Comments on: Least we forget: lessons for us from the Battle of Ia Drang http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/ A discussion of geopolitics, broadly defined, from an American's perspective. Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:39:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: maximilliangc http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-139 maximilliangc Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:04:21 +0000 http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-139 At best war with China, cold or otherwize is a vastly overrated concotion of those who might seek short term profit. Short term profit being being the cornerstone of phylosphy, and driving interest of the United States today. We're talking about an advanced nuclear space faring country, that has exported tens, perhaps hundereds of immigrants worldwide, that can easily feild 70 million men in arms, and could afford to lose 100 million in battle, and would still have a burgeoning over population problem. Disturbing is the very real prospect that the lunatic regiem in Washington today, might be in Iraq, only to prevent China's influence, and the fact that war with China is seriously discussed and even advocated, convinces me that those involved have crossed the line into insanity. But hey, don't let that stop you. Maximillian At best war with China, cold or otherwize is a vastly overrated concotion of those who might seek short term profit.
Short term profit being being the cornerstone of phylosphy, and driving interest of the United States today.

We’re talking about an advanced nuclear space faring country, that has exported tens, perhaps hundereds of immigrants worldwide, that can easily feild 70 million men in arms, and could afford to lose 100 million in battle, and would still have a burgeoning over population problem.

Disturbing is the very real prospect that the lunatic regiem in Washington today, might be in Iraq, only to prevent China’s
influence, and the fact that war with China is seriously discussed
and even advocated, convinces me that those involved have crossed
the line into insanity.

But hey, don’t let that stop you.

Maximillian

]]> By: larrydunbar http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-138 larrydunbar Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:19:37 +0000 http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-138 I don't see them as antagonistic. I see them as relationships between masses held together with friction. Mass moves by displacement in units of power. I would actually rather see world wide power than world power. I think many in power here in the US are holdiing on to illusions that won't be around in 10 years. "Combatants"? what are you trying to say there rethiningsecurity? Oh yah, North Vietnam and the USA. I don’t see them as antagonistic. I see them as relationships between masses held together with friction. Mass moves by displacement in units of power. I would actually rather see world wide power than world power. I think many in power here in the US are holdiing on to illusions that won’t be around in 10 years.

“Combatants”? what are you trying to say there rethiningsecurity? Oh yah, North Vietnam and the USA.

]]> By: rethinkingsecurity http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-136 rethinkingsecurity Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:07:44 +0000 http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-136 It's truly amazing how different perceptions of the same event can diverge so sharply among combatants. It’s truly amazing how different perceptions of the same event can diverge so sharply among combatants.

]]> By: fabiusmaximus2000 http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-135 fabiusmaximus2000 Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:09:57 +0000 http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-135 Nobody can speak with authority on these things -- we are all guessing -- but I do not share most of these assumptions. US losing its sovereignty. US cold war against China. Iraq center of of gravity in cold war with China. Most of our problems are imho self-inflicted. Our desire to see relations with so much of the world (Russia, China, Islam) as antagonistic might reflect our psychology more than objective conditions. Nobody can speak with authority on these things — we are all guessing — but I do not share most of these assumptions. US losing its sovereignty. US cold war against China. Iraq center of of gravity in cold war with China.

Most of our problems are imho self-inflicted. Our desire to see relations with so much of the world (Russia, China, Islam) as antagonistic might reflect our psychology more than objective conditions.

]]> By: maximilliangc http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-133 maximilliangc Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:23:25 +0000 http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-133 "<a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/29/content_395728.htm" rel="nofollow">Iraq was or still is the center of gravity in a cold war against China."</a> "If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China's eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada," Xu said." “Iraq was or still is the center of gravity in a cold war against China.”

“If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China’s eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada,” Xu said.”

]]> By: larrydunbar http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-132 larrydunbar Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:36:56 +0000 http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/least-we-forget-lessons-for-us-from-the-battle-of-ia-drang/#comment-132 "War plans cover every aspect of a war, and weave them all into a single operation that must have a single, ultimate objective in which all particular aims are reconciled." I think this is one aspect you and Richards don't address. While Iraq is ending up being one of the causes of the US losing its sovereignty, by borrowing against our rule-sets, it really represents a very small loss in comparison to all the other operations. The US is still in containment mode, with Iraq a part of this, agaist a force that it feels threated by. Iraq was or still is the center of gravity in a cold war against China. We grabbed the high ground so to speak. It is a war in we are fighting on both "sides", because the guys who think we can or should win against China are still in power and the ones embracing the insurgency are building a global market that connects the world. Pardon me if I am skeptical that you are going to get them to leave Iraq as you say. It is as Lt. Gen Riper says, "we are fighting a world insurgency". I am not sure but the biggest problem could be that we don't know which side we are on or even who we are fighting for or against. Maybe one question that can clarify this is: which side is the military/industrial complex on? If you can answer that question, then we are on our way to weaving "them all into a single operations". Once you do that you up the anty just a bit. Kind of like using the goggle maps zoom-out command. That which once looked complex (Iraq) is now hardly noticable and we see a bigger more complex problem. Maybe one way to observe the situation is to see the military/industrial complex as being made up of entirely kinetic energy. There is no potential or, in other words, political force to its existence. It is completely about displacement and exerts no force in its movement of resource. As such, I believe it can do globalization, but can do little about containing itself, because it is on both sides of the gap. “War plans cover every aspect of a war, and weave them all into a single operation that must have a single, ultimate objective in which all particular aims are reconciled.”

I think this is one aspect you and Richards don’t address. While Iraq is ending up being one of the causes of the US losing its sovereignty, by borrowing against our rule-sets, it really represents a very small loss in comparison to all the other operations.

The US is still in containment mode, with Iraq a part of this, agaist a force that it feels threated by. Iraq was or still is the center of gravity in a cold war against China. We grabbed the high ground so to speak. It is a war in we are fighting on both “sides”, because the guys who think we can or should win against China are still in power and the ones embracing the insurgency are building a global market that connects the world.

Pardon me if I am skeptical that you are going to get them to leave Iraq as you say.

It is as Lt. Gen Riper says, “we are fighting a world insurgency”. I am not sure but the biggest problem could be that we don’t know which side we are on or even who we are fighting for or against. Maybe one question that can clarify this is: which side is the military/industrial complex on? If you can answer that question, then we are on our way to weaving “them all into a single operations”. Once you do that you up the anty just a bit. Kind of like using the goggle maps zoom-out command. That which once looked complex (Iraq) is now hardly noticable and we see a bigger more complex problem.

Maybe one way to observe the situation is to see the military/industrial complex as being made up of entirely kinetic energy. There is no potential or, in other words, political force to its existence. It is completely about displacement and exerts no force in its movement of resource. As such, I believe it can do globalization, but can do little about containing itself, because it is on both sides of the gap.

]]>