Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 0
As usual I hope you indulge my laziness in that I just don't follow this stuff but for headlines anymore
I saw a headline that " we will run Venezuela"
If that's the case does it mean we *again* had no plan for an interim government, date specific elections, etc?
Please tell me we aren't trying the Occupation slash Nation Build thing again.
Mind you, these aren't "religion of peace" people so they will be more civilized but nevertheless...the occupation shit is suicide.
No. of Recommendations: 5
If that's the case does it mean we *again* had no plan for an interim government, date specific elections, etc?
Please tell me we aren't trying the Occupation slash Nation Build thing again.
You could watch the entire, hour long, presser.
The officially official plan is to appoint an equivalent to the "Provisional Authority" the Bush junta set up in Iraq. Major participants being Rubio and Kegsbreath.
The "temporary" regime will rule until King Trump decides the country is "safe" to put back in Venezuelan hands, headed by someone the Pirate King approves of. There is no timeline for that handover. The stated objective is to prevent anyone his nibs doesn't like, having any authority in the country.
Machado has been thrown under the bus, like any other Prole, whose usefulness has ended. Nothing but expendable meat to a "JC".
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
Oh, one other thing Baa, God and Savior Trump intends to extract reparations from Venezuela for the harms the US supposedly suffered, due to Venezuela.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 18
Oh, one other thing Baa, God and Savior Trump intends to extract reparations from Venezuela for the harms the US supposedly suffered, due to Venezuela.
Such a box of bullshit Trump is serving up. We sliced and diced that country over a hundred years ago, installed the crooks who ran the country, who opened the veins of Venezuela and allowed us to drain its resources, who granted the concessions to oil companies for bribes (not for the welfare of Venezuela).
Nor will any of Trump’s happy talk redound to the benefit of anyone beside himself and a handful of inner circle cronies.
This charade has NOTHING to do with democracy (not even mentioned today) or the welfare of the Venezuelan people who deserve more than having one economic rapist replaced with another.
No. of Recommendations: 3
This charade has NOTHING to do with democracy (not even mentioned today) or the welfare of the Venezuelan people who deserve more than having one economic rapist replaced with another.
This is the exact same NeoCon playbook we saw in Iraq, 20 years ago. The same "justifications": WMDs, Islamic boogyman. The exact same policy: install US administration, while shoving other oil companies aside so US companies can profit.
Oh, one other thing. Recall, Trump, the "peace President" was claiming to have ended 8 wars. One of those was the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. Fighting broke out there again, so I wondered if he was going to deduct 1 from his "peace" total, or add 1 more if the shooting stops again. In the presser, he claimed he stopped the fighting again, and allowed himself another "quarter" of a war ended, making his total now 8 1/4. Onward and upward, for the "peace President".
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
Nope.
By calling for Maduro’s VP to run the interim government, Machado - who is a very, very smart lady - accomplishes the following:
1. It actually keeps the existing government in place.
Think back to Bush43. The biggest mistake they made was in not following Jay Garner’s (IIRC) original plan to keep the government in place. They dissolved the entire Iraqi government and sent all the police and military home with their weapons. We know how that turned out.
By keeping the current government in place Machado avoids that (because not everyone is going to be a dyed in the wool narcoterrorist).
2. By keeping the existing government in place, we haven’t “toppled” anything. We merely executed some arrest warrants.
3. This buys Machado time to get her peeps around her, get organized and get ready for the national referendum that they’ll have, hopefully by May or so.
If you know what to look for (i.e. ignore what this board’s libs are saying) there are lots of patterns to see.
Trump hates nation building. Always has. He doesn’t mind using the US military but he understands the main game is China, not setting up a puppet regime in Venezuela.
No. of Recommendations: 3
We sliced and diced that country over a hundred years ago, installed the crooks who ran the country, who opened the veins of Venezuela and allowed us to drain its resources, who granted the concessions to oil companies for bribes (not for the welfare of Venezuela).
LOL. You have Colombia mixed up with Venezuela.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Dope1.....
Thanks for your posts, I read in detail.
Another question - wondering your opinion as someone who is current on all these things.
Ukraine.
Taiwan.
I honestly don't think Trump is this strategic *but*....could this be a deal that tells Vladdy - ok, he's gonna slice off a part of Ukraine's ass and be rewarded for the war. And China - when you take Taiwan, the most we'll do is boycott the mall food court chopsticks place for a day....BUT in return, you all do nothing and let us have our way in Venezuela because after all, let's face it, do the 3 of us *really* want to tangle with each other? This way we all get what we want.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I honestly don't think Trump is this strategic *but*....could this be a deal that tells Vladdy - ok, he's gonna slice off a part of Ukraine's ass and be rewarded for the war. And China - when you take Taiwan, the most we'll do is boycott the mall food court chopsticks place for a day....BUT in return, you all do nothing and let us have our way in Venezuela because after all, let's face it, do the 3 of us *really* want to tangle with each other? This way we all get what we want.
We're not giving away Taiwan. No way, no how. The reasons aren't just economic but also geographic.
Taiwan is the key to keeping the Chinese from projecting power into the central Pacific, north to Japan and south to Australia. Chinese ownership of Taiwan threatens the next line of islands in the chain in the Pacific and that's not something we're going to allow.
What I don't get is why we don't just go ahead and recognize them.
No. of Recommendations: 13
Taiwan is the key to keeping the Chinese from projecting power into the central Pacific, north to Japan and south to Australia. Chinese ownership of Taiwan threatens the next line of islands in the chain in the Pacific and that's not something we're going to allow.
What I don't get is why we don't just go ahead and recognize them.
We’re back to “spheres of influence”, the sort of statecraft that bedeviled Europe and got us into two world wars.
Taiwan is within China’s “sphere of influence”, and Trump just gave China the green light to invade China, by this weekend’s behavior in Venezuela- acting like a hedgemon in our own “sphere of influence”.
Yes Dope, China got the message, but their takeaway was quite different from the one you think was sent and received.
No. of Recommendations: 2
correction:
Trump just gave China the green light to invade Taiwan.
No. of Recommendations: 3
What I don't get is why we don't just go ahead and recognize them.
I've read something about that. They perceive a benefit to ambiguity. I don't agree. I agree with you that we should recognize them. China will be pissed, but so what. They are also going to be pissed if we continue to enforce internationally recognized territorial waters. But we should do that anyway.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Taiwan is within China’s “sphere of influence”, and Trump just gave China the green light to invade China, by this weekend’s behavior in Venezuela
Yeah, no. The “Taiwan is just like Venezuela” wins the prize for the most insane take of 2026 thus far.
No. of Recommendations: 9
Yeah, no. The “Taiwan is just like Venezuela” wins the prize for the most insane take of 2026 thus far.
Don’t be foolish; that’s not what I said or implied. Taiwan and Venezuela are not the same, except that by manhandling Venezuela, Trump has handed Taiwan to China, giving Xi the “sphere of influence, if.America.can.do.it.in.her.own.backyard.so.can.we.” excuse he needs to gather in the wayward province of Taiwan.
Proof positive that Trump can’t even play checkers, let alone 4D chess.
We have a madman in the White House who has no clue what he is doing, and what he is destroying. He sees a shiny object and reaches for it. His statecraft doesn’t go much beyond that.
No. of Recommendations: 3
We're not giving away Taiwan. No way, no how. The reasons aren't just economic but also geographic. - Dope
---------------------
This is something I have long wondered about. Is it realistic to think we could stop a determined Chinese conventional war to take Taiwan.
Chinese proximity to the battle field vs lengthy US supply lines, numerical advantages in personnel and weaponry will favor China prevailing in the long run. Mainland China provides a massive launching ground for a steady rain of rocket fire and drones on the tiny target of Taiwan. Much more intense than what Israel had to endure from Iran, Hamas, and their proxies. We would essentially have to conquer China to bring an end to the conflict in order to establish Taiwan's independence once and for all.
If the situation goes nuclear then all bets are off and everybody looses.
There a lot of posters on the board who seem to know a lot about foreign military capabilities as well as weapons and counter measures. So I would be interested in what you think a plausible defense of Taiwan might look like.
No. of Recommendations: 2
What I don't get is why we don't just go ahead and recognize them.
I've read something about that. They perceive a benefit to ambiguity.
Strategic ambiguity was good for a time, but things may have changed enough to where recognition and an open declaration of support may be warranted. It was/is a balancing act.
SNIP Strategic ambiguity
on Taiwan is the long-standing U.S. policy of intentionally being unclear about whether it would militarily intervene if China attacked Taiwan, aiming to deter both Chinese invasion and Taiwanese formal independence by keeping Beijing guessing about a U.S. response, while also signaling support through arms sales under the Taiwan Relations Act. This policy creates uncertainty for China to discourage aggression and for Taiwan to prevent provocations, but its effectiveness is increasingly debated as China's military power grows, leading some to call for strategic clarity (an explicit defense commitment).
Key aspects of strategic ambiguity:
Deterrence: Prevents China from invading by leaving open the possibility of U.S. military involvement.
Restraint: Discourages Taiwan from declaring formal independence, which China views as a red line, by withholding a guarantee of U.S.
military rescue.
Uncertainty: Deliberately creates ambiguity about the conditions and nature of U.S. intervention.
Legal Basis: Stemmed from the U.S. recognizing the PRC and ending formal ties, but the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) established unofficial
relations and mandated defensive arms sales, creating this ambiguous stance. SNIP
No. of Recommendations: 3
Yeah, no. The “Taiwan is just like Venezuela” wins the prize for the most insane take of 2026 thus far.
That isn't an insane take, it's just a dreadful possibility I hope is a remote chance. Plenty of writers have noted it, but most "strategically" waltz right by it.
No. of Recommendations: 5
This is something I have long wondered about. Is it realistic to think we could stop a determined Chinese conventional war to take Taiwan.
You’ve voiced THE real question.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Is it realistic to think we could stop a determined Chinese conventional war to take Taiwan.
No. The only question is how corrupt is the Chinese Military?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Trump has handed Taiwan to China, giving Xi the “sphere of influence,
No he hasn’t. And that take is miles off base.
No. of Recommendations: 2
That isn't an insane take, it's just a dreadful possibility I hope is a remote chance. Plenty of writers have noted it, but most "strategically" waltz right by it.
Nothing changed vis a vis China and Taiwan because of Venezuela. They believe Taiwan is a breakaway province and a part of China. That perception was not affected at all by us arresting Maduro.
And China already believes they own the South China Sea and everything in it. You of all people are especially aware of their territorial ambitions far beyond Taiwan.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Nothing changed vis a vis China and Taiwan because of Venezuela. They believe Taiwan is a breakaway province and a part of China. That perception was not affected at all by us arresting Maduro.
And China already believes they own the South China Sea and everything in it. You of all people are especially aware of their territorial ambitions far beyond Taiwan.
It doesn't change their desires. But it makes it more difficult for the rest of the world to say to China, "You're wrong." For the rest of the world to marshall diplomatic and economic forces in opposition to China's ambitions in the region.
Right now, the rules-based international order is that countries cannot use military force against other countries except in certain very limited circumstances - which circumstances do not include "they have resource we want or need" or "our national security would be better off if we had their territory instead of just our own." The idea is that if even the strong nations agree to be bound by those rules, then everyone has the protection of being more secure (though not absolutely certain) than in the absence of that rules-based system.
If the U.S. backs away from that rules-based international order in favor of a system where using military force against other countries is okay if the strong country really wants something from the weak country, then it becomes much easier for other strong countries to do the same thing. Not that there was anything physically preventing them from doing it in the first place - if China wanted to roll into Laos and take a chunk for themselves, nothing could stop them. But because of the rules-based order, doing so would present China with costs in the international community that make taking a bite out of Laos using a military invasion less attractive.
When you erode that, you don't change what China wants - or what it believes it's entitled to - but you do change the cost benefit equation to the use of military action, and you expand the collection of excuses that can be made for military action that China might determine (correctly or not) it can engage in without arousing the costly wrath of the international community. Again, these norms don't prevent China from using military force, but increase the cost of using direct military force relative to other efforts to try to obtain their ambitions.
No. of Recommendations: 4
The “rules based international order” is on life support, and Trump, Xi and Putin are busy trying to cut the power cord.
No. of Recommendations: 3
But it makes it more difficult for the rest of the world to say to China, "You're wrong." For the rest of the world to marshall diplomatic and economic forces in opposition to China's ambitions in the region.
No it does not. The comparisons between Venezuela and Taiwan are silly. Is Taiwan hosting terrorist groups? Are they running drugs into China?
No and no.
Right now, the rules-based international order is that countries cannot use military force against other countries except in certain very limited circumstances - which circumstances do not include "they have resource we want or need" or "our national security would be better off if we had their territory instead of just our own." The idea is that if even the strong nations agree to be bound by those rules, then everyone has the protection of being more secure (though not absolutely certain) than in the absence of that rules-based system.
Right because China and Russia follow "the rules" already. To a T.
When you erode that, you don't change what China wants - or what it believes it's entitled to - but you do change the cost benefit equation to the use of military action, and you expand the collection of excuses that can be made for military action that China might determine (correctly or not) it can engage in without arousing the costly wrath of the international community. Again, these norms don't prevent China from using military force, but increase the cost of using direct military force relative to other efforts to try to obtain their ambitions.
The only cost/benefit analysis the Chines care about with respect to Taiwan is the following:
1. How much of Taiwan's economic assets survive the attack?
2. How much trade does China lose as a result of the attack?
3. How much of a benefit of capturing Taiwan vs. neutralizing it generate with respect to projecting military power outside the first island chain?
4. How expensive will it be in terms of ships and planes to neutralize/take over Taiwan?
Your "rules" don't make that list.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Why did Joe Biden put a $25 million bounty on Maduro?
No. of Recommendations: 4
But because of the rules-based order, doing so would present China with costs in the international community that make taking a bite out of Laos using a military invasion less attractive.
Forgot something.
How much of a price has China paid as a result of their harassment of Vietnam and the Philippine Islands in the South China Sea? Or for their virtual takeover of Tibet?
(Hint: Starts with 'z', ends with '-ero').
No. of Recommendations: 4
Is Taiwan hosting terrorist groups? Are they running drugs into China?
Did Saddam have WMD's? Did Saddam mastermind 9/11?
Doesn't matter. Governments make up excuses to do what they had already decided to do.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 14
Your "rules" don't make that list.
Except that #2 is one of the main avenues for my "rules." Military actions that comply with international norms do not result in trade losses. Military actions that violate international norms can result in heavy trade losses (hi, Russia!). So if you change the international rules so that more military actions are "okay," then that changes the cost-benefit equation.
#4 is a similar issue. Military actions that comply with international norms do not usually result in strong wealthy countries providing military assistance to the weaker country you've taken action against, minimizing your military losses. Military actions that violate international norms can result in everyone in the world trying to help the smaller country, whether by direct action (Gulf War I) or providing economic and military support to the smaller country (Ukraine). Russia's suffered vastly more losses in ships and planes (and men) because the rest of the world rushed to support Ukraine than if everyone had agreed that their invasion was justified.
So if you change the rules so that actions like this are more defensible, then you increase the likelihood that powers like China will use military force against their neighbors. Either because you have lowered the cost they will incur because of using military force, or because you have led them to wrongly think that the cost is lowered (ie. like Russia not anticipating that the rest of the world would rush to Ukraine's aid).
There's a reason why China has merely "harassed" Vietnam and the Philippine Islands, rather than moving in with the Red Army and conquering those lands. They are making efforts to stay "within the lines" of what will be considered an overt violation of territorial integrity that will arouse the wrath of the international community (a la Ukraine). Those are examples of the rules-based order working - it doesn't prevent "harrassment," but it does deter outright the type of outright military invasion and "war as an extension of politics by other means" tactics that used to predominate in the 19th and early 20th century.
The U.S. going back to gunboat diplomacy weakens the proscription against using military force to accomplish political aims (or criminal justice aims). By widening the arena for permissible military force, you make it much easier for China to use military force in their "neighborhood." Which is something we used to be making a serious effort to stop.
No. of Recommendations: 5
The U.S. going back to gunboat diplomacy weakens the proscription against using military force to accomplish political aims (or criminal justice aims). By widening the arena for permissible military force, you make it much easier for China to use military force in their "neighborhood." Which is something we used to be making a serious effort to stop.
There's so much wrong with this statement.
Maduro wasn't the lawful head of his government. That one factoid alone takes care of your "rules".
No. of Recommendations: 6
Maduro wasn't the lawful head of his government. That one factoid alone takes care of your "rules".
Why? We don't have the right to invade another country to capture a criminal, whether they're a head of state or not. We would be aghast if some other country marched into the U.S. with their military if they wanted to capture one of our domestic criminals that is on the distribution/consumption end of an international drug cartel, and would (correctly) regard that as a gross violation of international law.
The "rules" limit the use of military force to resolving military issues (as a general matter). You can use military force to defend your country from military attacks, or to defend another country from a military attack (Gulf War I). Military force can be sanctioned by international bodies as commensurate with the obligations of territorial integrity under international norms (like the U.N. charter).
But if China says that Lai Ching-te isn't the lawful head of the government of Taiwan, and proceeds to invade the country in order to capture him, the international community would (presumably) not accept that justification and would respond to China the way it would to any other act of naked territorial aggression. Now, though, that gets juuuuuuuust a bit harder...because China can point to our actions in Venezuela as an example of how such a military action can be justified if the person: i) isn't really a head of state; and ii) engaging in crimes that they claim affect their national security (however implausible that claim is).
No. of Recommendations: 3
Why?
Because it's the legal underpinning of placing him in custody, that's why.
We would be aghast if some other country marched into the U.S. with their military if they wanted to capture one of our domestic criminals that is on the distribution/consumption end of an international drug cartel, and would (correctly) regard that as a gross violation of international law.
Are we harboring terrorists, laundering money, shipping oil in violation of all these rules you keep citing and running drugs into the country that's invading?
Amazing how the context never plays into these things...
But if China says that Lai Ching-te isn't the lawful head of the government of Taiwan, and proceeds to invade the country in order to capture him, the international community would (presumably) not accept that justification and would respond to China the way it would to any other act of naked territorial aggression. Now, though, that gets juuuuuuuust a bit harder...because China can point to our actions in Venezuela as an example of how such a military action can be justified if the person: i) isn't really a head of state; and ii) engaging in crimes that they claim affect their national security (however implausible that claim is).
LOLOLOLOLOL. Sure.
1. China doens't give a crap about "rules"
2. They don't regard Taiwan's government as legit in any way. Fortunately, everyone else does.
No. of Recommendations: 10
Because it's the legal underpinning of placing him in custody, that's why.
No it's not. We didn't place him in custody because he lost an election. We placed him in custody, ostensibly, because he was engaged in criminal activity. It doesn't matter that he's not a head of state - almost every criminal on earth isn't a head of state.
Are we harboring terrorists, laundering money, shipping oil in violation of all these rules you keep citing and running drugs into the country that's invading?
Nope, but none of those things are relevant to the rules. You don't get to invade another country because they're doing money laundering. You don't get to invade another country because they're violating your country's rules on oil shipments. You don't get to invade another country because they're engaged in illegal drug supplying, any more than they get to invade you because you're engaged in illegal drug buying. Etc.
You don't get to use military action to promote other political or criminal justice objectives. The most important "rules" of the rules-based order are severe limitations on the acceptable circumstances under which you can engage in a violation of another country's territorial sovereignty with military forces. It's worked astonishingly well for the last seventy years or so - we've never seen a time period in human history that was so free from war and military conflict, even though the wars and conflicts that do exist are still terrible. That works because the strong countries have been willing to be constrained - to accept limits on their own use of military force far beyond what they could practically get away with, because a more peaceful world was something they valued more than the short-term results that they could achieve by just using force.
1. China doens't give a crap about "rules"
Of course they do, or they would have just invaded a bunch of their neighbors a long time ago. As you pointed out above, they care an awful lot about trade, and they care about what other countries will do if they were to invade a neighbor. And both of those things are heavily shaped by the "rules" that other countries will follow. If invading Laos would result in a massive trade embargo and military response by other nations, it becomes a pretty easy call to not invade Laos. If it doesn't - if the rest of the world would recognize a "Han-roe Doctrine" and allow China to exercise dominion via military force in their own backyard - then they would use military invasion, rather than "Belt and Road," in a heartbeat.
No. of Recommendations: 4
No it's not. We didn't place him in custody because he lost an election. We placed him in custody, ostensibly, because he was engaged in criminal activity. It doesn't matter that he's not a head of state - almost every criminal on earth isn't a head of state.
We placed him in custody because he's a narcoterrorist. The fact that he's not head of state means he's just another fugitive from US justice.
Nope, but none of those things are relevant to the rules.
LOL, sure.
I don't recall you being this upset when SEAL Team 6 literally invaded Pakistan and whacked Bin Laden. Where's your outrage? Oh, right, that's different, right? Also don't recall you raising any objections to eradicating Libya's government.
Noriega is your best argumentative path but the problem you'll have is that he made it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost and even that case doesn't line up with this one.
It's worked astonishingly well for the last seventy years or so - we've never seen a time period in human history that was so free from war and military conflict, even though the wars and conflicts that do exist are still terrible.
The post WWII order of an exhausted Europe and a polar orientation of global power centered on the US and USSR had more to do with it. Even so, you're going to be disappointed at the amount of covert activity that went on in direct contradiction to "the rules".
Of course they do, or they would have just invaded a bunch of their neighbors a long time ago.
They lacked the capability to project power. It's as simple as that. That fact is rapidly changing, however. By 2027-2029 they're going to be ready to move.
They're already engaging in asymmetric attacks on the US and have for some time. Thank God the people in charge are finally taking it seriously.
No. of Recommendations: 10
I don't recall you being this upset when SEAL Team 6 literally invaded Pakistan and whacked Bin Laden. Where's your outrage? Oh, right, that's different, right? Also don't recall you raising any objections to eradicating Libya's government.
You don't see a difference between going after Bin Laden, who actually orchestrated a physical attack against the United States, and someone who (like thousands of other people) was involved in drug trafficking? Right....
The post WWII order of an exhausted Europe and a polar orientation of global power centered on the US and USSR had more to do with it. Even so, you're going to be disappointed at the amount of covert activity that went on in direct contradiction to "the rules".
Bah. The USSR has been gone for three decades now - and Europe has been "un-exhausted" for far longer - and the Pax has held. The fact that activity was limited to what could be done covertly is hardly a disappointment - it's something to be celebrated from the rooftops. We have spent many decades free from Clausewitz's world where it was common for nations to use war as just another tool for achieving political aims, no different than any other.
They lacked the capability to project power. It's as simple as that. That fact is rapidly changing, however. By 2027-2029 they're going to be ready to move.
Right. China - which has had three million or more soldiers in the People's Liberation Army since the early 1990's - lacked the ability to take on the mighty armed forces of Laos (approximately 30,000 soldiers), or even the Philippines (about 160K soldiers) until just the last couple of years. Got it. Nothing to do with the fact (as you noted above) that global trade is a major consideration for them in their assessment, as well as taking into account the responses of other countries to any military incursions.
No. of Recommendations: 4
You don't see a difference between going after Bin Laden, who actually orchestrated a physical attack against the United States, and someone who (like thousands of other people) was involved in drug trafficking? Right....
Aha, so you *don't* mind nation-states taking care of business. So much for "the rules".
Bah. The USSR has been gone for three decades now - and Europe has been "un-exhausted" for far longer - and the Pax has held.
Nice try. The Europeans couldn't project a light bulb's worth of power to their neighbor's row house across the street. They have no navies and have gutted their militaries.
The fact that activity was limited to what could be done covertly is hardly a disappointment - it's something to be celebrated from the rooftops. We have spent many decades free from Clausewitz's world where it was common for nations to use war as just another tool for achieving political aims, no different than any other.
So again, you're fine with invading other countries. You're just concerned with the a) degree of it and b) how loud it gets. That's not an endorsement of "the rules" in any way. Quite the opposite.
Clausewitz's most famous quote is that "war is the continuation of politics by other means" and it tends to be viewed as an endorsement of the substitution of the former for the latter. It isn't. Instead it's a realization that nation-states interact with one another across several different boundaries and using different tools but always across the same continuum.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Aha, so you *don't* mind nation-states taking care of business. So much for "the rules".
I think you miss the point. Going after Bin Laden in Pakistan wasn't against "the rules" - because certain types of military actions are generally permissible. The Maduro thing was not within "the rules" on military force....which is why the U.S. has gone to such great lengths to try to characterize it as a law enforcement action rather than a military action. You might have noticed that no one tried to pretend that the Bin Laden attack was an exercise in law enforcement, because it was permissible within "the rules" in a way that the Maduro seizure was not.
Clausewitz's most famous quote is that "war is the continuation of politics by other means" and it tends to be viewed as an endorsement of the substitution of the former for the latter. It isn't. Instead it's a realization that nation-states interact with one another across several different boundaries and using different tools but always across the same continuum.
It wasn't an endorsement, but it was a recognition that international norms at the time regarded the use of warfare to achieve other aims separate from national security was a permissible and acceptable use of armed forces. Not endorsing the substitution of the former for the latter, but acknowleding that everyone did substitute the former for the latter and that this wasn't regarded as the attacking country doing anything particularly wrong. In other words, in Clausewitz' day if your neighbor had resources or territory that you wanted, seizing them by open warfare was not qualitatively different from trying to pursue those resources by other means.
That changed with the adoption of the UN Charter and other various international norms and rules after WWII. It is now considered a violation of international law to just invade another country because you want to achieve some purpose for your own benefit that would normally be in the realm of politics, not national defense. That's why Gulf War I played out so much differently than it would have in Clausewitz' time - because Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was such an egregious violation of a near-universally accepted norm of international law, it was roundly condemned and reversed.
We've all benefited from the widespread acceptance of the idea that it's a wrongful violation of international law to use your military to invade your neighbor to achieve goals outside a very limited set of national security matters, mostly relating to responses to a physical attack using force. Taking actions to weaken those norms benefits strong countries at the cost of that global stability. And since China's a strong country, it helps them.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Bah. The USSR has been gone for three decades now - and Europe has been "un-exhausted" for far longer - and the Pax has held.
Nice try. The Europeans couldn't project a light bulb's worth of power to their neighbor's row house across the street. They have no navies and have gutted their militaries.
Your response actually supports Albaby's claim. I think you don't realize that. It indicates you don't understand what he's saying.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I think you miss the point...The Maduro thing was not within "the rules" on military force...
No, I don't. There was more than ample justification of pulling Maduro out of there. To declare it as a settled question is facts not in evidence. You're entitled to believe there was no justification of this weekend's actions.
We've all benefited from the widespread acceptance of the idea that it's a wrongful violation of international law to use your military to invade your neighbor to achieve goals outside a very limited set of national security matters, mostly relating to responses to a physical attack using force. Taking actions to weaken those norms benefits strong countries at the cost of that global stability. And since China's a strong country, it helps them.
China follow's China's rules and no one else's. To claim that they're more likely or less likely to do something in Taiwan fundamentally misunderstands China's view of the world.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Your response actually supports Albaby's claim. I think you don't realize that. It indicates you don't understand what he's saying.
I think you don't understand the subject.
No. of Recommendations: 2
his is something I have long wondered about. Is it realistic to think we could stop a determined Chinese conventional war to take Taiwan.
You’ve voiced THE real question.
***
In Mid 2000s, when both Republicans and Club 401K were selling out to China, I said that one day China will take Taiwan and the most America will do is pass a resolution condemning it, and maybe some symbolic sanctions.
Since then America has helped China build industry, steal technology both commercial and defense related. America's Ruling Class has been to some degree or the other - on China's payroll. Whether it's those Big Business Republicans or Club 401K "my portfolio!" people -- all have enjoyed their sellout to China.
So here we are now.
Divided. Polarized. Tribal. Broke. Middle Class in peril. Debt exploding. Yes we have tons of advantages but -- these are major drags.
First off, depending on who is President, 50% of the country will oppose action against China. And he who is in power will not have the political capital to endorse the casualties. (Thank God)
Also the "multinational" corporations that some of us in the 90s and 00s warned have loyalty to NO flag. They carry huge influence on the Ruling Class in both parties.
Finally, this wouldn't be SmartBombs on CNN. This would be something we've not seen - depending on age --- EVER.
If memory serves me right, wasn't something leaked recently that the US believes China would really bite a piece of our Navy's ass off during such a confrontation? And all of this doesn't include the economic havoc they could play. Sure, we could too.....but our people won't be able to take it for long.
Isn't it funny how even in "polarized" times the CHIPS act got done and we're going to build more semiconductors in America, and Taiwan Semi is setting up shop here?
My point: We're not gonna do jack shit when -- yes ---when China takes Taiwan. They know it. We know it. They gave us fair warning and we're getting semis built here so our supply chain and our sainted earnings per share don't get molested too badly.
This 'war' is over. China won this part of it.
Tis why I mused out loud - maybe they said - ok, you do Caracas and we'll stay out, and in return Vladdy bites Ukraine's ass off and China takes Taiwan and Uncle Sam has a beer and a hot dog.
Mind you, what're said here - I would bet 70% of my betting stake on. the other 30% - World War 3. Bad culture, and mass unemployment one day...will require a big war so the Ruling Class and set the masses on course for a Hunger Games life - where they are given a stipend, pot to smoke, an AI doll to fuck, and all the Social media they want. A big war is a fine catalyst to reset societal norms.
Regardless---don't enlist.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You’ve voiced THE real question.
The answer is "yes... for now".
The Chinese are building out their navy. Navy is the key. If they can't get their army across the Strait, it's useless. Right now our navy is stronger, but they are catching up. If we don't get our act together soon, they'll be strong enough to protect troops crossing the Strait.
The other thing that's a problem for them is the alliance of the US, Australia, Japan, Britain AUKUS. Even as we're fumbling, Japan is stepping up, and Britain and Australia don't seem to have our issues.
But we still have some awesome subs and carriers.
Give them 10 years, if we continue to be incompetent at launching a new DDG class, and they could have a credible chance to succeed.
CSIS currently days China will lose, too.
No. of Recommendations: 1
The Chinese are building out their navy. Navy is the key. If they can't get their army across the Strait, it's useless.
They can get them across the strait, and they can get all their weapons and machines over too. The question is, can they rapidly overwhelm the defenses? They have a corrupt military, and it's talked about as if it's part of the military culture. They can throw massive amounts of missiles and drones at us if they can keep them ready to launch. But they aren't ready - yet.
No. of Recommendations: 11
To sum up Dope's 100 post argument...
"Has the left gone too far in demanding a reality-based justification for illegally attacking another country?" ~Dopel
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Has the left gone too far in demanding a reality-based justification for illegally attacking another country?" ~Dopel
"The left has gone too far in demanding a reality-based justification for illegally attacking another country. We can do so because we are a super power and the left was weak to let other nations push it around with NATO and the UN." Fixed that.
And Trump? "I am the state". For some reason Trump lets the Supreme Court push him around and not keep the National Guard deployed.
Is the War Powers Act a thing of the past? The justification for the incursion in Venezuela has the flimsiest of justifications. We have another three years of this? We're all just waiting around to see what gets shredded next.
No. of Recommendations: 8
You don't see a difference between going after Bin Laden, who actually orchestrated a physical attack against the United States, and someone who (like thousands of other people) was involved in drug trafficking? Right....
Indeed.
In fact, Trump has recently pardoned some big time traffickers in drugs and people...
Trump's relishing the blasting of civilians boat drivers to smithereens because there may be drugs onboard suggests Trump/Hegseth/Miller/Homan/Noem/Vance, et al proves they have no concern for rules, regulations, laws, human life.
