And now how!
Here we see a call for peace in Asia:
The clock starts ticking for the next crisis. With China’s announcement of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea and the strong response from Japan, the United States and several other countries, tensions in East Asia are mounting. Since the crisis over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands in September 2012, both China and Japan have begun to conduct frequent air and marine patrols in the Diaoyu/Senkakus area. With the flyby of the American B-52s, the area around these tiny islands has become a zone of tension with high probability of an accident and subsequent conflict.
…
To overcome this, Chinese and Japanese leaders first need to demonstrate their vision, courage, and determination to make peace. The establishment of the zone of peace is a crisis prevention tactic. It will not change any legal claims or the status of the territorial claims. If they want to avoid conflict, especially one arising from a small incident, they should take measures to decrease the likelihood of such accidents through using tools such as the zone of peace.
–“How to Prevent Accidental Conflict in the East China Sea:China and Japan could avoid conflict in the East China Sea by setting up a “peace zone.”,By Zheng Wang,thediplomat.com “
Alright, this would be a good idea, trouble is the hate China and Japan have for each other. The “zone” and “islands” in question are worthless (except for undersea deposits of oil, minerals and fishing rights). Yet they might start shooting over it.
Japan did horrible, horrible things to China in World War II. The Chinese Community Party needs a win to cement the idea it’s a superpower. Japan just wants it’s territory respected (and yes some of their right wing isn’t too keep on China). Peace? Hardly. If the U.S. intervenes we’ll be seen as on Japan’s side. Or worse the diplomats of our current party will be so wishy-washy that any deal will be crap.
So smart diplomacy isn’t their thing.
Neither is defense:
“Want a better U.S. military? Make it smaller. The bigger the military, the more time it must spend taking care of itself and maintaining its structure as it is, instead of changing with the times. And changing is what the U.S. military must begin to do as it recovers from the past decade’s two wars.”
—
“Want a better U.S. military? Make it smaller”
Tom, you’re an idiot. The Louisiana Maneuvers exposed an Army ill-equipped for war. Jeeps with wooden signs that said “tank”, wooden guns, four “bombs” dropped from air planes. The cycle repeated just before Vietnam. The USAF sold off thousands of iron bombs as scrap to prep for the nuclear mission. Cue 1965 and TAC was in country, a flight of 4 jets would have 1 bomb each. The old bombs? Sold to West Germany for pennies on the dollar and bought back in haste for much more.
Tom Ricks wants to repeat that. A downsized military loses thousands of junior enlisted, NCO’s and officers with experience. No we can’t draft it, recruit it or get it from the moon. Aircraft, tanks, ships and wheeled vehicles put in “storage” rot unless kept up, something a “smaller” military won’t be able to do. All lefites hate carriers and now China’s new anti-ship ballistic missile is there new excuse to get rid of them.
Yeah, take away the carriers, downsize the air fleet and shrink the ground troops and we have no leverage to force China or any one to the negotiation table. A frigate navy is what Tom Clancy predicted if we lost our carriers, something his latter pie in the sky novels got right.
While the fall of Communism and the post-Cold War era wasn’t kind to Clancy, Tom Ricks and Zheng Wang seem to think it’s 1939. They want Peace In Our Time.
Given how well that went back in ’39, I saw we ignore them and their MSM ilk.
Chockblock's blog 