What's new

China Should Send Troops to Fight ISIS

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aepsilons

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
May 29, 2014
Messages
24,960
Reaction score
118
Country
Japan
Location
United States
@Chinese-Dragon , @Shotgunner51 , @Yizhi , @terranMarine , @TaiShang , @rugering , @xudeen and all other respectable Chinese members of PDF:


What do you think about this? Can you please shed light on the Chinese peoples' and Chinese Governments' feelings on this ? Thanks.

----------------

China Should Send Troops to Fight ISIS

Now that the U.S. has decided to bomb ISIS and assembled an international coalition to do so, the key question for China is what should it do? Should China join the international coalition in one way or another? Although the Chinese government seemed to decline the U.S. offer to join the coalition, there are actually multiple reasons China should join. I’ve outlined five benefits that China can reap by joining the U.S. coalition against ISIS.

First and foremost, it is in China’s security interest to destroy ISIS, which is already a threat to China’s national security and could become a very serious threat if it gains more power and influence. ISIS has proven to be a brutal regime, willing to kill innocent people who do not share their radical religious views. After beheading two innocent American journalists, it is not inconceivable that one day ISIS could do the same to Chinese nationals. ISIS also has territorial ambitions toward China’s Xinjiang province and unconfirmed reports suggest that it might have recruited Chinese nationals already. If true, then this is a serious problem as it shows that domestic terrorism in China is now closely connected to international terrorism. In any case, it is not an exaggeration that ISIS already poses a serious threat to China.

A second reason for China to send its troops to fight ISIS is the invaluable combat experience that Chinese military can gain in doing so. Despite the quick increase of China’s military power in recent years, many questions still remain when it comes to the PLA’s actual fighting capabilities because the PLA has not fought a real war in about 30 years. If “the Chinese military can assemble as soon as summoned, fight any battle, and win,” as China’s minister of defense recently said, then it desperately needs better training in areas like logistics, coordination, intelligence, and so forth. How can you gain real combat experience if you never participate in war? Although fighting pirates has some useful functions, fighting a real war is what matters the most for the PLA.

The third benefit for China is that joining the fight against ISIS would engage it more deeply in the Middle East. Now that China imports more oil from the Middle East than the U.S. does, it cannot sit on the sidelines even if it wants to. Even if China does not want any part of the trouble in the Middle East, the trouble there will eventually find its way to China. Given China’s heavy dependence on the Middle East for its energy security, it is imperative that China begin to have a military presence there to protect its expanding economic interests.

The fourth benefit is that fighting ISIS is good for China’s leadership role and global image. The good thing is that ISIS is hated by almost everyone. So the reputational risk for China once it gets involved is limited since fighting ISIS is essentially providing a global public good. The international community has complained that China is not doing enough in terms of its international responsibility. Although this view is unfair, what matters most are perceptions (or misperceptions, as the case might be). Fighting ISIS would give China a good opportunity to clarify its position and enhance its international image and reputation.

Last but not least, fighting ISIS can improve U.S.-China relations, particularly in a time when tensions are rising in this relationship. The U.S. is limited in fighting ISIS fully (for example, with boots on the ground) because of domestic political factors and past failures in Iraq; thus Washington needs greater help from other powers. As the most important bilateral relationship in the world, the Sino-U.S. relationship needs stability and cooperation. Fighting ISIS together precisely provides such an opportunity.

In the end, whether or not to it will send troops overseas to fight ISIS will be a tough decision for Chinese leaders to make, particularly given the complexity of the situation. A good balance needs to be maintained between sovereignty and humanitarian protection, and there are costs, concerns, and uncertainties for China. Above all, China should recognize that this is one a rare opportunity to flex its military muscles without much (or any) international criticism.

To not seize this opportunity would be a mistake for Chinese foreign policy.


China Should Send Troops to Fight ISIS | The Diplomat


F201302210826001026927690[1].jpg



U127P200T1D274613F8DT20090930204817.jpg



pla-sof-at-national-day-parade-ii.jpg
 
Will the Mighty Red Dragon Unfurl Its Mighty Wings?




f-chinalimits-a-cap-20141003[1].jpg
 
No way. I see a sinister intention here to pull China into the mess. China will never in any way be involved, other than advising the sides for a UN-mandated political solution to the civil war. This position has been made clear from the very beginning by the Foreign Ministry.

China made its stance clear from the beginning, especially when it vetoed two times a US-led Resolution for military campaign against the Syrian government.

China seeks a political solution with preliminary conditions being 1. all sides agreeing on a ceasefire, 2. the foreign terrorists leaving the country, 3. Turkey sealing the border, and 4. US,Turkey, Qatar, France etc. stopping training the terrorists called the moderate Islamists.

It is a particular US mess and China WILL NEVER be involved in it in any military way.
 
Last edited:
Even though America is a democracy and China isn't and I'm not saying Americans value human lives any less, but at this point in time, China cannot just go out there and start to lose men, that's simply not an option.

With slowing growth, it is a tough period of transition, now is not the time to do so, when all the dusts have cleared, we'll see.

I don't think Chinese economy is in trouble, more in transition, but perception matters, so the only decision is to leave the world alone.

A irresponsible even aggressive power is better than a non power.
 
Even though America is a democracy and China isn't and I'm not saying Americans value human lives any less, but at this point in time, China cannot just go out there and start to lose men, that's simply not an option.

With slowing growth, it is a tough period of transition, now is not the time to do so, when all the dusts have cleared, we'll see.

I don't think Chinese economy is in trouble, more in transition, but perception matters, so the only decision is to leave the world alone.

A irresponsible even aggressive power is better than a non power.

It is not particularly about the economy or losing men.

It is just not China's business. Those who created this mess are responsible to clear it off.

The Syrian situation would have been solved much earlier had there not been a specific NATO+Gulf effort to import, train, feed, and equip foreign Jihadists to fight in Syria.

ISIS has evolved from Al Nusra. And, before ISIS, al Nusra was the hardliner terrorist in US book. The FSA was the moderate.

FSA is gone. Now, al Nusra is the moderate and the ISIS is the target. Can you see how terrorists become allies and former allies become terrorists?

Who do they think they fool?
 
Last edited:
Even though America is a democracy and China isn't and I'm not saying Americans value human lives any less, but at this point in time, China cannot just go out there and start to lose men, that's simply not an option.

With slowing growth, it is a tough period of transition, now is not the time to do so, when all the dusts have cleared, we'll see.

I don't think Chinese economy is in trouble, more in transition, but perception matters, so the only decision is to leave the world alone.

A irresponsible even aggressive power is better than a non power.

China has already sent a sizeable PLA force into Southern Sudan, sent also a force into Liberia. Years before, the PLA was indispensable by maintaining law and order in Mali. She has quite an extensive experience in dealing with insurgency and rebuilding war-torn areas. That's my view.

In my view, if China goes in, I believe Japan would be emboldened to support China in this operation. Who knows, perhaps a Sino-Japanese team might succeed when all others have failed.
 
I think the author summarized nicely the reasons and I support it, and the reasons he listed are quite common sense. but of course, I am sure 90% of Chinese members here will refuse since they are of some weird political leanings. MARK MY WORDS, haha.

But if I were the American president, I would refuse China to participate. Why should the U.S. train the Chinese army when some Chinese, or should I say most Chinese here, view the U.S. as competitor? the second reason alone is great enough for the Chinese government to be involved in the middle east.
 
It is not particularly about the economy or losing men.

It is just not China's business. Those who created this mess are responsible to clear it off.

The Syrian situation would have been solved much earlier had there not been a specific NATO+Gulf effort to import, train, feed, and equip foreign Jihadists to fight in Syria.

ISIS has evolved from Al Nusra. And, before ISIS, al Nusra was the hardliner terrorist in US book. The FSA was the moderate.

FSA is gone. Now, al Nusra is the moderate and the ISIS is the target.

Why they think they try to fool?

I respect your apprehension, @TaiShang . I , too, was really apprehensive about sending troops into that region. But given the Billions of dollars both Japan and China have invested in this region -- and seeing many of our investments smoldered into ashes...i think its time to protect our investments and the people whom we've been trading with and cooperating with for years now.
 
China has already sent a sizeable PLA force into Southern Sudan, sent also a force into Liberia. Years before, the PLA was indispensable by maintaining law and order in Mali. She has quite an extensive experience in dealing with insurgency and rebuilding war-torn areas. That's my view.

In my view, if China goes in, I believe Japan would be emboldened to support China in this operation. Who knows, perhaps a Sino-Japanese team might succeed when all others have failed.

Those operations were under the UN-mandate as a peacekeeping force. Especially Sudan was a internal civil war.

Syria situation is quite different. It is not an internal (civil) war in the classic sense of the term.

It is a proxy war.

China will never take part in others' proxy wars other than advising political solution.

If, in the future, China's conditions are met, then, under the UN, China may send peacekeeping forces.

But the four conditions must be met, which has been made clear by China when it vetoed US-sponsored Resolutions. This is China's official position. The rest is speculation and mind exercise.

I respect your apprehension, @TaiShang . I , too, was really apprehensive about sending troops into that region. But given the Billions of dollars both Japan and China have invested in this region -- and seeing many of our investments smoldered into ashes...i think its time to protect our investments and the people whom we've been trading with and cooperating with for years now.

Yes, but, more than few dollars are at stake here, and I would also not like to see Japan committing any soldiers to the region. It is a proxy war. Bigger than how it seems. Just think why Israel killed the Iranian and Hezollah commanders the other day. These people were fighting against the ISIS, not Israel or the US.

They were doing exactly what the US appears to be doing.

If Israel is able to kill Iranian commander that fought ISIS, how can you make sure Israel or the US will not kill a Japanese commander in the future? Do you think they really want the ISIS to be destroyed entirely?

No, my friend, it is a mess and a sort of swamp. It will just pull you in deeper and deeper. Just leave it and protect your homeland. Let whatever investment in Syria and Southern Iraq burn to ashes. Who cares?

Let the US continue to make the great impact that it already does.

It has lots of experience. It can absorb soldier death and economic loss. I guess it can deal with a bunch of terrorists whom it knows very well. After all, some of these terrorists have been trained in Turkey by the US professionals.

They know the enemy and what they are capable of. Let them fight and die a noble death. I do not want to see Chinese or Japanese soldiers being killed in some else's proxy war. On China's part, I can tell, this WILL NEVER happen.
 
Last edited:
let see if China will fall for this bait .. i dont think they are fool enough to do so, even West pissing their pants to put boots on ground in Iraq and Syria .... my view .. " Hell No "
 
to the world interest? Yes, of course, almost most definitely, to Chinese interest? No.

First of all, ISIS is a global problem, you have to dislodge your enemy before they settle in an area. ISIS is jow currently settle in Iraq and Syria border and potentially spilled over Turkey, Iran and even as far as afghanistan. Which if you look at it like this, they are at the gateway of Central Asia.

Any delay in dislodging ISIS mean fanning it grow, the only way you can make sure it would have never exist is by killing it when the Idea is still in infancy, meaning, now.

However, on the Chinese prospective, they dont want another mess with radical muslim, already have to deal with uyghur in their north west province, the last thing Chinese want to do is to have the problem expand. Seems like not touching ISIS now would mean you stay out of their way and they stayed out yours. Not involving may seems like a good idea for Chinese

However at this point, ISIS grew strong simply because they bet on inactiveness of other government and they keep winning on that bet. Before ISIS were beaten offf to Syria border, they bet on Iraq will not care about them anymore and start grewing in Syria, they bet on Iraqi would think this is a syria problem, then when they get back to Iraq timing precisely after the US left, they bet on Iran wont do a thing and think this is a Iraqi problem. And they did. Sames goes with Kurdish and turkey, Turkey will think its the kirx problem, while the kurd supposed think Iraqi supposed to protect them...

It worth notice that China, although safe for now, is uncomfortably close to the whole mess, And ISIS is only going to presist until somebody have a substancial army start challenging it, and China would still betting on "This is somebody's else problem" until it suddently appear in Chinese western border.

The real question is, how many time chinese think "its someone's else problem" before ISIS start knocking on Chinese door step. And would it be too late by then?
 
Last edited:
We have enough with US's Asian pivot, we should concentrate our force to consolidate our strenght to set a smooth sail with our "peacefull rising" while let Americans budge with ISIS...they made the mess on this world, let them carry this burden on their shoulders while we sit on the hill and watch ->坐山观虎斗 :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom