US military in decline, threats from China ‘formidable,’ report says
- Thread starter beijingwalker
- Start date
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
you know what will the US do if and when they were declining??
They will transfer just about everything to India so you can F with China and become a superpower, so you aren't really wrong there, the moment US Military is declining is the moment India most likely to become a superpower..
Novus ordu seclorum
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 30, 2021
- Messages
- 3,464
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Muslim countries are not examples. They commit human rights crimes themselves. India is not example either. Not all of the West is. France is almost at the level of China. No single country is a model of human rights. Some are better than others, some are horrible.
Kyusuibu Honbu
BANNED
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 15,305
- Reaction score
- -21
- Country
- Location
More likely Japan or Russia will beat us to it
They have longer history of screwing China
My money is on Japan though, they have had more success
Bilal9
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2014
- Messages
- 26,569
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
To those who are holding out pom poms for the US, please read. I am saddened by all the nationalistic puffery, which is rooted in ignorance. We need to change tack and strategy. The way things are now, they ain't gonna fly....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A member of the US Army places an American flags on a grave at Arlington National Cemetery on May 25, 2017 in Arlington, Va. in preparation for Memorial Day. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images
Most Americans rightly believe that the U.S. military is the best and most formidable in the world. If that is correct, why, since the end of World War II, has the United States lost every war it started and failed every time it used force without just cause? Indeed, if the U.S. military was a sports team, it would land in the bottom divisions.
History makes this case. Fortunately, the United States prevailed in the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation. George H.W. Bush was masterful in the first Gulf War in 1991 and managing the collapse of the Soviet Union. But his predecessors and successors were not as successful.
John F. Kennedy presided over the doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and set in motion the Vietnam War. While many believe the Cuban Missile Crisis was a great victory, in fact, the Kennedy administration precipitated it with a massive defense buildup in 1961 that forced Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev to abandon his military reductions and place short-range nuclear missiles in Cuba to bypass American nuclear superiority.
Lyndon Johnson followed Kennedy into the Vietnam quagmire that led to over 58,000 dead Americans and possibly millions of Vietnamese based on the fallacious view that communism was monolithic and had to stopped there so it did not spread here. Burdened with Vietnam and a plan so secret it did not exist, it took Richard Nixon nearly five years to end that war. While his outreach to China was brilliant as was détente with Russia, Watergate destroyed his presidency.
Jimmy Carter was weak. The failed Desert One raid in 1980 to free 54 Americans held hostage in Tehran compounded the Vietnam malaise. While Ronald Reagan was seen to be tough, he did not bankrupt the Soviet Union in an arms race as it was the irrationality of the system and its brittleness that caused it’s fracturing. But he did send Marines into Beirut in 1983 and 241 died in the barracks bombing. At the same time, Reagan invaded Grenada in part to prevent the Soviets from building an air base and rescue American students at St. Georges Medical School. However, the airfield was being constructed by a British firm and had been part of a decades old plan to increase tourism. And the American commander in the field had told the White House that the students were in no danger.
While George H.W. Bush was arguably one of the most qualified presidents to hold office, he never got a second term. Bill Clinton took 78 days to force Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to end his murder of Kosovars. The conflict could have ended in hours had the use of ground forces been threatened.
After September 11th, George W. Bush believed that the world would be made much safer if democracy could be imposed on the Middle East. In Afghanistan, that turned into nation-building instead of hunting down and neutralizing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Sixteen years later, success is still illusive. It was, however, the objective of transforming the geostrategic landscape of the greater Middle East that induced the catastrophe that set the region ablaze.
Barack Obama wanted to end the bad war in Iraq and concentrate on the good one in Afghanistan. He wanted to threaten Syrian President Bashar al Assad and then do nothing. And he mistakenly thought bombing Libya to protect Benghazi from Muramar Qaddafi would end the violence. Instead, civil war consumed Libya after Qaddafi was overthrown and killed. And who knows what Donald Trump will do.
Three reasons that apply to presidents of both parties since Kennedy explain why our record in using force has been so poor. First, most new presidents are unprepared, unready, and not experienced enough for the rigors of their office. Second, each lacked good strategic judgment. Third, these deficiencies were exacerbated by profound lack of knowledge and understanding of the conditions in which force was to be used.
Both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were hugely uninformed on Vietnam and the massive strains between the Soviet Union and communist China. Before September 11th, few Americans knew the differences between Sunnis and Shias. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. And so it goes.
What to do about this is the subject of other columns. What is needed, however, is a brains-based approach to strategic thinking that recognizes that the 21st century cannot be engaged with 20th century concepts that are no longer relevant.
Still, unless the public finally recognizes that experience and competence are vital in our presidents and leaders, do not expect the future to differ from the recent past.
Dr. Harlan Ullman’s new book is Anatomy of Failure: Why America Loses Every War It Starts and is available at bookstores and Amazon. He can be reached at @Harlankullman on Twitter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why America Loses Every War It Starts
If the U.S. military was a sports team, it would land in the bottom divisions.
By Harlan Ullman
Most Americans rightly believe that the U.S. military is the best and most formidable in the world. If that is correct, why, since the end of World War II, has the United States lost every war it started and failed every time it used force without just cause? Indeed, if the U.S. military was a sports team, it would land in the bottom divisions.
History makes this case. Fortunately, the United States prevailed in the Cold War and the threat of nuclear annihilation. George H.W. Bush was masterful in the first Gulf War in 1991 and managing the collapse of the Soviet Union. But his predecessors and successors were not as successful.
John F. Kennedy presided over the doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and set in motion the Vietnam War. While many believe the Cuban Missile Crisis was a great victory, in fact, the Kennedy administration precipitated it with a massive defense buildup in 1961 that forced Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev to abandon his military reductions and place short-range nuclear missiles in Cuba to bypass American nuclear superiority.
Lyndon Johnson followed Kennedy into the Vietnam quagmire that led to over 58,000 dead Americans and possibly millions of Vietnamese based on the fallacious view that communism was monolithic and had to stopped there so it did not spread here. Burdened with Vietnam and a plan so secret it did not exist, it took Richard Nixon nearly five years to end that war. While his outreach to China was brilliant as was détente with Russia, Watergate destroyed his presidency.
Jimmy Carter was weak. The failed Desert One raid in 1980 to free 54 Americans held hostage in Tehran compounded the Vietnam malaise. While Ronald Reagan was seen to be tough, he did not bankrupt the Soviet Union in an arms race as it was the irrationality of the system and its brittleness that caused it’s fracturing. But he did send Marines into Beirut in 1983 and 241 died in the barracks bombing. At the same time, Reagan invaded Grenada in part to prevent the Soviets from building an air base and rescue American students at St. Georges Medical School. However, the airfield was being constructed by a British firm and had been part of a decades old plan to increase tourism. And the American commander in the field had told the White House that the students were in no danger.
While George H.W. Bush was arguably one of the most qualified presidents to hold office, he never got a second term. Bill Clinton took 78 days to force Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic to end his murder of Kosovars. The conflict could have ended in hours had the use of ground forces been threatened.
After September 11th, George W. Bush believed that the world would be made much safer if democracy could be imposed on the Middle East. In Afghanistan, that turned into nation-building instead of hunting down and neutralizing Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Sixteen years later, success is still illusive. It was, however, the objective of transforming the geostrategic landscape of the greater Middle East that induced the catastrophe that set the region ablaze.
Barack Obama wanted to end the bad war in Iraq and concentrate on the good one in Afghanistan. He wanted to threaten Syrian President Bashar al Assad and then do nothing. And he mistakenly thought bombing Libya to protect Benghazi from Muramar Qaddafi would end the violence. Instead, civil war consumed Libya after Qaddafi was overthrown and killed. And who knows what Donald Trump will do.
Three reasons that apply to presidents of both parties since Kennedy explain why our record in using force has been so poor. First, most new presidents are unprepared, unready, and not experienced enough for the rigors of their office. Second, each lacked good strategic judgment. Third, these deficiencies were exacerbated by profound lack of knowledge and understanding of the conditions in which force was to be used.
Both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations were hugely uninformed on Vietnam and the massive strains between the Soviet Union and communist China. Before September 11th, few Americans knew the differences between Sunnis and Shias. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. And so it goes.
What to do about this is the subject of other columns. What is needed, however, is a brains-based approach to strategic thinking that recognizes that the 21st century cannot be engaged with 20th century concepts that are no longer relevant.
Still, unless the public finally recognizes that experience and competence are vital in our presidents and leaders, do not expect the future to differ from the recent past.
Dr. Harlan Ullman’s new book is Anatomy of Failure: Why America Loses Every War It Starts and is available at bookstores and Amazon. He can be reached at @Harlankullman on Twitter.
TheSolution
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2021
- Messages
- 7,530
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
Those ports all serve strategic purposes if China were to go to war. Google the world's maritime choke points. Check the strait of Hormuz and it's proximity to Gwadar port. China is trying to increase the reliance other countries have on it economically and militarily (example: Pakistan) to force the country's support, and build influence in others, check Saudi Arabia.
It's focus is on the economy primarily as economic power translates to global influence and directly into military power (funding for R&D, military acquisitions). It's building strategic assets such as H-20 stealth intercontinental bomber, J-20 long-range stealth fighter, DF-21 hypersonic missiles, supposed PL-21 AWACS/Tanker killer, aircraft carriers, etc. Over time it's building its military capabilities quite well, both strategic and non-strategic, qualitatively and quantitively.
China is too smart to prematurely engage in a war with Taiwan while still building and securing sufficient economic and military might. It would first try peaceful methods before anything. China is an intelligent nation with an economic behemoth backing it up, developing at a rapid pace.
While western society debates intensely on which pronouns to use, the Chinese focus on practicality and real-world issues.
Chinese society is simply a cut-above any other.
Last edited:
jhungary
MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 19,295
- Reaction score
- 387
- Country
- Location
Russian after Ukraine? Heck no..
Japan is too soft, I don't see they will try to F with China unless they have another Hirohito or Tojo in my lifetime. Which is most likely never.
Goritoes
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2021
- Messages
- 6,952
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
China for at least next 3-4 decades will not have that influence where they can pressure a foreign country like Pakistan into submission to use their military bases in a future Conflict, they are far far from it. And again, The world fears and respect Power, Power that is displayed to the world, The world started fearing America when they obliterates Nagasaki and Hiroshima ( I don't support their use of Nukes ), And the world start lining up behind them when they dominate Europe through Marshall plan in rebuilding the EU after WW2, China has to show power not just on economical front but on Military front, so far they are all talks and threats which no real combat experience.
TheSolution
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2021
- Messages
- 7,530
- Reaction score
- 6
- Country
- Location
It will continue to wait it out as its economy and military grow.
The rapid expansion of China's military capabilities are a constant talking point in the West already.
COOKie LOOkie....
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 281
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
wake up. you wanna be amreeki. what shit are you smoking. US is stressing out dealing with north korea. Dont try to turn USA into godzilla.
The next 10 combined can eat US alive. be realistic .
Dont burst their bubble let them live in delusion.
Goritoes
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2021
- Messages
- 6,952
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
And so is America, they are growing equal pace if not faster. So the Gap will remain unless America suffers a major societal break down or some Calamity hits it.
Why would China pressure Pakistan to use its military bases, thats what US does all the time doesnt mean China will do it too, the West invaded, colonized, looted and exploited other countries in its development to become rich, is China following the West path in developing China now ?
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Article
