Beijing’s Doctrine on the Conduct of “Irregular Forms of Warfare”

[Jedburgh]

Testimony to the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, 29 Mar 07:

Asymmetric Military Aspirations and Capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army of the People’s Republic of China (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2007hearings/written_testimonies/07_03_29_30wrts/07_03_29_30_schneider_statement.pdf)

...Chinese aspirations to acquire capabilities which focus on US civil and military vulnerabilities are illustrated by the PLA’s investment in integrated network electronic warfare and space/counter-space capabilities.

The PLA has a large infrastructure that is focused on exploiting and attacking computer networks that will diminish the need to attack many targets by kinetic means or will magnify the effectiveness of kinetic attacks. China’s concept involves a fusion of computer network attack and exploitation with electronic warfare. Computer network attacks are a good illustration of asymmetric capabilities China has been developing to leverage its investment in traditional military capabilities....
China’s Military Modernization and its Impact on the United States and the Asia-Pacific (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2007hearings/written_testimonies/07_03_29_30wrts/07_03_29_30_reveron_statement.pdf)

...China does not want to confront the United States or be perceived as a threat, peer competitor, or rival of the United States. China needs the United States to continue its economic growth to meet the needs of its population. To counteract both real and imagined dangers of itself, China refutes threat claims and builds coalitions within the developing world to support it. I expect this behavior to continue and only to be effectively countered by local reactions to China’s policies. The answer lies not in a more aggressive US foreign policy, but in allowing China’s aggressiveness to alienate those countries it hopes to court....
Beijing, Unrestricted Warfare, and Threat Potentials (http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2007hearings/written_testimonies/07_03_29_30wrts/07_03_29_30_bunker_statement.pdf)

...Based on the current state of sophistication, skill sets, and culture of the People’s Liberation Army, the “what if” scenarios posed by the Commission concerning actual methods of attack against the US are not likely to be conducted via Beijing’s own military. Beijing’s military never had a monopoly on Unrestricted Warfare and, in fact, may never get really good at it....

[selil]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/internet/06/13/china.cyberspace.reut/index.html


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- China is seeking to unseat the United States as the dominant power in cyberspace, a U.S. Air Force general leading a new push in this area said Wednesday.

"They're the only nation that has been quite that blatant about saying, 'We're looking to do that,"' 8th Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Robert Elder told reporters.

Elder is to head a new three-star cyber command being set up at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, already home to about 25,000 military personnel involved in everything from electronic warfare to network defense.

The command's focus is to control the cyber domain, critical to everything from communications to surveillance to infrastructure security.

"We have peer competitors right now in terms of doing computer network attack ... and I believe we're going to be able to ratchet up our capability," Elder said. "We're going to go way ahead."

The Defense Department said in its annual report on China's military power last month that China regarded computer network operations -- attacks, defense and exploitation -- as critical to achieving "electromagnetic dominance" early in a conflict.

China's People's Liberation Army has established information warfare units to develop viruses to attack enemy computer systems and networks, the Pentagon said.

China also was investing in electronic countermeasures and defenses against electronic attack, including infrared decoys, angle reflectors and false-target generators, it said.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry rejected the U.S. report as "brutal interference" in China's internal affairs and insisted Beijing's military preparations were purely defensive.

Elder described the bulk of current alleged Chinese cyber-operations as industrial espionage aimed at stealing trade secrets to save years of high-tech development.

He attributed the espionage to a mix of criminals, hackers and "nation-state" forces. Virtually all potential U.S. foes also were scanning U.S. networks for trade and defense secrets, he added.

"Everyone but North Korea," he said. "We've concluded that there must be only one laptop in all of North Korea -- and that guy's not allowed to scan overseas networks," Elder said.

In October, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff defined cyberspace as "characterized by the use of electronics and the electromagnetic spectrum to store, modify, and exchange data via networked systems and associated physical infrastructures."

The definition is broad enough to cover far more than merely defending or attacking computer networks. Other concerns include remotely detonated roadside bombs in Iraq, interference with Global Positioning Satellites and satellite communications, Internet financial transactions by adversaries, and radar and navigational jamming.



Unfortunately most people equate war to dropping bombs or other delivered by aerial threats. If it doesn't go boom and splatter collateral damage around the countryside it can't be considered combat or war.

I guess SEALS, and other black OP's types sneaking and peeking at the enemy aren't engaged in war efforts either. In an effort to geekify computers and marginalize the threats of cyber warfare most people are missing that real cyber warfare is about espionage, intelligence gathering, and probing enemy weaknesses.

Cyber warfare is NOT about defacing political opponents websites or stealing credit card numbers. In joking about North Korea the General misses the point that they DON'T HAVE TO BE IN NORTH KOREA to engage you. The enemy can be anywhere or appear to be everywhere. Argh.

[Rob Thornton]

Unfortunately most people equate war to dropping bombs or other delivered by aerial threats. If it doesn't go boom and splatter collateral damage around the countryside it can't be considered combat or war.
You know, it makes you wonder how things are connected though. There was another article in the E-bird about support to terrorist in the form of overt Chinese Arms sales. It did not say if this was a state sponsored sale or if it was private sales - I think it makes a diff because Chinese legal restrictions and enforcement of those restrictions may not be robust enough to prevent it.

The reason I bring it up is because you might be able to make a good private business in the types of support/warfare Sam described. This goes to our discussion on the Robb thread about inividuals - what about an individual who can employ masses of individuals (geographcally seperated) through the Internet to perform hacking, spammng, denial of service, monitoring, etc. It kind of makes that individual like an arms dealer and a hired gun. It could be a very lucrative business, and one where the state might have little influence (or wish to curb it). Oo consider that while a state may train this skill, the user may be looking to do some free lance collaboration for extra $$$ - look t how many green suiters leve the service for PMCs.

I'm not sure a service ( or even a govt) can counter much in that regard unless it has the means and will to do so. They might be able to protect cyber infrastrucutre which sort of seems more defense oriented, while leaving the cyber-mercenaries to continue offensive actions. Hard to respond to that without maybe crossing some political boundaries.

It may not be killing someone, but collection of information that is analyzed and turned into Intel as a service and then rapidly sent in digits to the person paying for those services can certainly make a difference in how bullets and bombs are employed effectively.

[selil]

Rob,

Take it to a real world hypothetical situation. Let's say I'm Toyota and I want to produce the number one most sold truck in North America. As Toyota I investigate Ford's supply chain and see that two or three components will stop their just in time inventory supplied mass production assembly line at the Ford truck plant for maybe two weeks. Total cost to buy up the rubber stoppers and doo dads for two weeks stoppage and create a sourcing shortage a whopping $10K. We use computers to allow a view into the inner workings of the Ford plant. We then modify or adapt the production capacity expectations at the rubber stoppers and doo dads plant moving some zero's around inside their very open customer relationship management system. Total skill level is approaching accounting not computer expertise. It's the way of thinking that is important and the evaluation of systemic and harmonic impacts to the environment. That two week stoppage has a huge harmonic motion though the market place. Two weeks stoppage turns into four months shortage.

Oh well, from my experience nobody is listening anyways.

[Lastdingo]

Rob,

Take it to a real world hypothetical situation. Let's say I'm Toyota and I want to produce the number one most sold truck in North America. As Toyota I investigate Ford's supply chain and see that two or three components will stop their just in time inventory supplied mass production assembly line at the Ford truck plant for maybe two weeks. Total cost to buy up the rubber stoppers and doo dads for two weeks stoppage and create a sourcing shortage a whopping $10K. We use computers to allow a view into the inner workings of the Ford plant. We then modify or adapt the production capacity expectations at the rubber stoppers and doo dads plant moving some zero's around inside their very open customer relationship management system. Total skill level is approaching accounting not computer expertise. It's the way of thinking that is important and the evaluation of systemic and harmonic impacts to the environment. That two week stoppage has a huge harmonic motion though the market place. Two weeks stoppage turns into four months shortage.

Oh well, from my experience nobody is listening anyways.


The industries aren't as national as you seem to believe.

Lots of parts in cars are imported, even in Japanese cars. If for example Toyota would start such a campaign, it would not only backfire in customer opinion but also by 'accidental' supply stops that are critical to Toyota's own production in U.S. and European factories.

[selil]

Actually Lastdingo,

It doesn't really matter what the nationalism of the example nor did I expect it to be taken literally. It only takes a few moments to find that many "foreign" OEM's are built in the United States, and many domestics are made in other countries.

Of course there is the assumption in your statement that anybody would realize that somebody was behind the stoppage. That at any level of normal analysis anybody would see the work stoppage as anything but an unforseen kink in the supply chain.

[tequila]

This should be good for a month of China hysteria:

Chinese military hacked into Pentagon (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9dba9ba2-5a3b-11dc-9bcd-0000779fd2ac.html)- Financial Times, 3 Sep.



The Chinese military hacked into a Pentagon computer network in June in the most successful cyber attack on the US defence department, say American ­officials.

The Pentagon acknowledged shutting down part of a computer system serving the office of Robert Gates, defence secretary, but declined to say who it believed was behind the attack.


Current and former officials have told the Financial Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the People’s Liberation Army.

One senior US official said the Pentagon had pinpointed the exact origins of the attack. Another person familiar with the event said there was a “very high level of confidence...trending towards total certainty” that the PLA was responsible. The defence ministry in Beijing declined to comment on Monday ...

[Stan]

Jeez, and I thought Estonia was gettin' it's butt kicked :wry:


The Pentagon is still investigating how much data was downloaded, but one person with knowledge of the attack said most of the information was probably “unclassified”. He said the event had forced officials to reconsider the kind of information they send over unsecured e-mail systems.

[selil]

More on the China information warfare campaign. Not kinetic but definitely asymmetric.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7097296.stm



Chinese espionage poses "the single greatest risk" to the security of US technology, a panel has told Congress.

China is pursuing new technology "aggressively", it says, legitimately through research and business deals and illegally through industrial espionage.

China has also "embraced destructive warfare techniques", the report says, enabling it to carry out cyber attacks on other countries' infrastructure.

A foreign ministry spokesman in Beijing denied any spying activities by China.

"China and the US have a fundamental common interest in promoting sound and rapid development," said Liu Jianchao, quoted by the Associated Press news agency.

More at link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7097296.stm)

[Norfolk]

PRC intelligence, espionage, IO, and the like in many Western countries, the U.S. in particular, reached a critical level at least a decade-and-a-half ago, perhaps even as far back as nearly 20 years ago. This intelligence campaign has, over the 15-20 years since it more or less hit its stride (after a testing of the waters and subsequentl build-up of about the same length of time), reaped rewards that would have made the old KGB and GRU green with envy over much the same time period.

Critical, not just significant, information, technology, intelligence, etc., has come into PRC possession. Similarly, PRC use of, and infiltration into, the political lobby system has been strikingly effective in influencing some U.S. Government policy-making or execution. The Chinese Government has the U.S. Government reasonably-well "framed" if you will in many respects; the U.S. Government, by contrast, is not unaware of this, but its own internal divisions (successfully and subtly exploited to a certain extent by the PRC) impede its ability to fully grasp the scale of the problem and especially to deal effectively with it.

The PRC Government does not want to become an enemy of the U.S. Government any more than the U.S. wishes to become an enemy of China. Chinese strategic manoeuvering, of both its own position and that of the U.S., is of course in order for the former to gain a position of relative advantage over the latter; fortunately the PRC does not conceive of its strategic competition with the U.S. as necessarily a relationship of hostility.

But Chinese strategic miscalculation and American strategic erraticism can lead to serious misunderstandings. PRC intelligence penetration of the U.S. on the scope and scale as it presently exists (so far as we know) does not meet with the same equanimity on the U.S. side (which tends to see such as an attack) as it does on the PRC side (which tends to see the same as just a part of diplomacy - a non-violent jockeying for advantage).

[JeffC]

I'm not sure a service ( or even a govt) can counter much in that regard unless it has the means and will to do so. They might be able to protect cyber infrastrucutre which sort of seems more defense oriented, while leaving the cyber-mercenaries to continue offensive actions. Hard to respond to that without maybe crossing some political boundaries.

It may not be killing someone, but collection of information that is analyzed and turned into Intel as a service and then rapidly sent in digits to the person paying for those services can certainly make a difference in how bullets and bombs are employed effectively.

There's an unofficial sense among some AI researchers I know that the 8th Air Force is developing an electronic "scortched earth" cyber weapon that will flow through a distributed network, burning out each node. Of course, no one will admit it exists.

[selil]

There's an unofficial sense among some AI researchers I know that the 8th Air Force is developing an electronic "scortched earth" cyber weapon that will flow through a distributed network, burning out each node. Of course, no one will admit it exists.



A copper tube stuffed with explosives has that effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator).

[slapout9]

There's an unofficial sense among some AI researchers I know that the 8th Air Force is developing an electronic "scortched earth" cyber weapon that will flow through a distributed network, burning out each node. Of course, no one will admit it exists.



I would say that they are developing a cyber weapon that will allow them to control the Network as opposed to burning it up. This is the part of EBO theory that is not talked about much. The ultimate goal is to control the enemies COG's (systems) instead of blowing them up and then having to pay for it. Its more like an electronic insurgency.

[selil]

Most of the cyber effects based operations are fairly "secret". Though the DOD and the TLA's agencies all have substantial work being done on the subject. A lot of it comes from the opposite end of the spectrum in the enthusiast community. Academia has no interest and anything that could be considered offensive is just that. They sure do like the money though.

[JeffC]

Most of the cyber effects based operations are fairly "secret". Though the DOD and the TLA's agencies all have substantial work being done on the subject. A lot of it comes from the opposite end of the spectrum in the enthusiast community. Academia has no interest and anything that could be considered offensive is just that. They sure do like the money though.

And it's not really all that practical. If it exists, it's probably one of those things that you want to have but not use. Today, with the ability to hide and control Bots inside networks, why destroy anything? All you need is a laptop and access to the network.

[JeffC]

10,000 Methods Combined as One: Chinese Hackers and Unrestricted Warfare: (http://idolator.typepad.com/intelfusion/2007/12/10000-methods-c.html)

I reference the Chinese military text "Unrestricted Warfare", a newly released academic study "Studying Malicious Websites and the Underground
Economy on the Chinese Web" and a DOD investigative report "Red Storm Rising" to show the relationship between the "Red Hacker" unions and the PLA, and how thousands of these youths are hacking networks pretty much anywhere that they want, all in the name of the People's Republic of China and the all-mighty Yuan.

[MattC86]

One thing I'm completely clueless about (because 1 - I know nothing of computers and 2 - I'm sure much of it is classified) is the state of DoD computer security. It's become assumed that cyberwar would be a major part of a US/PRC conflict (see Bush and O'Hanlon's book A War Like No Otheror any number of others), but no one except Dick Clarke has said anything about the state of US computer/cybersecurity. Isn't the USAF supposedly in charge of this stuff?

Matt

[JeffC]

One thing I'm completely clueless about (because 1 - I know nothing of computers and 2 - I'm sure much of it is classified) is the state of DoD computer security. It's become assumed that cyberwar would be a major part of a US/PRC conflict (see Bush and O'Hanlon's book A War Like No Otheror any number of others), but no one except Dick Clarke has said anything about the state of US computer/cybersecurity. Isn't the USAF supposedly in charge of this stuff?

Matt

Not as far as I've read. The USAF is in charge of cyberspace as a warfighting domain. DHS has the overall responsibility for the U.S. network infrastructure, but everything you need to know about that fiasco can be gleaned from the following fact. The Chief Information Officer for DHS is a biologist, not a computer scientist.

Oh, and if the U.S. suffers a catastophic network failure, DHS has admitted that it has no recovery plan. Don't want to leave that detail out, either.

[selil]

Actually I believe the NSA and DHS is charged with the protection of all computer security for the nation. Subtle but important difference.

The EFS and cyber incident plan for the United States is "interesting" and I belive still FOUO.

[JeffC]

Actually I believe the NSA and DHS is charged with the protection of all computer security for the nation. Subtle but important difference.

If the NSA's responsibility is that widespread, then somebody needs to step up their game. :(



The EFS and cyber incident plan for the United States is "interesting" and I belive still FOUO.

Have you seen this?

http://idolator.typepad.com/intelfusion/2007/10/dhs-like-fema-i.html

[selil]

If the NSA's responsibility is that widespread, then somebody needs to step up their game. :(

Have you seen this?

http://idolator.typepad.com/intelfusion/2007/10/dhs-like-fema-i.html

Yeppers. I read the GAO reports and actually have a paper in process about it and a few other topics. I'm trying to ascertain if they really care. A few pundits are starting to talk about security as "alarmist". Do you ever read IEEE Privacy and Security?

[Stan]

An analysis of numerous cases leads to the conclusion that China has shifted its tactics in recruiting citizens of Western countries.


By ANDREI CHANG
HONG KONG, April 18 (UPI) (http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Analysis/2008/04/18/analysis_chinese_spies_in_western_cities/5452/) -- China's intelligence agency has reinforced its infiltration activities in Europe, North America, Japan and Russia in recent years.

Beijing has abandoned the traditional approach of ideological persuasion, turning instead to the use of blackmail, women and money -- quite similar to the practices employed by the former Soviet Union's KGB and the former East German Intelligence Agency. A series of "massage salon" incidents involving Japanese diplomats in Beijing and Shanghai are typical examples.

At the same time, the targets of recruitment by Chinese intelligence agents are switching from ethnic Chinese to local personnel of mainstream society who work in core government departments.

There is credible evidence that the large number of community organizations that have emerged in Chinese communities in the United States and Canada are actually receiving financial support from the Chinese embassies and consulates.

Then who do these people really work for? The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Canadian Intelligence Service might find the answer of interest.

Readers of this article can test this for themselves by obtaining the name card of a Chinese journalist or diplomat responsible for education, and calling the office of his or her media or institution in Beijing. After numerous such tests, experiences and observations, this author's conclusion is that the number of Chinese spies who work in the United States and Canada is much larger than the number who worked for the former Soviet KGB.

Much more at the link...

[orange dave]

Coming from an approach of studying Chinese philosophy, there are a couple of points that I consistently see military folks getting wrong about Unrestricted Warfare (http://www.cryptome.org/cuw.htm), the 1999 piece by two PLA colonels that predicted 9/11. One of the authors was a specialist in Chinese literature, and there are references to philosophy sprinkled throughout the text (one of the chapter names is a reference to Dao De Jing, Daoism's seminal work) so I think this angle is an important one.

1. One shouldn't take it only at a literal level. If you compare this to works like Mao Zedong's On Guerrilla Warfare, and Sun Zi's Art of War, there a couple different levels to it. Whereas you might be able to learn from On Guerrilla Warfare if you're a Communist, or Islamist, and anyone else, and ignore the overall ideological message, it would be hard to look at that work and totally ignore its connection to Communism. Likewise, The Art of War can be applied to a multitude of situations, but you won't understand it totally without also understanding its grounding in Daoism and Confucianism. There's been a lot of discussion about the connection between 9/11, along with cyber warfare and a few other relatively restricted topics, with Unrestricted Warfare. That's not wrong, but I think it misses the overall message of the work: the power that comes from being seen as having been oppressed. This was why Bin Laden was such a potent example. I suspect though, because of this larger point, this piece would have become an important work with or without 9/11 - all the more because of its subtlety.

2. Along those lines, being a political doctrine, this work has interesting things to say about Chinese intentions and strategy, not just tactics. The essence of Mao's piece was that China was in a weak position. You could say, in effect, it was an interpretation of Sun Zi for a specific situation. Now China is not as weak. It's clear from works like Unrestricted Warfare, as well as On Guerrilla Warfare that China sees its advantage in asymmetrical warfare. In that sense, nothing's changed - except that China's situation in the world has. This is where it gets a little speculative, but I think you can trace the roots of Unrestricted Warfare back to Sun Zi, as well as Mao Zedong, who would have said that you need to create the advantageous situation, even if it doesn't naturally exist. So the point is not just to use asymmetric warfare when necessary, but to keep yourself as the underdog, so that it asymmetric warfare will become necessary. This, in my opinion, is how China complains about American economic mismanagement, when it was also Chinese economic mismanagement that helped cause the financial crisis. That may have been part of the plan all along. China can justify taking actions that might make it financially worse off (along with the US), because of the political doctrine of 'underdogism.'

In general, I find that it's much more useful to study Chinese classics to understand contemporary China than it is to study the Soviet or Japanese systems. Political ideology, in the sense that we use the word (involving a reason why a particular set of rulers might be better for the citizens than any other set, and a specific set of policies, besides just 'everything that's good') was just a 'weapon' used by Mao. There's nothing fundamental about it in China.

[William F. Owen]

Mao was a student of Clausewitz, far more than he was Sun-Tzu, and the usefulness of Sun-Tzu very much depends on your understanding of what Bing-Fa actually means ("Soldiers Methods" or "Strategy". - Certainly not War)

If you've read Clausewitz, you can drop "Unrestricted Warfare" in the bin. I actually gave my copy away, as it took up valuable space on the shelf. The .pdf is good enough.

[orange dave]

the usefulness of Sun-Tzu very much depends on your understanding of what Bing-Fa actually means ("Soldiers Methods" or "Strategy". - Certainly not War)
Well, yes, my point exactly. The interesting part about Chinese strategy is that they often try to bundle the strategy and the propaganda - including sometimes the philosophy about how a country should be run - all up into one. By studying the strategy, you can get a more subtle sense of the logic behind the propaganda. The propaganda is important when you're thinking about questions like "would China sabotage its own financial interests to harm the US?" For any country to do such a thing, propaganda would have to be the central feature of the operation.

(BTW, Bing Fa doesn't mean "strategy." "Soldiers' methods" is a good literal translation. I believe originally it was just called Sun Zi, after the author, until somebody decided it needed a real name.)


If you've read Clausewitz, you can drop "Unrestricted Warfare" in the bin. I actually gave my copy away, as it took up valuable space on the shelf. The .pdf is good enough.
You read something like this as a primary document - in terms of what's missing, not just what's present. Whether or not it's useful for other situations as well is secondary. For instance, there's no mention of 'soft power' at all in Unrestricted Warfare, even though that would fit squarely into its logic of non-technology based power. One would guess, based on its track record and popularity, that UW has the ear of Chinese strategists, so you can make conclusions from there.

[William F. Owen]

BTW, Bing Fa doesn't mean "strategy." "Soldiers' methods" is a good literal translation. I believe originally it was just called Sun Zi, after the author, until somebody decided it needed a real name.

Well aware, the point is, in the context he writes, "Soldiers Methods" is explicitly "Strategy" - the use of force to attain a political goal. I former PLA Colonel, I met in London, assured me that no-one in the PLA ever refers to the book as the "The Art of War." - and that the Griffith translation has substantial errors. He recommended the RL Wing translation as being the most accurate.

[orange dave]

One more thing. As I mentioned earlier, asymmetric warfare is only a small part of UW, being just one of eight points mentioned in the conclusion. Another one of the eight is minimal consumption. This is important because, as I see it, it's North Korea's most important strategy against the US. I was wondering if there are any Western theorists that address this aspect of warfare - which is obviously more complicated than just describing it, because there are problems like how you sell these sorts of policies to the people, and so on. I'm asking because I don't know; I might be proven wrong on this point.

[William F. Owen]

One more thing. As I mentioned earlier, asymmetric warfare is only a small part of UW, being just one of eight points mentioned in the conclusion. Another one of the eight is minimal consumption. This is important because, as I see it, it's North Korea's most important strategy against the US.
What do you "asymmetric warfare?" and "UW?" I do not believe either of these descriptions are either accurate, true or useful.

As concerns "minimal consumption," would this more accurately described as "economy of force", as in the many western nations so-called "Principles of War." - another idea I do not buy into anyway.


I was wondering if there are any Western theorists that address this aspect of warfare - which is obviously more complicated than just describing it, because there are problems like how you sell these sorts of policies to the people, and so on. I'm asking because I don't know; I might be proven wrong on this point.
What aspect? Lots of people claim to have insights in Asymmetric Warfare and UW, but 99% are paper thin and melt like mist in sun, when subject to academic rigour.
Selling policies would not really be an area of warfare in my book. I think there a lot of people trying to make this all appear very complicated, because it makes them look smart and gets them consultancy.

Sorry if this is not answering the exam question, but as bear of small brain, I'm not sure I may have understood your question correctly.

[slapout9]

Selling policies would not really be an area of warfare in my book. I think there a lot of people trying to make this all appear very complicated, because it makes them look smart and gets them consultancy.



Small Wars quote of the week material:wry:

[RobSentse]

Read this Foreign Affairs article, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66773/george-j-gilboy-and-eric-heginbotham/chinas-dilemma and then read the PLA document from …. 1999!!
"Chinese Unrestricted Warfare" (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui)
www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf

Page 6 of this document says:

When people begin to lean toward and rejoice in the reduced use of military force to resolve conflicts, war will be reborn in another form and in another arena, becoming an instrument of enormous power in the hands of all those who harbour intentions of controlling other countries or regions.

Put this together with “The Tyranny of Metaphor” document http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/11/the_tyranny_of_metaphor

This document, a must read!, talks about three enduring illusions (mis)leading the USA White House policy (and maybe this is not an USA privilege), one of which:

A belief in the surefire effectiveness of military strength in containing opponents, whatever their ability to threaten the US.

Now have a look a the Chinese effort in Africa, in the Mediterranean countries (Greece, Italy) and in Afghanistan (analyze where this effort consists of, just read HOW China is influencing behavior)) and compare this with the current Western “non-comprehensive military solution”.

China is pumping a massive amount of money and support in the form of infrastructure like medical facilities into Afghanistan. The cooperation between China and Africa has grown with an enormous speed (for instance: building a huge road network in Kenya). China is helping the deteriorating Greek economy (China will double their 5 Billion trade with Greece in the coming 5 years and will support the extension of Greece harbor facilities).

“Cosco”, a Chinese company, has a close cooperation with the Greece Piraeus harbor and shows interest in the Thessaloniki harbor. China sees these harbors as the “gateway to Europe”. The economical gateway.
Italy and Turkey will be the next countries to be embraced by China’s economic support.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to analyze this all beginning with the Why question? Followed by Why and How “other powers” can “blend in”, including these steps as part of “their” own strategy? Why should “we” shape conditions to support the Chinese economic growth? How can this “strategy” be beneficial for “us”. Why?

Let´s have a look at the PLA document again, page 189:

All of these things are rendering more and more obsolete the idea of confining warfare to the military domain and of using the number of casualties as a means of the intensity of a war. Warfare is now escaping from the boundaries of bloody massacre, and exhibiting a trend towards low casualties, or even none at all, and yet high intensity. This is information warfare, financial warfare, trade warfare, and other entirely new forms of war, new areas opened up in the domain of warfare. In this sense, there is now no domain which warfare cannot use, and there is almost no domain which does not have warfare's offensive pattern.

In August Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao delivered a prominent speech warning that China’s economy and national modernization process would be jeopardized if the country failed to undertake systemic political reform.

Broadening the FA article I would suggest that now Europe and the United States should persist in seeking common ground on issues such as energy, global trade and finance, and regional security while continuing to reassure Beijing that the “West” does not oppose the growth of a peaceful China.

So, how to support China with their domestic political reform?

www.linkedin.com
www.scribd.com/amniat

[William F. Owen]

... and then read the PLA document from …. 1999!!
"Chinese Unrestricted Warfare" (Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House, February 1999, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui)
www.c4i.org/unrestricted.pdf

.....This document, a must read!,

It's a "why bother read?" IMO, it's very contestable and I really doubt the two authors had the appropriate levels of knowledge to write it. The whole thing reads like a paper written by students. I don't know many folks who take it seriously.

[Backwards Observer]

Here are some folks who take it seriously.


Are CHINA and the UNITED STATES headed for WAR?
Yes, say bestselling authors Jed Babbin (former deputy undersecretary of defense) and Edward Timperlake (veteran defense analyst) in this riveting new book that takes you from the latest developments in China’s quest to become a superpower to the possible battlefields of what might become World War III.

Babbin and Timperlake unveil China’s aggressive military buildup (more rapid than that of Nazi Germany before World War II) and expose how China is engaging in a new Cold War aimed at expanding its commercial and military reach at the expense of the United States. Babbin (a former Air Force JAG) and Timperlake (a former Marine fighter pilot) do more than offer expert analysis. In dramatic Clancy-esque style, they take you into the field with Navy SEALs and Air Force bomber pilots, invite you inside the war councils at the White House and the Pentagon, and peer within China’s own Politburo in an exciting—and all too likely—series of war scenarios.

In Showdown, Babbin and Timperlake reveal:

* The unholy alliance between Communist China and radical Islam—and a possible war over Middle Eastern oil
* How China is infiltrating Latin America—including oil-rich Venezuela—to create an anti-American axis
* How a Chinese attack on Taiwan could spark the biggest war in the Pacific since World War II
* The vulnerability of Japan and the United States to Chinese cyber-warfare
* The likelihood of a second Korean War . . . only this time, the madmen in North Korea have nuclear weapons

As Babbin and Timperlake make clear, China is the greatest—and most dangerously ignored—threat to America’s national security. If America does not deter China’s aggressive ambitions, the result could be global war. Provocative, thrilling, and must-reading, Showdown is a wake-up call for America.

From the editorial blurb for:Showdown: Why China Wants War With The United States - Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596980052/ref=ase_wwwusintelige-20/102-5384326-8816934?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=wwwusintelige-20)

Also:

U.S. Intelligence Council Reading List (http://usintelligencecouncil.org/RecommendedReading/RecommendedReadingPage2.htm)

[Backwards Observer]

Just by coincidence, well let's say coincidence, immediately following my previous post, I read this passage in Carl Sagan's, The Demon Haunted World:


We know from early work of the Canadian neurophysiologist Wilder Penfield that electrical stimulation of certain regions of the brain elicits full-blown hallucinations. People with temporal lobe epilepsy—involving a cascade of naturally generated electrical impulses in the part of the brain beneath the forehead —experience a range of hallucinations almost indistinguishable from reality: including the presence of one or more strange beings, anxiety, floating through the air, sexual experiences, and a sense of missing time. There is also what feels like profound insight into the deepest questions and a need to spread the word. A continuum of spontaneous temporal lobe stimulation seems to stretch from people with serious epilepsy to the most average among us. (p.115)

Not saying there's any connection, but it seems prudent to spuriously link unrelated information for some sort of effect these days.

The Demon Haunted World - Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469)

[William F. Owen]

Here are some folks who take it seriously.
Many take it seriously. Very few of them are men I respect on matters of warfare. Most of what gets written about future warfare turns out to be utter rubbish. The next war is usually very like the last war, fought somewhere on he planet.

[Backwards Observer]

Most of what gets written about future warfare turns out to be utter rubbish.

In my case, I blame open "sauce" warfare.

[Bob's World]

It's worth remembering that the US did not supplant Great Britain by defeating her in war; also that Great Britain was able to hand off the baton to a (relatively) trusted ally.

China today is operating much as the US did in the first half of the last century, building economic and military influence behind the scenes and under the protection of European colonial endeavors; only emerging once that burden broke the back of the latter. WWII expedited that transition.

Is GWOT similarly expediting the transition from the US to China? That and our clinging to expensive containment strategies? China has to get a good chuckle over how they can spend a dollar in capabilities to threaten Taiwan, and get the US to spend $1000 to counter it; meanwhile they expand their global economic influence under US security much as the US did under Great Britain's security (most notably how we got the Saudi oil development contract).

China studies carefully how the US rose to power, perhaps more carefully than we ourselves have. The chapter on the Cold War prevailing over the Soviet Union is a chapter that gets close attention, and China is working diligently to do to the US much as what we did to the Soviets. The Soviets probably get a good chuckle on that one as well.

Good news is that it is not too late for the US to change course. The one thing that China cannot change is the growing pressure between various sects and classes within their own country. The greater their success, the greater those pressures will become. The U.S. may well be saved, not by the smart actions we take abroad, but rather by the actions China fails to take at home. The bad news is that, unlike Great Britain, the US will not be handing off to little brother. We can not hope to fare as well in the transition.

[William F. Owen]

China studies carefully how the US rose to power, perhaps more carefully than we ourselves have. The chapter on the Cold War prevailing over the Soviet Union is a chapter that gets close attention, and China is working diligently to do to the US much as what we did to the Soviets. The Soviets probably get a good chuckle on that one as well.


Who knows. Maybe and so what? Having spent two years hanging around folks who claimed to be studying "Chinese Military Power," I found most of them to be utterly unreliable and to have a very poor knowledge of military affairs.

Fact is you can make a lot of money writing evidence free scary stuff about the Chinese military. That doesn't make any of it good or useful.

[Bob's World]

Oh, I agree. It is not the chinese military we need to worry about. That is just the flashy red cape. The Matador has other ways to deal with those who draw too much confidence from their great size and power, but that are easily distracted by such ploys.

[slapout9]

China studies carefully how the US rose to power, perhaps more carefully than we ourselves have. The chapter on the Cold War prevailing over the Soviet Union is a chapter that gets close attention, and China is working diligently to do to the US much as what we did to the Soviets.

You better believe it! In particular they have studied President Lincoln and his "Greenback" policy on money! They are following what would have been Reconstruction in the South(series of internal improvements) if Lincoln hadn't been shot.

[selil]

Who knows. Maybe and so what? Having spent two years hanging around folks who claimed to be studying "Chinese Military Power," I found most of them to be utterly unreliable and to have a very poor knowledge of military affairs.

Fact is you can make a lot of money writing evidence free scary stuff about the Chinese military. That doesn't make any of it good or useful.

Come on Wilf that isn't nearly up to your normal level of quality post. I read too, and a lot on Chinese military history. I see poorly written fearful diatribes based on ethnocentrism rather than realistic risk aversion too.

You'll have to define "Define Chinese Military Power" for me though. What you call it likely isn't what the Chinese call it. I also don't see why making money has to be a point to denigrate authors either (everybody knows I don't make any money writing).

The Chinese don't see their military as their primary source of power. They see their population size and education level as a primacy of power. Watch Chinese television for a few weeks and the internal dialog they are having is much simpler than most people seem to believe. The inscrutable Chinese general is remarkably absent from all but Chinese soap operas.

I see deep divides between western expectations and Chinese realizations. I agree with you Wilf, that most western writing is poorly executed when Chinese sophistication stops with Sun Tzu. I'm just not sure why you popped off on the document "Unrestricted Warfare". The authors have given talks in the United States, there are numerous translations, and some are fairly poor. It is a government level document and I have never read one from any any country that didn't read like a grade school primer. So why the hostility?

[Backwards Observer]

China studies carefully how the US rose to power, perhaps more carefully than we ourselves have.

Personally, I think it's possible that China in the early Seventies was heavily influenced by the last scene of the film, Joe. But that could just be the "open sauce" talking.

Joe (1970) - youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgWhftzOkXs)

Joe - wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_(film))

[William F. Owen]

Come on Wilf that isn't nearly up to your normal level of quality post. Thank you!


You'll have to define "Define Chinese Military Power" for me though. What you call it likely isn't what the Chinese call it. I also don't see why making money has to be a point to denigrate authors either (everybody knows I don't make any money writing).
Chinese military power to me, and the Chinese, would be the use of "Military means." I can fully concede "other means" as being something different. Nothing new there.
Not denigrating anyone, except to say there are things they state in their work, that they clearly do not know a lot about. A lot of their work is conjecture and uses paper thin evidence. Some of the things they state as being categoric are extremely contestable and context specific. All in all I see not a lot of worth in this work.

The Chinese don't see their military as their primary source of power.
Agreed. Same as everyone.

They see their population size and education level as a primacy of power.
Not sure how that works out, but OK.

Watch Chinese television for a few weeks and the internal dialog they are having is much simpler than most people seem to believe.
Watched the English language CCTV for 2 years. I confess it gave me little insight.

I'm just not sure why you popped off on the document "Unrestricted Warfare". The authors have given talks in the United States, there are numerous translations, and some are fairly poor. It is a government level document and I have never read one from any any country that didn't read like a grade school primer. So why the hostility?
I'm not being "hostile." I just think it's not an insightful or even useful work and people gift it with insights and ideas that are just not there, once the words are subject to rigour. There is lot of clever sounding but ultimately empty stuff.
I am merely cautioning anyone reading this thread with taking that publication seriously.

[Fuchs]

It's difficult to surpass Jan Gotlib Bloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Gotlib_Bloch) in regard to future warfare anticipations (http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/resources/csi/content.asp#future).
He wasn't only quite accurate, but also intelligent enough to draw the correct lesson without an extremely wasteful trial & error procedure. The wasted value of this Cassandra was beyond imagination.
I admire how he succeeded in his research of sources without such a thing as the internet or inter-library lending.


I knew about the UW work for a decade, but I admit I've never really read it. It looked to me like one of the primary sources which are so widely cited that reading it first-hand would likely not reveal anything new. 'Breaking the Phalanx' was another example of such a work.

My impression based on second-hand info is that it's too early to judge the work, though. The future is the authorized judge, not us.

There's also the possibility that the written and published version of their findings/opinion is just the surface. Guderian's "Achtung Panzer" revealed only a few per cent of his ideas, for example.
UW is probably similarly designed to fire up the bureaucracy and new blood instead of revealing the real set of ideas.

[Backwards Observer]

2006 interview with Jed Babbin, co-author of Showdown: Why China Wants War With The United States.


Does China really want a war with us?

Yes, but not a nuclear war or an all-out conventional one. China wants war because without it they can’t achieve superpower status. China, like France, believes power is a zero-sum game. Without defeating us in at least a short war—say over Taiwan or somewhere else in the Pacific—China won’t have the ability to proclaim its hegemony over their region.

$$$

So how soon is this war going to happen? And what will it look like?

No one but the Chinese know. They’ll start it when it suits them, and not a moment sooner. It could take any number of forms, ranging from an attack on Taiwan to a cyber attack on the United States. (italics added)


Given this scenario, shouldn't Taiwan, Japan, Australia and possibly Indonesia seriously consider developing their own nuclear deterrents?


Exclusive: China Craves War With U.S. - Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15038)

Showdown: Why China Wants War With The United States - Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-China-Wants-United-States/dp/product-description/1596980052)

[Backwards Observer]

Also, regarding war with China, the paper strength of Xinjiang Military District suggests that Manas Air Base may become contested in short order:


Southern Xinjiang Military District
4th Motorised Infantry Division
6th Mechanised Infantry Division
8th Motorised Infantry Division
11th Motorised Infantry Division
1st Independent Infantry Regiment
2nd Independent Infantry Regiment
2nd Artillery Brigade
Air-Defence Brigade
3rd Army Aviation Brigade
9th Engineer Regiment

PLA Ground Forces: Xinjiang Military Region - sinodefence.com (http://www.sinodefence.com/organisation/ground-forces/xinjiang-military-region.asp)

Includes 6th Highland Mechanized ID:


The 6th Mechanized Infantry Division, 2003.
17th Mechanized Infantry Regiment (Type 92 IFV)
18th Mechanized Infantry Regiment (Type 92 IFV)
Armor Regiment (Type 96 MBT, Type 88B MBT, Type 86 IFV)
311th Artillery Regiment (Type 02 100mm SP Assaulter, Type 89 122mm SPH and Type 83 152mm SPH)
Air Defense Regiment (Type 95 SP-AAA)

PLA 6th Highland Mech ID (http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2009/10/6th-mechanized-infantry-division-mid.html)

Also possible deployable, Ws-2d MLRS:


Round Dispersion is 600 meters / 480, 000 meter range which is 0.00125 or 0.125%.

Ws-2d - sinodefence forum (http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/army/ws-2d-mlrs-2-2512.html)

Apart from war in the Taiwan Strait, and a potential situation in Kyrgyzstan; considering that Pakistan and China are allies, would this complicate the AFPAK situation?

[Dayuhan]

Also, regarding war with China, the paper strength of Xinjiang Military District suggests that Manas Air Base may become contested in short order:

If the Chinese want us out of Manas they don't need to fight to do it. All they have to do is put the economic screws on the government of Kyrgyzstan and arrange for them to ask us to leave or restrict our presence to a point where the base becomes useless. Cheaper and way less mess.

The idea that "China" wants a war with the US is, alas, just plain stupid, though I don't doubt that it sells books. I'm sure there are people in China who would like a war with the US somewhere along the line. There are also many who would not. China has little incentive to rock any boats right now and they have a whole lot to lose. Their economy is completely dependent on trade and war could very quickly disrupt that. I'm sure China will keep pushing in every way they can, right up to the point where they anticipate possible negative consequences. I don't see them crossing that line. Right now business is good and the business people are calling the shots; they don't want things disrupted. If China went through a severe economic upheaval that could of course change... oddly, it is in our interest ultimately to keep them prosperous, just as it is in theirs to keep us prosperous.

"War in the Taiwan Strait" gets a lot of talk, but why would the Chinese do that? They could mount an air/missile attack on Taiwan, but that would mean risk for little if any gain. They can't take Taiwan at this point; they haven't the sealift capacity and the risks to them would be enormous, far greater than the prospective gain.

We often forget that the greatest threat to Chinese security is internal, not external. The Chinese government is less likely to forget that.

[Backwards Observer]

Cheaper and way less mess.

What's the point of having all these flying tanks if you don't get to use them?

[Dayuhan]

What's the point of having all these flying tanks if you don't get to use them?

They would look good flying over a parade, though they'd have to fly upside down to look their best. Or to shoot their best, one supposes...

[Backwards Observer]

They would look good flying over a parade, though they'd have to fly upside down to look their best. Or to shoot their best, one supposes...

Flying the flying tank upside down is indeed the acme of CAS skill. Many unworthies having gloriously augured in attempting to perfects this ultimate of technique.

[Dayuhan]

Many unworthies having gloriously augured in attempting to perfects this ultimate of technique.

Think of it as evolution in action...

[Backwards Observer]

Think of it as evolution in action...

Eh...vo..lu..shan? I don't know such stuff. I just do chopsticks...humble chopstick technician third class, feng huang chopstick collective LLC.

[slapout9]

2006 interview with Jed Babbin, co-author of Showdown: Why China Wants War With The United States.



Given this scenario, shouldn't Taiwan, Japan, Australia and possibly Indonesia seriously consider developing their own nuclear deterrents?


Exclusive: China Craves War With U.S. - Human Events (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15038)

Showdown: Why China Wants War With The United States - Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Showdown-China-Wants-United-States/dp/product-description/1596980052)


Couple things about China's banks that nobody brings up and they are critical in understanding how they beat us. First China is a sovereign nation and can and does create Sovereign Credit(debt free money)....it doesn't have to borrow money. China has no Federal Reserve:eek:, it is a nationalized banking system and because of that the banks are Policy driven not Profit driven. They are probably All broke by western standards but it doesn't matter if the debt becomes to bothersome they will just charge it off their books. What matters to China is physical production assets are placed inside it's own borders because that is real wealth not pieces of paper, they can and will print as many as they need so long as the relationship between money and physical production assets are kept in balance. Oh yea, where did they learn this, the US Constitution of course, Abe Licoln in paticular. Credit does not mean debt!!!!!!it is simply an accounting term for right side of the account ledger to keep track of money, it has nothing to do with debt.