Well equiped U.S. Army Compare Chinese Soldiers

[Officer of Engineers]

well, I dont worry about the picture resulted by people's war in China, coz there's tinny tiny chance for that to occur.

You do know that even Generals have to earn their paycheques. Harping on a doctrine that doesn't work is the quickest way to get fired ... as happened after the 1st Sino-VN War.

do you see the US troops stay at leisure in Iraq and Afghanistan as they'd ever expected?

Compare to past occupations, it is leisure. Casualties are a historic low in both theatres. Whether there's a will to stay the course is an open question but the military situation in both countries is far, far, far from intolerable.

hate is the most dangerous enemy.

That depends. Who hates who more? The locals hating each other or uniting against the occupier? The largest force fighting on the American side in both Iraq and Afghanistan are Iraqis and Afghans.

actually I wonder what would happen to the world if it happens to China. (despite there would be someone aside saying "my uncle Sam will bomb you back to the stoneage" )

Not Uncle Sam but Uncle Joe. You do know that the Soviets were poised to invade China in the early 70s with full plans for a nuclear supported strike across all of China.

I admit it's a wise pickup of the great battle of defending Stalingrad. the war started on July 1942 and Mao got his theory of durative war issued in 1938. he was apparently a student of Chinese history and culture, Lizicheng (leader of the peasant insurrection against the Ming regime) was supposed to be the No.1 historical figure in Mao's researching list.

My point was that others have long mastered what he preached without ever knowing the man.

China has a long history of victories and defeats which is beyond a whole life study,nonetheless, looking outward and studying the advanced armies is never less important than introspection.

Well, no. Modern warfare has long surpassed those ancient wars. I study ancient battles mostly out of enjoyment but I doubt even Napoleon's mastery of Le Grande Armee or even the Mongol's Golden Horde would last 10 minutes against my single squadron's firepower.

 

[kvLin]

You do know that even Generals have to earn their paycheques. Harping on a doctrine that doesn't work is the quickest way to get fired ... as happened after the 1st Sino-VN War.

sure, crisis awareness makes better preparation.

Compare to past occupations, it is leisure. Casualties are a historic low in both theatres. Whether there's a will to stay the course is an open question but the military situation in both countries is far, far, far from intolerable.

when casualties is getting lower, bearable load lower in consequence. isn't it?

That depends. Who hates who more? The locals hating each other or uniting against the occupier? The largest force fighting on the American side in both Iraq and Afghanistan are Iraqis and Afghans.

Now that we're supposing China being invaded,you sure know who hates who more. I have no expectation for China to fight a war outside. the hate in Iraq towards the US and US involved Iraqi are kinda complex, they could be of nationalistic,denominational as well as ultimatistic. while things are unique in China.

Not Uncle Sam but Uncle Joe. You do know that the Soviets were poised to invade China in the early 70s with full plans for a nuclear supported strike across all of China.

In their plan the target was north part of China. especially heavy industry area in the northeast. just think what had held them back (neither Soviet conscience nor China's compromise). and you know what happened later on.

My point was that others have long mastered what he preached without ever knowing the man.

No problem here.

Well, no. Modern warfare has long surpassed those ancient wars. I study ancient battles mostly out of enjoyment but I doubt even Napoleon's mastery of Le Grande Armee or even the Mongol's Golden Horde would last 10 minutes against my single squadron's firepower.

Of course I was talking about the research on strategy, pls dont transcend space-time and make the satisfying weapon comparison.

ps. honestly I do enjoy this kind of talk with you.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

sure, crisis awareness makes better preparation.

And the problem with that is that Generals are always preparing to fight the last war. One of the most discouraging things that I see is that we're reducing emphasis on modern mech warfare and more on COIN ops. The last real attempt at visioning the future was done by General Eric Shinseki. However, he was wrong but at least he was attempting to fight the next war.

when casualties is getting lower, bearable load lower in consequence. isn't it?

I see this as more of a failure in leadership than anything else. It's fine and dandy to say that Bush is wrong but no counter-arguement except to leave and even then, it is so vague on how to leave that it's worthless. Plunging Iraq into civil war is not acceptable to either the Democrats nor the Republicans. Ok, then what? No answer.

Now that we're supposing China being invaded,you sure know who hates who more. I have no expectation for China to fight a war outside. the hate in Iraq towards the US and US involved Iraqi are kinda complex, they could be of nationalistic,denominational as well as ultimatistic. while things are unique in China.

I submit that China is even more complex. You have two groups already who would split in a second (Tibet and Xinjiang). Taiwan would declare independence and when was the last time Cantonese was allowed in Beijing? (I mean as without people looking at you funny.)

In their plan the target was north part of China. especially heavy industry area in the northeast. just think what had held them back (neither Soviet conscience nor China's compromise). and you know what happened later on.

The most obvious target was Lop Nor. As to what held them back, Nixon in his memoirs stated that Brezhnev asked him on a joint strike against China. Nixon replied that the US would look upon this with grave consequences and would be determined to help China every way humanitarianly possible.

Of course I was talking about the research on strategy, pls dont transcend space-time and make the satisfying weapon comparison.

You've missed the point. Strategic concerns have been enlarged way beyond what those ancient wars would apply. What was strategic concern back then are now tactical ones and the centre of battlefield gravity has shifted away from battles of annihilation to intelligence management.

Do you seriously think that 100 men can take on 100,000? Even with unlimited ammo and the other side only have spears? But knowing where and how to hit and having the knowledge where the enemy is, including his centres of gravity, I can start reducing them from Army to Corps to Division to Brigade.

 

[overseer]

You've missed the point. Strategic concerns have been enlarged way beyond what those ancient wars would apply. What was strategic concern back then are now tactical ones and the centre of battlefield gravity has shifted away from battles of annihilation to intelligence management.

Do you seriously think that 100 men can take on 100,000? Even with unlimited ammo and the other side only have spears? But knowing where and how to hit and having the knowledge where the enemy is, including his centres of gravity, I can start reducing them from Army to Corps to Division to Brigade.

I disagree. Look at guerrilla warfare. It is still the most ancient form of warfare and yet it is still largely effective counter against modern strategic doctrine. What's the modern "strategy" going to do on guerrilla warfare when you can't really determine where "center of enemy's gravity" are? If you have the answer, I think US-DOD should give you a job hunting down Al Quada. Ofcourse, you would be deluding yourself for thinking you are qualify to answer that.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

I am more than qualified to answer that, having seen the worst of a civil war. You, however, are a damned idiot to pretend to know more than me.

The centre of gravity for guerrilla warfare has been known for over 5000 years. It's women and children. Get rid of them and the guerrilla disappears.

 

[Adux]

OEE Sir,

I dont understand why people call Iraq a failure in military terms, civilian control has never been the work of a military. No War in this scale in history has claimed so little live's on the invading force. 3000-odd. I would call it a very successfull one, I dont think there is any military in the world right now, which has the resources or the capacity to do what US Forces has did. Iraq is a political debacle.
If Americans have taken the same strategy's of Saddam, that is if you go against me, your mother, father, wife, children and relatives would die; The insurgency would not been there. It is rather funny, the 600,000 thousand Iraqi's who have died will have their own people to blame since they were the one's who had suicide belts bombing market's, hospitals, hotels etc.

If US stoop down to Saddam's level insurgency would stop in IMO. It has before, it will now.

 

[Adux]

I disagree. Look at guerrilla warfare. It is still the most ancient form of warfare and yet it is still largely effective counter against modern strategic doctrine. What's the modern "strategy" going to do on guerrilla warfare when you can't really determine where "center of enemy's gravity" are? If you have the answer, I think US-DOD should give you a job hunting down Al Quada. Ofcourse, you would be deluding yourself for thinking you are qualify to answer that.

You are a complete idiot in thinking that he would not be qualified to answer that, An Ex-Canadian Colonel in Engg Corps. He has served and is a VET, something that cannot be said of you. Oh yes, He is of Chinese Decent and is a PLA watcher. So my suggestion to you Respect him and try to learn something from the man.

 

[kvLin]

And the problem with that is that Generals are always preparing to fight the last war. One of the most discouraging things that I see is that we're reducing emphasis on modern mech warfare and more on COIN ops. The last real attempt at visioning the future was done by General Eric Shinseki. However, he was wrong but at least he was attempting to fight the next war.

General Eric Shinseki is a seasoned armyman but he might be wrong when he called for more military force into Iraq, before his early retirement there was Thomas White standing similarly against Donald Rumsfeld on whether to change the current structure of the U.S. Army or to send more troops into Iraq.

then look at the piece of CNN news: "White House says President Bush and Iraq's prime minister agree it will take more military force to calm the violence in Baghdad. However, US officials say Bush hasn't decided whether to send in more US troops."

Shall we say Iraq is a big headache,shall we not?

I see this as more of a failure in leadership than anything else. It's fine and dandy to say that Bush is wrong but no counter-arguement except to leave and even then, it is so vague on how to leave that it's worthless. Plunging Iraq into civil war is not acceptable to either the Democrats nor the Republicans. Ok, then what? No answer.

then big burden upon the current Bush administration, then greater challenge from the Democrats.

I submit that China is even more complex. You have two groups already who would split in a second (Tibet and Xinjiang). Taiwan would declare independence and when was the last time Cantonese was allowed in Beijing? (I mean as without people looking at you funny.)

The taiwan issue is indeed a danger to Chinese government, you know why it insists on the return of a small island? in my view it actually concerns the overall stabilization of the country. and that's why China prefer the status quo to its independence.

anyway, if there have to be a Sino-USA war in the future,the causing fuse could be nothing more than Taiwan.
as for the populace in Tibet and Xinjiang, a recent internet vote on China's Sina.com somehow resulted unlooked-for, 93% of the Tibetan and 96% of the Uigur voted for satisfaction on the current condition of China,while only 83% of the Han clicked the same button.

I recommend cordially a good visit deep in China. Being a China watcher,you need to make your time on it. and welcome.
btw,I'm originally from Beijing, now live in Guangdong. dont quite get you on dislikings between different cites in China.it's atbest cultural joke.

The most obvious target was Lop Nor. As to what held them back, Nixon in his memoirs stated that Brezhnev asked him on a joint strike against China. Nixon replied that the US would look upon this with grave consequences and would be determined to help China every way humanitarianly possible.

Humanitarianism is the splendid flag,under which it's Nixon's global stratagem (we still need to give thanks to whatever it was). a good judgement was made during cold war--China could be an excellent frontline in confronting the polar bear. later on was the once-a-time Sino-USA honeymoon featured by the Peacepearl project.

You've missed the point. Strategic concerns have been enlarged way beyond what those ancient wars would apply. What was strategic concern back then are now tactical ones and the centre of battlefield gravity has shifted away from battles of annihilation to intelligence management.

You're right but my point is that warfare has been changing technically and you may fight a totally different one in near future,whereas the art of war will inspire every generation to the last.

Do you seriously think that 100 men can take on 100,000? Even with unlimited ammo and the other side only have spears? But knowing where and how to hit and having the knowledge where the enemy is, including his centres of gravity, I can start reducing them from Army to Corps to Division to Brigade.

It depends, you can nuke million people prior to their dispersal, but it's very very hard to perish a nation, Judah is the best proof. and on the contrast,10000 superiorty like FBI might also fail to hold back a couple of desperado.

I feel you're beside Rumsfeld by preaching smaller amry and higher efficiency. am I right?

 

[overseer]

I am more than qualified to answer that, having seen the worst of a civil war. You, however, are a damned idiot to pretend to know more than me.

The centre of gravity for guerrilla warfare has been known for over 5000 years. It's women and children. Get rid of them and the guerrilla disappears.

Stupid Idiot.

I am not going to degrade to your level name calling, but I can justify to say you have no qualification of commenting on that. If you are so sure you have a strategy of dealing with insurgents, why aren't you tapped as the commanding officer of Coalition army? LOL. Since the military only promote capable men, you're not the one making decision right now for this kind of thing, I can only surmise you sir, are incapable of answering that question. To be in a situation does not mean you have the answer, and it is very clear you do not know the answer. And what a moronic answer you gave too, I can't believe an officer like you are even spouting these detestable words. If that's your answer, I think you are no different from Lt. William Calley.

Overseer please enlighten us as to your experience before pouring scorn upon another's. As someone else who has seen the repercussions I would suggest a little more study on your part.

 

[overseer]

You are a complete idiot in thinking that he would not be qualified to answer that, An Ex-Canadian Colonel in Engg Corps. He has served and is a VET, something that cannot be said of you. Oh yes, He is of Chinese Decent and is a PLA watcher. So my suggestion to you Respect him and try to learn something from the man.

And being a Vet does not mean he is qualify to answer EVERY QUESTION does it? Incase you are to retarded by your years of english training and still not able to read his name, He serves in the ENGINEERING corp, that should give you the hint what kind of expertise he is in, he surely is not specialise in combat or counter insurgency. So, you are an idiot to even believe he is qualify to answer any of that.

I am a infantryman and know the value of engineers so may be you should learn too. Keysersoze

 

[Bull]

I am not going to degrade to your level name calling, but I can justify to say you have no qualification of commenting on that. If you are so sure you have a strategy of dealing with insurgents, why aren't you tapped as the commanding officer of Coalition army? LOL. Since the military only promote capable men, you're not the one making decision right now for this kind of thing, I can only surmise you sir, are incapable of answering that question. To be in a situation does not mean you have the answer, and it is very clear you do not know the answer. (What a moronic answer you gave too)

U absolutly have no idea of what you got yourself into!!!

 

[Keysersoze]

OEE Sir,

I dont understand why people call Iraq a failure in military terms, civilian control has never been the work of a military. No War in this scale in history has claimed so little live's on the invading force. 3000-odd. I would call it a very successfull one, I dont think there is any military in the world right now, which has the resources or the capacity to do what US Forces has did. Iraq is a political debacle.
If Americans have taken the same strategy's of Saddam, that is if you go against me, your mother, father, wife, children and relatives would die; The insurgency would not been there. It is rather funny, the 600,000 thousand Iraqi's who have died will have their own people to blame since they were the one's who had suicide belts bombing market's, hospitals, hotels etc.

If US stoop down to Saddam's level insurgency would stop in IMO. It has before, it will now.

Adux it's a disaster because there is a mess left behind that is now the responsibilty of the people there. Numbers count for nought if the aims (political and military) do not succeed.

Look at the numbers for Vietnam. That was a loss too and it effected U.S military policy for the next 20 years. (the whole domino effect thing is debatable)

 

[overseer]

I am a infantryman and know the value of engineers so may be you should learn too. Keysersoze

I did not question his engineering specialty did I ?? I question the validity of his ludicrous assertion on counter-insurgency strategy (wipe out women and children) from an army engineer.

 

[Adux]

Adux it's a disaster because there is a mess left behind that is now the responsibilty of the people there. Numbers count for nought if the aims (political and military) do not succeed.

Look at the numbers for Vietnam. That was a loss too and it effected U.S military policy for the next 20 years. (the whole domino effect thing is debatable)

keyser,

Political Question is surefire answer, just look at the approval ratings of Dubya, 28% it is even worse than Nixon and I agree with your assesment that it will have a domino effect on the policy.
I was talking in terms of a Military prespective; I find it quite stupid to blame the American and british Military; since they did their job. Its not their fault that their civilian admin did not proceed with the timely needed rehabilitation as well as the relief, to the fill the vaccum for the Iraqi's. The whole civil structure collapsed cuz of the invasion, It was the duty of the American admin to get it back up as soon as possible which they did not. Situation is beyond repair in my opinion.
Dont you think if the Americans try to root out dissent in the Saddam way, there would be no dissent at all.
I just dont agree in blaming the military, I think they did a splendid job.

 

[Keysersoze]

I did not question his engineering specialty did I ?? I question the validity of his ludicrous assertion on counter-insurgency strategy (wipe out women and children) from an army engineer.

Overseer I suggest you look at the successful anti-insurgency operations and what they involve. I do not believe that OOE was suggesting "wipe them out". rather I think he was suggesting remove a element from the equation (there are successes and failures). The malayan emergency is an example of this.