Bogged down in Iraq

[tex]

Why are we bogged down so bad in Iraq. Instead of occupying the country and installing control the bad guys are hitting our boys at will.

If we can’t saddle and break a tiny bucking bronco like Iraq how are we going to tangle with and win against raging bull countries like Russia and/or China if they decide to engage us?

Posted by George Paine

What happens if today, or tomorrow, the United States is attacked again? What happens if an actual nation-state, with an actual military, decides that the United States is vulnerable and decides to attack us?

It's almost unimaginable. But it could happen. September 11 was unimaginable. If you think about it, a Chinese attack on Taiwan or a North Korean attack across the DMZ really isn't as unimaginable as we'd like to think. In fact one could say that such attacks are more imaginable than September 11 was on September 10.

The Chinese have been spending years building up their sealift capability. In 1996, when China tested a number of new missiles, the American press and American military establishment worried about an actual Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The People's Republic invading the Republic.

At the time the Chinese military did not have the sealift or airlift capability necessary to seize and hold on to Taiwan. This led Greg May, a scholar at the Nixon Institute, to refer to a "million man swim" when talking about a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

In 1999 Greg May wrote that "There is a very good possibility there will be some kind of military incident or crisis [between PRC and ROC]." But, he wrote, "China's military power is so far behind the United States that they will try to do something like they did in 1996... They will fall short of action that would trigger a US intervention."

At the moment it appears that China has not increased its sealift capability enough to invade Taiwan. In 2000, Kenneth Bacon said at the Department of Defense that "There has not been any significant change in [Chinese] amphibious capability."

All the way back in 2000, though, CIA Director George Tenet said that "although Beijing still lacks the air and sealift capability to successfully invade Taiwan... China has been increasing the size and sophistication of its forces arrayed along the Strait."

The fact is that an invasion of the ROC (Republic of China) by the PRC (People's Republic of China) is unlikely. But the PLAN (the People's Liberation Army/Navy) has been steadily increasing its sealift and airlift capabilities, and the PLA (People's Liberation Army) has been steadily modernizing.

It's possible that the Chinese military could seize Taiwan simply by initially seizing key air and sea ports and then moving troops in on converted cargo ships. China Defense.com noted quite a while ago that the PLAN was drafting cargo vessels into auxiliary military service, and even arming them.

As the PLA has been conducting its own Revolution in Military Affairs, Taiwan has been angering Beijing more and more. Taiwan continues to insist that communication between the PRC and ROC must be conducted in a manner of "state-to-state" relations. In the past this had led Beijing to respond with bellicose military threats and exercises.

The new leadership in Beijing looks reformist. Hu Jintao seems, at the moment, to be even friendlier to the West than Jiang Zemin.

But anything can happen. As a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Chinese now have more of an opportunity to invade Taiwan than ever before.

There are 37,000 American soldiers currently stationed in South Korea, mostly on the DMZ. Those soldiers could, possibly, be used to defend against a Chinese invasion of Taiwan but such a use is incredibly unlikely. This is, perhaps most importantly, because those troops need to stay in place to deter a North Korean invasion of the South.

There are an additional 48,000 US military personnel in Japan. These are the soldiers who would most likely be used to deter a Chinese invasion.

Imagine, if you will, the impossible: the forces of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea streaming across the DMZ into South Korea. It's not as impossible as you may think. The DPRK probably now has nuclear weapons. They have millions upon millions of men under arms. They have huge armored divisions. They often take potshots at the southern side of the dividing line between North and South.

The DMZ is, as President Clinton called it, the "scariest place on Earth." There are currently 37,000 American soldiers — and many more Suoth Korean soldiers — standing between the entire mass of the North Korean military and Seoul. Seoul itself, in fact, is within striking distance of North Korean artillery — the DPRK's Korean People's Army is believed to be capable of lobbing one million artillery shells into Seoul within 24 hours.

We could literally, even if the DPRK didn't have nuclear weapons, say goodbye to Seoul within a day. Forget about the 37,000 American soldiers — and probably the 400,000 South Korean soldiers — they'd likely be completely overrun by a massive KPA advance.

The American plan for dealing with such an invasion has generally been to have the 437,000 allied troops on the DMZ hold out as long as possible until reinforcements from Japan and the United States can arrive. Carrier battle groups and flights from air bases in Japan would provide air support to help the troops survive long enough for reinforcements.

But with so many American troops in Iraq, we may simply not have enough troops to take Korea back for months or longer. It takes time to mobilize National Guard and Reserve units. They wouldn't be ready in time to spell the troops that had been guarding the DMZ.

Ultimately, the US military has to face the fact that it cannot deter the likes of China and the DPRK like it could before the invasion of Iraq. We already have headlines in Government Executive Magazine which read "Army troops, budget stretched to the limit".

There was a time when the Department of Defense claimed it could conduct two Gulf War-sized regional wars simultaneously. Those days are obviously gone. The occupation of Iraq is taking all the United States military has to give.

The fact that the American military is so committed right now in Iraq poses a security problem for the rest of the world. Places where America may before have intervened in — from Taiwan to the Korean Peninsula to Georgia to the Balkans — now seem more out of reach than ever before. Foes of America, leaders who may once have worried about American or NATO bombing campaigns or military interventions probably worry much less than they once did.

The neoconservatives who pushed, pulled and prodded America into the invasion of Iraq promised Pax Americana — world peace backed up by awesome American power.

They apparently forgot to look at the American military before promising Pax Americana. The United States is no longer the great tiger it once was. Now, throughout the world, it lacks much of the credibility it once had. I can just see Slobodan Milosevich today, being threatened with NATO intervention. "What are you going to do, pull out of Iraq?" he would ask.

I'm not saying that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is going to invade the Republic of Korea. I'm not saying the People's Republic of China is going to invade the Republic of China. I'm not saying the Balkans are going to explode again. I'm not saying that there's going to be a coup in Georgia.

I am saying, though, that we are no longer as prepared for those contingencies as we once were. Our active duty forces are stretched nearly to the limit. If Old Europe doesn't help reinforce our troops in Iraq we will probably need to call up entire units of the National Guard and Reserves to reinforce our commitment to Iraq.

We still do have our aircraft carrier fleet. But we just can't project power in quite the same way we could before Iraq. President Theodore Roosevelt once said that America should "speak softly and carry a big stick". Today, with Bush in the White House and American troops occupying Iraq, America speaks loudly and carries a small stick. And that should scare you.

[Sarge]

If only this moron actually knew what he was talking about. We can still kick the living sh!t out of anyone that feels froggy enough to jump.

He does do a good job of outlining the countries that are in line against us and wondering whether they should start something with us. It would be the biggest and most probably the last mistake they ever made.

[RyansRangers]

hooah sarge!!

[tex]

ne·o·con·serv·a·tism: moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by

former liberals or socialists.

I wonder who were "the neoconservatives who pushed, pulled and prodded America into the invasion of Iraq". What a buffoon. As I recall America was at the forefront and needed no pushing. The President worked hard to get it done and we are better off for it today.

Something had to be done to defuse the Middle East powder keg before it blew. We (America) have the legitimate right to maintain and insure access to the oil resources found there because the global economy depends on it. Lets see those factions intent on harming us start something now that our troops are on the ground in that region. Even old Momar Kadaffi wants to play ball now.