMHO all these "cold war" ideas played themselves out as geographic chess, checkers, or stratego which cost far too many eastern and western young people's lives and limbs.

With 10's of thousands of American forces in S. Korea, an attack from the north would certainly be expected to require thousands of dead Americans. This is the old "tripwire" thinking of the cold war. And true enough, any invading forces must neutralize American forces for any successful attack from the north. But, at the present time, the force to be neutralized includes American missile forces, airborne and seaborne, which can threaten N.Korea from various locations in the western Pacific and Indian Ocean. Locations which are effective as deterrents and retaliatory forces but which are much less vulnerable to pre-emptive "neutralization" by N. Korea whether by nuclear or more conventional means. Failure to understand _that_ is failure to understand the logic (perhaps illogic) of the strategic realignment of current American forces.

True enough if war broke out on the Korean peninsula ground forces would ultimately be required to sort out the situation on the ground and establish some sort of order. Perhaps your experience, like mine, is as a "ground pounder." That may make you very sensitive to this final role of ground control. But the priority issue isn't "after the fact" control, it is choosing and accomplishing avoidance of an accursed war in the first place.

[GumboYaYa]

9. Arbusto, that is not a farout opinion as far as I'm concerned.

I am very concerned that the implosion of Saudi Arabia will bring the ongoing global struggle between the West and China for control of resources to a violent head. I read Putin's statements of support for GWB from last week as Putin lining up to ally with the West in that struggle.

[havocmom]

10. And then there is the thrist for oil

Isn't China the #2 oil gulpping nation, second only to the US?

Oil and water will be the critical resources. Look to where the oil is and be afraid for the poor people there as the giants of the world carve them up.

[Donkeyboy75]

12. U.S. and China will be clashing over oil soon.

And it could get ugly. The majority of the population in both countries has shown that they will support "their country" no matter what. Military action could be justified to the populace.

:scared:

[ronatchig]

13. While facing

a unified Islamic State if some very stupid arrogant people aren't very careful. That is a very real concern at this point for me. Will I live to see the reemergence of the Peacock Throne with a fundamental Islamist astride it.
Another thing that concerns me is that by Bush's actions in Asia will he re-awaken militarism in Japan. A very dower scenario im ho.

[Donkeyboy75]

14. I have the same fear.

Militarism has already stirred there.

[kymar57]

15. Agreed arbusto

I've felt China is the elephant in the living room everybody seems to want to ignore.

[Realityhack]

16. Whats the diffrence?

Dont want to sound like Bush but what is the diffrence if we have a 10k or 1k blown up if they invade SK. Either way it is not enough to actualy slow an atack much. They are a "trip wire" force. If China thinks we might get involved in the conflict what is the benifit for them. Endless bombing the posibility of nuclear confrontation. True cruse missiles cant hold ground but they DO f up infistructure real good. Look what we did to Iraq in the first gulf war.

China isnt crazy. Unless their is a benifit payoff with virtualy no cost they wont do anything.

Also keep in mind that they do kind of like that trade status. No US shipps attempting blockades etc. They will grow a LOT economicaly before they ever chalenge us militarily.

[scarletlib]

18. chinese history not generally interventionist

After China consolidated its nation in the pre-christian era it showed no interest in attacking and expanding its empire. Witness the Great Wall built to keep people out. For hundreds of years China was far more advanced in every area than the west. They could have conquered the entire known world at the time but chose not to.

Even in this century I think if they had really wanted to they could have moved into other countries. They have the millions of men to be able to do it even if they are low-tech.

I think our greatest worry from China is simply its great size in population. If it continues its economic growth the competition for resources will be the issue.

[Geo55]

19. competition for resources will be the issue.

Yep....they've had no population control (like us ) an' when the oil dipstick reads low an' the water bucket comes up half empty....
Georgie may get his fondest desire.