We were not going to join a coalition that treated the Paks as a major partner.
1) Since when were the Pakistanis a major partner with the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan?
2) Explain how Pakistani battlion groups answered to an Indian General and vice versa during the various UN Peacekeeping operations.
3) Did you not even imagine the Pakistani headaches and heartaches of having an Indian brigade or two on the Afghan-Pakistani border? I know I would be giddy at the thought.
Who found safe sanctuary thanks to enabling actions by the Paks and have done so yet again.
OBL was neutered once his HQ was destroyed, never managing another operation. Hell, he couldn't even move his money around. And again, Pakistani support was neutralized. The Taliban didn't strike from the Afghan-Pakistani border, they struck from Central Asia.
Because you were protecting them. Right from the start ie. 1947 they had protection, we were never allowed to finish the job.
We fell for the ceasefire ploys earlier but ignored them in '71.
Can't have it both ways. Either you were too lazy to finish the job or you were too chickenshit to finish the job. Either way, it was your job to finish Pakistan, not ours.
You wanted a war on terrorism.
What the hell does that even mean? I mean seriously, what does it mean? Is there a military objective? No. Is there a political objective? Tell me who we can confront globally? Is there a social objective? Well, how do you social engineer away the bad guys?
It's a nice sound bite and all but all that it really says is that we don't know what we want.
Fight it anywhere and everywhere.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That's the whole crust of this.
But for some reason the Paks got a pass (!)
How could we join you ?
Two brigades.
I don't think India holding out on Afghanistan correlates with India holding out in an Indo Pacific war. Where as Gen Dhruv Katoch said amounts to suicide.
Hardly. India is not throwing everything and the kitchen sink into Afghaniustan nor Taiwan. In fact, she's throwing nothing.
Why reward them by making MFN status permanent in 2001 ?
What didn't you understand about bargin basement prices?
The opposition Democrats wanted all manner of sanctions after TIanamen but the elder Bush would not go as far.
No bearing on individual companies and investors who suddenly lost confidence in China.
Vietnam was dealing with old school PLA human wave tactics. The Viets knew it and set that up. PLA don't fight like that any more because of the changes that war with Vietnam brought about.
We're not dealing with the military operations but the results of the war. The result of the 1979 Sino-VN War was the CCP got hurt and got hurt bad. Entire cadres lost their positions and pensions.
China will not go at Taiwan like they did with Vietnam.
No shit, Sherlock.
What i want to convey is a mostly non-military capitulation of Taiwan. This could happen if China is able to isolate Taiwan to the point that Taiwan believes no one will come to their help.
How? The one scenario that you came up with, a blockade, is militarily undoable with or without the USN.
I did post a discussion earlier with a Taiwanese colonel now Professor who said Taiwan was on its own in such a conflict. That was their expectation.
That's because they don't need any help. AGAIN! A 30,000 man landing force with a 100 mile exposed LOC vs 400,000 entrenched troops with interior communications.
When i see Tianamen, it all ended in Beijing. There were no fires in other parts of China. Jiang handled whatever fallout there was in Shanghai.
Not Jiang, DXP.
You mention Chinese parents. What about Taiwanese parents ?
Fathers manning the Wall with their sons. Mothers cooking meals for both. Grandparents in the bunkers with the grandkids.
Fine, the Americans could read the writing on the wall. And i'm arguing India should do the same.
The US and Great Britain shared strategic objectives. What strategic objectives do India and Taiwan share?
A good plan. But Taiwan can only keep that up for so long. There will come a point after where we will have to decide what comes next.
That's the plan since 1949.
There is a line of reasoning that argues the US must change its policy towards Taiwan because the present course is leading towards a conflict with no good outcomes. I will post more about this in a subsequent post.
The status quo is the outcome.
And India isn't asking for anyone to march on Beijing.
No, you just want to be at the victor's table with a MAYBE you'll wave the flag.
That is the stated intention so long as the CCP is in charge.
And it's been 71 years and counting. You know the one thing wrong about doing things tomorrow? Tomorrow never comes.
Loss of Taiwan means harder for the US to have influence in the Far East.
What comes next ? do countries in the region continue to stick with the US or go with China.
That's your problem. You think Taiwan is already lost wheras no military man can even envision it. Once you come back down to the details, it's still 400,000 men vs 30,000. 40 to 3 odds. An invasion of Taiwan would make D-Day a cake walk. The only thing remotely coming close is Operation OLYMPIC - 15 Allied Divisions, 42 Carriers, and 24 battleships and that is with total air and naval superiority.
There's two answers here and i don't know which is correct.
One, argues they stick with the US because there is no alternative.
Two, argues they bandwagon towards China because a resurgent China can't be countered. Which means the US is out in the deep blue sea and its a matter of time they quit the region.
So far the consensus seems to go with two which means an anti-Indian Asia is in the cards.
Follow the money. There's your answer.
China neutral India. An India that has no say in the progress of Asia.
The rocks are incidental.
What the hell does that even mean? Chinese say in Asia is economic, not military. If India got money, she got a say. If not, can't blame the Chinese for outbidding you.
The same thing they've done to us since the last few years. Mass troops along the border.
We continue to complete those 44 strategic roads. Now we have forces that can show up along more points of the border than is possible today.
India without doing anything threatens the link between Xianjiang & Tibet as well as the route to Pakistan.
Do you see another 10-20 Chinese divisions moving up?
Any infrastructure that brings forces in mass to either of those two points is going to get them jumpy.
Let's not overstate the threat. A brigade or regiment at either point is sufficent defence.
Sounds good. No need for Indian ships to police cargo then. We'll keep our powder dry for other actions.
Precisely the point, you have zero impact on the Taiwan issue.
I don't have to justfy quad. That Quad exists is self evident that the US can't handle China alone.
Quad alone isn't enough. It can be augmented by more branches with like minded powers. This is in the works .Now you have a net criss-crossing a diamond.
In anticipation of your reply bear in mind military is the last option. Grey zone is everything building up to that. Hopefully preventing use of military.
Or for fuck sakes, the Americans want your flag, not your guns. It is without the a doubt that the Americans can do the job without NATO but it is also without a doubt that the Americans can do the job faster and better with NATO. QUAD would just get into the Americans' way. It's a freaking dog and pony show with zero military applications.
We don't go into the straits. marching north is an option if the possibility presents itself.
Present to me a scenario that China cannot hold you at bay while duking it out with Taiwan.
You're forgetting something else. Nobody knows what the US will do and that will condition what India and the rest does.
But we know what Taiwan will do. 40 to 3 odds the PRC will fail and fail big.
This again i wil address in a subsequent post.
1. How long Taiwan holds out
71 years and counting
2. US Policy towards Taiwan
Arms sales.
