Tweety's advisors, the generals, the ones he has not yet disrespected, should let the low Emotional Quotient Tweety know about China and their ability to dominate the South China Sea any time they want.
"Why is the South China Sea contentious?"
12 July 2016
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349
"
Rival countries have wrangled over territory in the South China Sea for centuries, but tension has steadily increased in recent years.
China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei all have competing claims.
China has backed its expansive claims with island-building and naval patrols. The US says it does not take sides in territorial disputes, but has sent military ships and planes near disputed islands, calling them "freedom of navigation" operations to ensure access to key shipping and air routes."
China has even built islands in the South China Sea Tweety. Better be wise.
Tweety Twump better be fair to Taiwan and let them know he will not defend them if China attacks.
Consider this notion folks, as news talking heads glibly comment on how it is "normal" for China to test a new President; IT IS NOT NORMAL FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT TO "TEST" CHINA
I repeat: IT IS NOT NORMAL FOR THE NEW PRESIDENT TO "TEST" CHINA.
We do not, and HAVE NOT, always won the wars we enter.
"Why America Has Lost the Will to Win Wars. Since World War II, America has clearly won only one of five major conflicts: Operation Desert Storm. Korea was a bloody stalemate, Vietnam an “outright military defeat,” and both Afghanistan and Iraq — America's two longest wars — hardly look like victories." National Review, 3 June 2015
OK, this win-lose thing is arguable depending on how we define the discussion. Do we mean achieve our "policy" ends or gain land or what?
"Has the United States ever lost a war?"
"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." (Carl von Clausewitz)
https://www.quora.com/Has-the-United-States-ever-lost-a-war
Here are some points to ponder:
"The South Vietnamese ended up fighting to the last grenade and in many cases the last bullet because there was no more resupply. They were defeated by logistics. And the North Vietnamese rolled into Saigon. South Vietnam was *defeated*. They lost the war.
For the US, this was *by definition* not a defeat because the US public decided democratically to change policy. They decided to no longer support the effort in South East Asia.
That is why Vietnam is not considered a loss for the US. War is policy by other means. Policy in this case changed through the democratic process without compulsion by an enemy force. During the course of the Vietnam War (1965 to 1975 roughly), the US had three different Presidents (four if you want to extend the dates earlier and include Kennedy who first sent advisers). Of these 2 were Republican and 1 (or 2) were Democrats, so dramatic shifts in policy.
Korea was not a loss because the intent was to defend South Korea and keep it a sovereign nation. This was the case. There was an attempt to take all of Korea but that wasn't the goal and so while the war never officially ended, the continued existence of South Korea indicates we achieved our policy.
The War of 1812 was a draw. We didn't get what we wanted (our policy) but neither did our opponents. A draw is not a loss. A loss for most people, is an unconditional surrender and often involves the loss of territory or treasure. Neither of which happened."
"China hits back at Trump, says one-China policy is 'non-negotiable'"
Published January 15, 2017FoxNews.com
OK, Tweety Twump. This is what you asked for, a confrontation with China. What will you do? Be tough now, THAT is what you said you would be.
"China said Sunday that its one-China policy is “non-negotiable” after President-elect Donald Trump suggested that he might use American policy on Taiwan as a bargaining chip between the two sides.
China Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang reiterated in a statement that the “government of the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing China.”
"That is the fact acknowledged by the international community and no one can change,” Lu added."
This is not a real estate "deal" Tweety. While China tests all Presidents, this time it's you.
"China vs. America: Who Would Win the Battle of the South China Sea?"
Kyle Mizokam, iJune 5, 2016
"In our simulation, it’s 2016 and both nations have continued to press their claims. Two ships of the Philippine navy, the patrol craft BRP Emilio Jacinto and BRP Artemio Ricarde, have arrived.
The potential for a shooting war is very high.
Note — we’re not using this scenario to make a statement about the ambitions of Beijing and Manila, or what we think will happen in the real-life Scarborough Shoal. The scenario just makes a good backdrop for our test of systems on the Littoral Combat Ship.
The U.S. Navy is backing up its Philippine allies — two LCSs, USS Freedom and USS Fort Worth, are both about 30 miles south of the Emilio Jacinto and Artemio Ricarde. The USS Halsey, an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, is behind them at an equal distance."
The author runs a computer based scenario and America loses the battle of the South China Sea!
"Postmortem:
I was tempted to restart the entire scenario, but I quickly realized that no matter how many times I played it, the result was just going to be the same. The Littoral Combat Ships as configured were completely outclassed by their Chinese counterparts.
The worst part — the Chinese didn’t even have to use missiles to defeat the Americans.
Although small for their size, the Chinese ships packed a significant punch.Changde’s design dates back at least 20 years and weighs 1,000 tons less than the LCS, but it has eight anti-ship missiles and a 100-millimeter gun. The corvette Quinzhou weighs less than half as much as LCS, but had four YJ-83 anti-ship missiles and a 76-millimeter gun."
We Americans better not be arrogant about winning wars. We may not realize it all the time, but WE HAVE LOST WARS! Arrogance and presumptive "strength" calculations can end us, end America!
"China and the Perils of Improvisation"
James CladRobert A. ManningJanuary 12, 2017
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-the-perils-improvisation-19036
"Improvisation -- or just ‘improv’ -- normally takes the stage in comedy clubs, but rarely interferes with the scripted interaction of superpowers. Yet despite this, and before even taking office, Donald Trump’s nightly improv, those one-liners and endless tweets, have collided with major foreign relationships, in particular China."
OK, Tweety, make some changes, but follow the script or expect unintended consequences.
"In place of collectively pushing back, Trump’s ‘improv’ conveys an inflated sense of US leverage, both vis-à-vis China and with other trade transgressors. His world is a 1950s-like era of US economic supremacy. While the US remains No.1 great power/s it no longer stands astride the world like a colossus in a multipolar world. Even without the Chinese trading juggernaut, the field is crowded.
Trump seems to see these and other foreign relations like real estate deals in which everything goes on the table. One improv riff suggests the One-China Policy itself could become just another bargaining chip in new trade talks with Beijing. (This gambit has infuriated Beijing but also irritated Taipei - dismayed to see itself reduced to a mere bargaining chip.)"
"
In the interim, however, Beijing’s transgressions need proportionate push-back and incentives to make the right choices. Similarly, a US retreat from its own rules-based order with its own economic nationalism would lead to a 1930s-like fragmented world that is prone to protectionism, conflict and disputes over spheres of influence, rather like the 1930s. Who wants that?"
This guy is not dumb, Tweety. He knows his stuff. Do you know your stuff as well? Will you risk a hot war to try to "make a deal" in a trade war, or to patronize Taiwan, or some other way bully China?
James Clad was U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia Pacific Affairs from 2007-09. Robert A. Manning is Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, served on the State Dept. Policy Planning Staff (2004-08) and the National Intelligence Council Strategic Futures Group (2008-12).
Be aware! Beware!
