US Navy destroyers. US Navy
Business Insider: It looks like the US has been quietly lowering the threshold for conflict in the South China Sea
* The US has been putting increased pressure on the Chinese maritime militia, a paramilitary sea force disguised as a fishing fleet, in an effort to deter provocations in the South China Sea.
* The US Navy's top admiral told his Chinese counterpart earlier this year that provocations by militia vessels would be treated the same as those carried out by Chinese navy warships.
* Last week, the US ambassador to the Philippines told reporters that US defense obligations to its ally could be triggered by maritime militia attacks.
* Troubling incidents involving Chinese fishing vessels are not uncommon in the South China Sea, and while this rhetorical shift in the US position could deter aggression to encourage stability, it could also signal a lower threshold for confrontation and, possibly, conflict in the disputed waterway.
The US has been steadily ratcheting up the pressure on China's sea forces in a way that could lower the threshold for conflict in the South China Sea, which is already a hotbed of tension.
The US is signalling a tougher stance toward the Chinese maritime militia, a paramilitary sea force disguised as a fishing fleet that is known to sometimes harass foreign rivals to enforce China's vast sovereignty claims in the contested waterway.
The Chinese maritime militia "thrives within the shadows of plausible deniability," according to Andrew Erickson, a leading expert at the US Naval War College, but it can no longer hide like it once could.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Their maritime militia follows the rules and guidelines as outlined by the Chinese government via through their Navy. This change in U.S. policy is long overdue.
10 comments:
My my. This Trump is just no fun. I want bammy back. Waaaaaah.
It's a huge change, but difficult to follow through on the threat - due to the optics involved.. many Chinese vessels are just private militias who operate on behalf of the party, and then ram your boat in open waters.. sure, you can send a navy ship there, but it will look like Goliath harassing David (they may sometimes send 2-3 who do the ramming together, but still)
Oh and the Chinese have several thousand paramilitary ships / ships that do fishing, spying and ramming/harassments.. it's a bigger problem than one first realises. These militia ships outnumber US navy ships by a factor of about hundred.
This move by US has just raised the cost to be a bully. Do the bullies want to pay the new charges?
The Chinese pulled off their takeover of the South China Sea for one reason, they were allowed to do so by the master mind of the "Asian Pivot".
Anon (9:51AM),
Like it or not, optics are definitely important. To add to this, the US typically does a poor job of messaging while adversaries of which China is one do an excellent job of messaging. Should it come to a conflict the US will have to do a better job of messaging. (Some would call it "propaganda." I prefer the term "messaging."
You bring up David vs Goliath. As the scriptural account goes, David defeated Goliath. While I will have to reread the account, Goliath was quite large. Some estimates say he was 9 ft, 6 in tall. While he had armor on, there will be a part of his head where his eyes are that are vulnerable. I think it would take a very skilled marksman to hit him in this spot. The scriptural account suggests David was a very skilled marksman. As such, the big target of Goliath out in the open would have made an easy target for David the skilled marksman with his sling shot. David no doubt when he saw Goliath said "make my day b!tch" or whatever equivalent Hebrew terminology would have been. After this he probably yawned and calmly took his sling shot and killed Goliath. This would have been quite easy in this case. Sort of like "taking candy from a baby." Goliath was foolish, extremely arrogant, or some combination of these to have allowed himself to get in this position.
Essentially as for the optics the US will need to do a better of explaining its position. Traditionally our government has been very poor at this while adversaries and potential adversaries have been very good at this. A good place to start would be explaining why the "David vs. Goliath" analogy as it is understood is not a good one here. Essentially in such a conflict as this "Goliath" is at a disadvantage as Goliath was in the scriptural account or, at the very least, this is a fight where one side does not have a huge advantage. Essentially when we think "Goliath" we think "bully." In this case, the US would not be the bully. It would be facing down an adversary that likely would hold an advantage and that the very least is capable of defeating large US warships. In order to change the "optics" we will need to do a better job of messaging!!
A would be bully facing down and established bully. On world scale bullyism that is.
Can you imagine Bob at a 'Free Tibet' rally?
He didn't accomplish anything then and is accomplishing nothing now.
"A would be bully facing down an established bully. On world scale bullyism that is." At face value, I reject the premise that the US is a "bully." This appears to me be yet more clever messaging by US adversaries and potential adversaries. Again, the US has been very poor at messaging while adversaries and potential adversaries are very good at this. We will need to get better. With that said because one is good at messaging and the other side isn't this does NOT necessarily mean the side that is good at messaging is morally right, while the could be, what it means is simply they are much better at messaging than the other side. This is why I try to examine things from multiple angles and try not to accept at face value what one side says over the other.
To use an analogy, when it comes to messaging the US government is like a 300 pound fat man while adversaries and potential adversaries are like world class athletes. As stated, we simply must get better at this. For what its worth adversaries like China and Russia appear to be overreaching. This combined with Trump and his team's brilliance IMHO has put them in a rough spot. I've often stated US adversaries tend to be arrogant which often leads to overreaching. With the right leadership we can capitalize on this. We may be finally finding our proverbial footing!!
Back to the David vs. Goliath analogy. I looked up some information on the biblical account. The stone hit Goliath in the forehead. The area around the eyes and the forehead would be vulnerable with the armor of the era, however, it would take an extremely skilled marksman to hit an adversary there of which David was. According to the biblical accounts he had faced down numerous threats with his sling shot. The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls had Goliath at 6 ft. 9 In. The Masoretic Texts suggest 9 ft. 9 in. tall. IMHO the Masoretic texts which are the definitive Hebrew scriptures are accurate from which the others were translated. During translation the translators likely assumed the Masoretic text could not possibly be right so they changed it.
Essentially Goliath in the open as a VERY BIG target would have been easy pickings for a skilled marksman like David. HUGE advantage to David in this fight. Essentially the David vs. Goliath analogy in popular culture is inaccurate where "David" is considered the underdog vs. Goliath as the stronger foe isn't accurate unless we reverse the roles making David the stronger party. The same applies today. If Chinese militia ships end US warships end up in a confrontation and Chinese messaging tries to portray the US as the stronger party "Goliath" picking a fight with a weaker foe "David," the US needs to be ready to counter with messaging more accurately portrays the situation. While such a fight may not be "fair," its hard to imagine how it would be unfair in the favor of the US.
More on David vs. Goliath. In the open vs. a skilled marksman such as David Goliath's formidable size would have been a huge liability as it makes him an easier target to hit and his armor would have been a huge liability as well as he is less maneuverable. Essentially David used Goliath's "strengths" against him and made them weaknesses!!
Ignored?
Poster/Anon
I don't have a problem with the law of the universe, "the survival of the fittest" and from the human perspective the fittest doesn't necessarily mean strongest, fastest as the David and Goliath story suggests. What I object to is in the process of subverting governments, invading nations that have done you no harm and indiscriminately killing and/or causing them to be killed, innocents, children, or perhaps doing that on purpose, just don't pretend to be the savior of mankind, or, the best of the worst because it rings very hollow.
You know it is often the case that the father of a family becomes addicted to stuff, drugs, booze, gambling, women and dedicates all the family income and more, think debt, to satisfying his addiction. As a result there is hunger at home, hunger for food, healthcare, education, necessities of life of which the rest of the family are deprived so that the father can feed his addiction(s).
Similarly, the country currently known as the United States of America is so addicted to war that there is no money, no will in successive governments to satisfy its people's needs and accordingly Americans are deprived of necessities and have been reduced to fighting among themselves, basically over scraps.
When Trump separated children from their parents and shook off the protests about that inhumanity he knew nobody would rise up and stop him because Americans, who are otherwise so great at fighting wars, are easily divided and are basically cowards at home. His message, if you have not noticed is that I can do it to them so when the time is right, if I decide to, I can do it to you too.
There is an old quote that should be kept in mind. "This too will end.".
Post a Comment