South China Sea and China (2011-2017)

[JMA]

Prudent for sure, wrong quite probably. Misjudgement of the US and what it can or will do has led to most of our wars...

I doubt that will change in the near future.

Well Ken when it comes to the US it is not possible make an intelligent judgement as what they are likely to do... as it is like trying to figure out what a schizophrenic will do. Better to throw the dice and decide that way.

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

[jmm99]

This thread seems to me (not a criticism, just saying) a good example showing the two international relations "schools" in action: Realism in international relations and Idealism in international relations.

Perhaps, the instincts for the two schools are basic to the human male: one sleeps with $luts; one marries madonnas. Of course, in the first case, neither party should expect a long-term relationship (generally, "Pretty Woman" is a fairy tale). And similarly, the "Realistic School" does not include long-term cooperation or alliance as a general rule in its playbook. Since the "Idealistic School" looks to long-term cooperation or alliance as a desired end, the end of an alliance will be looked at quite differently by the two parties if one is focused on "realism" and the other on "idealism".

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

JMA posted:

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

I accept international politics is far from predictable, but if anything the USA since 1945 has been quite an unpredictable 'policeman'. As a certain Mr Saddam Hussain discovered after invading Kuwait.

Long time since I studied pre-1939 (for non-US) or pre-1941 (for the USA) international affairs, but I'd wager Hitler decided the US would never take Germany on. Less sure whether Tokyo thought the USA would do much beyond shouting and having the Burma Road (to Nationalist China) considering by 1941 Japan had been at war in China since 1937.

Having listened to a discussion on BBC radio this week on China, it appears they have enough internal issues to face / avoid and whilst maritime skirmishing in the South China Sea causes concern does it really "ring alarm bells"? Not to overlook Taiwan, a potentially far bigger prize for China if peacefully reunited (larger than Hong Kong by a significant factor IIRC).

[Bob's World]

Councilor, answer the question as posed please.

Imagine a situation where Red China is going to, not threatening to, but going to violently invade and conquer Taiwan. The Taiwanese, after a vote 90% to 10%, have decided to meet violence with violence in order to preserve their independence. The Taiwanese then ask us to help them fight the Red Chinese invasion. That is it. That is the situation, nothing more or less.

Answer: "You are on your own."

Though trust me, If China makes that decision, there will be no time for Taiwan to vote or for the US to assess. They won't send a note announcing their intent to invade. The entire operation could likely be over within 72 hours; and within 24 hours it would require a counter-invasion of US forces sufficient to push China out. How, exactly, do you propose we do that? Even if you make the arguement it is in our intrest (and I have not heard that argument from you or JMA in this thread)?

At some point one has to rely more upon cold assessments of what their interests are and what their actual (or affordable) capabilities are. For the US this is, IMO, neither in our interests or affordable.

Reasonable minds can differ, but this is my opinion. I am comfortable with others believing otherwise, but I admit, I put little stock on playground taunt rationale such as offered by JMA.

[Ken White]

...Better to throw the dice and decide that way.

That can be quite true, barring an existential threat.

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

Wrong. You can do that and others will join you. Probably cost all of you in the long run...

Many others will be smarter. For my part, having actually and successfully fought the latter in a full scale conflict for a couple of years and having been prepared with no qualms at all to fight the other for 20 or so more had it become necessary, I wouldn't even consider taking that to the bank. Advise against it, in fact...

[carl]

Answer: "You are on your own."

Thank you Councilor. Now we know where you stand. A free state, that has been a staunch ally in the past would be swallowed up by a totalitarian police state with no real objection from you.

I would hope the USians would not follow the path you advocate in the unlikely event the situation I postulated came to be. As JMA says, "The world is not blind." and would notice. Suddenly the Wikipedia entry on "Sudetenland" would have a lot of hits and everybody would be wondering who was next. Things would not go well for us in the years following.

Now I have a comment and a question about this

Third, the US is probably the most important economic partner for both parties and controls the seas that both receive and ship all manner of goods through. We have all kinds of leverage beyond simply racing into the middle of someone else's internal dispute.

The USN presently controls the seas, though we do better with assistance, through which both Taiwan and Red China conduct their ocean trade. But Red China is building up, at quite a remarkable rate, naval power that seems designed to at least chase the USN away from the South China Sea. If that happened wouldn't the leverage of which you speak disappear? I think if we wanted to be able to maintain that leverage we have to make sure that the PLAN can't push us around.

[Ken White]

Even if you make the arguement it is in our intrest (and I have not heard that argument from you or JMA in this thread)?

You also noticed that...

...For the US this is, IMO, neither in our interests or affordable.

I agree. My sensing is that an adequate majority of Americans probably do the same.

It is probably noteworthy that the whole Taiwan support issue as seen in the US has little or nothing to do with a Pacific strategy or international relations. It revolves around US domestic politics and has done so since 1949, relying on how much the party out of 'power' wants to hassle the party in 'power.' Fortunately, when castration time arrives, that foolishness tends to fall by the wayside to at least an extent.

... I am comfortable with others believing otherwise...

I guess one could say I relished that as opposed to merely being comfortable with it.

Of course, my Wife points out that my penchant for later saying "I told you so..." is not endearing, mature or beneficial. She can be unduly grumpy at times...

[carl]

It is probably noteworthy that the whole Taiwan support issue as seen in the US has little or nothing to do with a Pacific strategy or international relations.

I think you are wrong. It has everything to do with Pacific strategy and international relations. On the international relations front, the world would notice that we allowed a free state to be conquered by a totalitarian police state. They would have to make allowances, great big ones, since they could only prudently figure they would be next and try to cut the best deal they could.

As far as Pacific strategy goes, as far as that strategy means keeping the Red Chinese from messing with the world other than by commercial means, loss of Taiwan would put a gaping hole in the barrier of islands off mainland China. Very good for the PLAN, very bad for the USN.

[Ken White]

I think you are wrong.

Could be. It happens. Rarely...

It has everything to do with Pacific strategy and international relations. On the international relations front...

All true. Also true is that it would not be the first time or probably the last if it did occur. We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people...

As far as Pacific strategy goes...Very good for the PLAN, very bad for the USN.

The 'Pacific Strategy' is a chameleon (or, more correctly, chimeric) but it, too, revolves mostly around US domestic politics. As for the good and bad, it could superficially appear to be as you write. In actuality and in the long term, just the opposite is more likely to be true.

I suspect the Chinese know that and thus, while they'll bluster and some there will press for confrontation, as a nation, fortunately, they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys.

[carl]

Ken:

Geography is a tough thing and the configuration of the world can't be changed. We very well may get over the embarrassment, it is hard to embarrass somebody with no shame, but that hole in the barrier of islands won't be so easy to overcome. Politics, internal, external, our or theirs, the map won't look so good for the USN hence the Japanese and everybody else.

As an additional surprise for you, I think you are wrong also when you say this about Red China "they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys.", at least the sensible part. Westerners have been saying things like that for as long as I can remember, mostly in frustration that free nations can be so kooky sometimes. Totalitarian police states have proven to be mostly quite poor at figuring the best long term course of action. Maybe the ChiComs will be different, I would guess not.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuvan

Notwithstanding your justifications, I go by what is written.

MANILA, Philippines—U.S. and Philippine military officials say nearly 7,000 American and Filipino troops have begun two weeks of major military exercises but they stress that China is not an imaginary target.

Now, if you claim that the Philippines Armed Forces are hopelessly daft, even though they are native born and understand their fears and worries, and you are the one who is right because you feel that all is well and hyped, then so be it!

If you actually read the article, and the other coverage on the exercise, you'll see that the line quoted above is just not a very good piece of writing. They're trying to say that China is not the hypothetical target of the exercise. All the public statements on the exercise stress that it has nothing to do with the recent incidents and is not directed at any country.

Of course any military exercise anywhere is intended to send a message to any potential antagonist, but in this case the primary potential antagonists being messaged are the rebel groups and their actual or potential foreign supporters, with China in second place. The Philippine political and military leaders consider the domestic insurgencies to be a greater threat; you can consider that "daft" if you like, but they have reasons. If you keep track of the Philippine media and talk to people you see there's a lot of irritation at the fishing incursions and some concern with conflict over offshore energy reserves, but only a tiny fringe worries about invasion and there's very limited support for major upgrades to military spending. Vietnam spends 2.5% of GDP on defense; the Philippines spends 0.9%. If you want an indication of relative fear and relative priorities, there it is. Money speaks louder than words.

This paragraph from the article is also not correct:

In the past, the exercises were held in Philippine regions grappling with decades-long Muslim and communist insurgencies and threats from al-Qaida-linked militants. This year's main venue, the southwestern island province of Palawan, lies near South China Sea areas disputed by China, the Philippines and four other countries.

For the past few years the exercise has been in the Muslim areas, but they've had them off Palawan before, quite a few times. The scenario of a terrorist takeover of an offshore gas rig (the Malampaya platform is a potentially attractive terrorist target) has been used before.

Sloppy journalism overall.

I suspect that you're putting these events into the context of your perception of the China threat without paying enough attention to what else is going on locally.

I've also seen news clips saying that there are new discussions going on over a US sale of another cutter and 12 F-16s to the Philippines. That would be related to the recent incursion, but it's mostly show. The cutter sale is already agreed on, no big news there. I have doubts about the F16s: the Philippine Air Force, which has long been embarrassed over having no planes, really really wants them, but scuttlebutt has it that the US side thinks its a poor idea on "sustainability and affordability" grounds, and that the money would be better spent elsewhere. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment, not that my opinion means anything.

One thing you can be sure of is that the US will never take on the Russians or the Chinese. That you can take to the bank.

I think the US probably won't "take on" Russia or China... though being risk-averse I doubt I'd take that to the bank, and I doubt the Chinese or Russians would take it to the bank either. Easy to be brave and bold when you're on the internet and actions have no consequences.

I also don't think the Russians or Chinese would "take on" the Americans. They'll use proxies, undermine allies, posture, rattle sabers, pull the cold war playbook out, but they'll stop short of direct conflict, because even if they're 99% sure they'll get away with it, the potential consequences of that 1% are too large to risk. For some strange and incomprehensible reason major powers bristling with nukes are disinclined to "take on" other major powers bristling with nukes. Can't imagine why.

Though trust me, If China makes that decision, there will be no time for Taiwan to vote or for the US to assess. They won't send a note announcing their intent to invade. The entire operation could likely be over within 72 hours

Are you sure of that? I have some doubts. For sure the Chinese could unleash a barrage of missiles with no notice at all, but an actual invasion? Wouldn't that require a very large concentration of land assets moving into ports in a heavily populated and highly visible environment? China's naval sealift assets are limited; my understanding (purely from reading) is that they'd have to bring in a large portion of their merchant fleet. If a whole bunch of merchant vessels pulled off their normal routes and started congregating at Navy bases, that wouldn't be noticed? You're looking at an amphibious operation on the scale of the Normandy landings, in the age of satellite surveillance, could you really keep that a secret until it jumped off? I can imagine the CIA sleeping at the wheel, but you'd think the Taiwanese would be looking.

Plus the Chinese coast and key ports are well within range of Taiwanese SSMs, so unless the Chinese were absolutely sure the Taiwanese wouldn't preempt, they'd have to suppress those before they started concentrating forces, no?

I'm willing to be corrected by those with greater knowledge of these things, but the contention that the Chinese could simply launch an invasion on that scale without the preparations being visible seems on the surface questionable.

I also question this:

As I stated earlier this is a no win situation for the US and a no lose situation for China.

I don't think that's the case. If the Chinese moved on Taiwan and things didn't go as planned the domestic political repercussions would be huge.

I doubt very much that an invasion of Taiwan is in the cards. If China was going to move on Taiwan they could simply use that massive ballistic missile force to inflict and sustain intolerable damage, shut down trade, and try to force capitulation that way.

Under the current Chinese political order I wouldn't expect a move on Taiwan at all. They like to rattle sabers over the issue and they like using it as a red cape to wave at the US and at their own people, but the move itself would entail much risk and a lot of rocking of a boat that's been quite stable and comfortable for the leadership.

I suspect the Chinese know that and thus, while they'll bluster and some there will press for confrontation, as a nation, fortunately, they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys.

Agreed.

Overall, there seems to be a great deal of angst and panic over the possibility that China may achieve military parity with the US in their own coastal waters. That's not compatible with the idea that the US must be absolutely superior to everyone, everywhere, all the time, but is it really cause for panic? Even in the rather unlikely event of direct conflict between the US and China, why would the US fight the Chinese where the Chinese are strongest? The US is China's leading export destination; an embargo on Chinese goods would take close to $300 billion a year out of Chinese industries. The USN can set up in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean, where the US is strong and China is weak, and cut the Chinese commercial lifeline to Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Why would you fight them where they are strongest when you don't have to?

Carl, I'll try to respond later; I have things to do and these threads get too busy to keep up with...

[Ken White]

Geography is a tough thing and the configuration of the world can't be changed.

True. It's noteworthy that no one else has been able come anywhere close to our ability to use that to an advantage. No one, though the Chinese are working on that. I doubt they will succeed in your lifetime. No other nation will be able to afford to try, barring a European Union -- also unlikely in your lifetime.

We very well may get over the embarrassment, it is hard to embarrass somebody with no shame...

Again, let me remind you that nations are not people; they don't get embarrassed or get shamed -- only some of the people within the nation may be embarrassed. That, as is said, is their problem...

.. but that hole in the barrier of islands won't be so easy to overcome. Politics, internal, external, our or theirs, the map won't look so good for the USN hence the Japanese and everybody else.

I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era.

Be careful with the pundits and think tanks, most of them are 30-40 years behind the times strategically and operationally. All of them must have and / or see crises to survive.

As an additional surprise for you, I think you are wrong also when you say this about Red China "they're likely to be far more sensible and pragmatic than the US where the worldwide or even long term domestic consequences will not outrank immediately beneficial partisan political ploys."...Totalitarian police states have proven to be mostly quite poor at figuring the best long term course of action. Maybe the ChiComs will be different, I would guess not.

I suggest that most nations, even the very democratic ones and certainly including the US and most of the rest of the so-called western world have problems determining the best long term courses of action. As Niels Bohr said "Predictions are very difficult, especially about the future." Actually, that's probably an old Confucian adage -- from China. Errors by the Chinese because they are communist and a totalitarian state aren't really the potential problem; that they are Chinese and have some very significant problems of their own which are not attributable to their governance and which they try to conceal from outsiders are the factors that will force them to a pragmatic solution and because they are totalitarian at this time, everyone in the country will at least on the surface support what is done. If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian fairly rapidly, that won't change my prediction about the possible future -- but it hamstrings yours.

OTOH and regrettably, our politicians have shown a complete willingness to disregard obvious consequences for short term political gain and our electorate is too fragmented to force the issue. That's true today. A couple of years may make a difference but I'm skeptical. As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

[carl]

Carl, I'll try to respond later; I have things to do and these threads get too busy to keep up with...

Don't mind me. I'm just slumping down in my seat in the back of the class hoping not to be noticed.

[carl]

Again, let me remind you that nations are not people; they don't get embarrassed or get shamed -- only some of the people within the nation may be embarrassed. That, as is said, is their problem...

You said "We've overcome far worse embarrassment -- and note that's all it really is -- in my lifetime and certainly will again. Not a problem as, thankfully, nations are not people... ". From the context it seems you meant the US overcoming embarrassment but now you say the nation does not but some in the nation do. I get it now...no, I don't.

I'm somewhat surprised that an airplane driver thinks those Islands form any kind of barrier at all in this era.

Us airplane drivers keep a close eye on the fuel gauge for when it gets low we have to land, on land to get filled up again. Islands are land. They also form needed bases for for ships to fill up too. And also, boats can't go through land. They get stuck. So yes, despite the revolution in military affairs, effects based operations, network centric warfare, drones that can do anything at any time, despite all that, I still think land bases and islands are as useful to navies and naval power as they ever were.

Be careful with the pundits and think tanks, most of them are 30-40 years behind the times strategically and operationally. All of them must have and / or see crises to survive.

I don't need pundits to tell me that island bases are vital. The various history books I read superficially make that clear.

Errors by the Chinese because they are communist and a totalitarian state aren't really the potential problem; that they are Chinese and have some very significant problems of their own which are not attributable to their governance and which they try to conceal from outsiders are the factors that will force them to a pragmatic solution and because they are totalitarian at this time, everyone in the country will at least on the surface support what is done.

Everybody had better support them, or they will hear that midnight knock. We will have to disagree again. I think that they are ruled by ChiComs has as much or more to do with problems faced by the Chinese as does their Chineseness. After all, the ChiComs primary goal is they keep running the joint. They have never been coy about that. That would tend to skew things, since for example, there isn't much voting going on.

If, as is quite probable, they become less totalitarian fairly rapidly, that won't change my prediction about the possible future -- but it hamstrings yours.

Now that is some rhetorical technique. Just argue that the world is going to go the way you say, fairly rapidly, and when it does boy will the ground be cut out from under me.

As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

A totalitarian police state that is faced with immense internal problems has a system that prizes international stability, this is Red China. I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree. And given that they are building a big navy, talking tough and bumping into other people's boats, I'd say they are not really that high on stability.

[Ray]

All the public statements on the exercise stress that it has nothing to do with the recent incidents and is not directed at any country.

Actions indicate issues that words tend to avoid.

Sloppy journalism overall.

Indeed. Journalism is sloppy the world over.

International journalism never speaks with one voice.

If it were one voice, the world would have been a better place.

[JMA]

JMA posted:

I accept international politics is far from predictable, but if anything the USA since 1945 has been quite an unpredictable 'policeman'. As a certain Mr Saddam Hussain discovered after invading Kuwait.

With the US especially so. Caused by their radical policy shifts every 4/8 years where the incoming 'smart guys' clear the table and start again clean ignoring what passed before them. Only USians think their system is good (for sentimental reasons that is), while the world stares incredulously on.

Long time since I studied pre-1939 (for non-US) or pre-1941 (for the USA) international affairs, but I'd wager Hitler decided the US would never take Germany on. Less sure whether Tokyo thought the USA would do much beyond shouting and having the Burma Road (to Nationalist China) considering by 1941 Japan had been at war in China since 1937.

The US left Japan with no option but a military one when their oil supplies were severely curtailed. The US wanted that war with Japan as much as they needed Britain to be so damaged that her empire would collapse. So with Britain, Germany and Japan out of the way was open for the US.

Having listened to a discussion on BBC radio this week on China, it appears they have enough internal issues to face / avoid and whilst maritime skirmishing in the South China Sea causes concern does it really "ring alarm bells"? Not to overlook Taiwan, a potentially far bigger prize for China if peacefully reunited (larger than Hong Kong by a significant factor IIRC).

I must try to remember the number of times a nation's leadership tries to take the eyes of their people off internal problems by creating an external crisis which will distract the people and hopefully rally them around a national cause.

I am old enough to remember that the US approaches to China were less about ensuring world peace and more about access to the massive potential consumer market there.

When I say the US will not go to war with China it is because of two reasons. One, that the US does not have the conventional forces to beat China without extensive use of nuclear weapons and secondly that there would be an outcry from the 1,000s of US companies so deeply involved in China (mainly through imports) that stand to lose a great deal.

The situation is that of the boiling frog. The Chinese are the ones doing the incrementalism while the US being unable to deal with the gradual changes to their detriment.

[JMA]

OTOH and regrettably, our politicians have shown a complete willingness to disregard obvious consequences for short term political gain and our electorate is too fragmented to force the issue. That's true today. A couple of years may make a difference but I'm skeptical. As a long time Asia watcher and an even longer time American, I'd bet on the Chinese being the more sensible of the two of us. We have developed a system that needs crises to make government work; they do not have such a system and in fact, hate crises as potentially destabilizing.

Yes Ken and the Chinese will have realised that they must not provoke the US until they have reached the military level to back it up.

I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to while I believe the Chinese version is 'death by a thousand cuts'. The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.

I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).

[Dayuhan]

A totalitarian police state that is faced with immense internal problems has a system that prizes international stability, this is Red China. I disagree. Given the history of totalitarian police states over the last 100 years or so, yes, I disagree. And given that they are building a big navy, talking tough and bumping into other people's boats, I'd say they are not really that high on stability.

That state also has certain characteristics...

It is completely dependent on external trade, both commodity imports and merchandise exports, for its economic survival.

It needs continuous economic growth to keep its populace in order, a populace with rising expectations and a great deal of discontent.

It's doing quite well out of the status quo, and has a great deal to lose from disruption of the status quo.

Say what you will about the Chinese government; they are not irrational. They know how far they can push before the boat rocks, and there's little indication of any intent to push beyond that point.

Actions indicate issues that words tend to avoid.

Taking actions out of context may indicate issues that the context doesn't support. It would be easy to conclude that a Philippine-American military exercise at a time when there's tension with China might be seen as a specific response to that tension... until you recall that the exercise is an annual ritual that's gone on for decades. The exercise would still be going on if there was no tension, and would likely be seen as a message to those who are considering support to Islamic militants.

Indeed. Journalism is sloppy the world over.

International journalism never speaks with one voice.

If it were one voice, the world would have been a better place.

Sloppy journalism is obnoxious, but unanimous journalism would be very scary indeed. The world speaks with many voices, and most of them deserve a listen, if only to know what they're saying. World journalism needs to reflect that.

[Dayuhan]

The US left Japan with no option but a military one when their oil supplies were severely curtailed. The US wanted that war with Japan as much as they needed Britain to be so damaged that her empire would collapse. So with Britain, Germany and Japan out of the way was open for the US.

Ain't revisionism grand...

I use the metaphor of the Boiling Frog often to describe the policy the Chinese are using and should stick to while I believe the Chinese version is 'death by a thousand cuts'. The only thing that is certain here is that the US will be the eventual loser... probably self destruct.

I won't be here when that happens and neither will you but (as stated before) the best thing you can do for your grandchildren is to encourage them to learn Chinese (they will need it).

Anyone following China's domestic political and economic situation might suspect that it's China that may self-destruct first. Whether that makes China less dangerous or more remains to be seen.

The US prevailed over the Soviet Union largely by maintaining the status quo despite a rising temperature and the occasional cut until the rival's internal economic contradictions caught up with them. Some Americans got frantic and howled of doom when the communists prevailed in Indochina, Nicaragua, etc, but in the end the fundamental inutility of Communist economics brought the whole pile down from the inside (ok, oversimplified, but it's a paragraph).

Might that not work with China?

If not, what would you have the US do?

[JMA]

For my part, having actually and successfully fought the latter in a full scale conflict for a couple of years and having been prepared with no qualms at all to fight the other for 20 or so more had it become necessary, I wouldn't even consider taking that to the bank. Advise against it, in fact...

Korea ended in a stalemate. But I suggest that the US realised then that facing a Chinese army with modern weapons and a logistic system would require the use of nuclear weapons not just to win but to survive.

The Soviets were going to be faced in Europe with the war destruction taking place there and not in and to the US (with no immediate existential threat to itself). .

The world has come a long way since then and found the weaknesses in the US's armour.

For example, one bomb in the Lebanon (killing 299) Marines in 1983 sent the US packing.

In 1993 in Mogadishu after 18 dead and 73 wounded the US folded.

Only a fool will entice the US into a conventional conflict and so we see a variation on the fiendishly cunning Chinese approach of 'death by a thousand cuts' being amended to 'death by a thousand IEDS' in Afghanistan and the US is already all but defeated.

Ken, I suggest that it is delusional to believe that the US (sleeping giant) will wake up to a real existential threat and defeat it. Those days are past and the potential enemies of the future will be smart enough to understand how to deal with the standard US game plan.