Chinese Ports in Latin America

Just a quick note documenting the expansion of Chinese influence.
 

Chinese companies are now involved in the construction or operation of 31 active ports in Latin America and the Caribbean — a significantly higher number than previously reported, according to new findings from the Center for Strategic and International Studies …
 
This includes ports built by companies such as CK Hutchison and state‑backed entities such as China Merchants Port.
 
U.S. analysts warn that key ports - especially Kingston, Jamaica, and Manzanillo and Veracruz, Mexico - present strategic vulnerabilities.[1]

Regarding Kingston, Jamaica,
 

The Chinese firm China Merchants Port Holdings is now in complete control of Kingston Freeport Terminal Limited (KFTL), the entity responsible for managing the Port of Kingston under a concession agreement made with Jamaica’s government. The agreement has a duration of 30 years.[2]

Regarding Mexico,
 

China is funding the expansion of the port of Veracruz Medico through China Harbour Engineering company. The expansion project will make Veracruz the second largest port in Mexico. In addition, the Port of Manzanillo is undergoing a $2.7 billion expansion project that will make it Latin America’s largest maritime gateway. Chinese companies like Hutchinson Whampoa have control over piers in several Mexican states, including Baja California, Colima, Michoacán, and Morelia.
 
In recent years, direct investment from Chinese companies into Mexico has experienced significant growth. This surge is evident in the figures, rising from $38m in 2011 to $386m in 2021. Notably, Chinese companies now represent the fastest-growing source of foreign investment in Mexico.[3]

Aside from the obvious concerns about China establishing control over ports and, eventually, shipping, Chinese influence on the political actions of cash and investment starved countries bodes ill for the US.  Again, China is not doing anything the US couldn’t have done.  We need to engage.  You can’t win a war if you don’t engage.
 
All of this demonstrates just one of the many ways that the Chinese are conducting their war of global domination:  control the ports and you control the global economy while simultaneously establishing strategic strongholds and gaining influence over the host countries.  We talk about all-domain warfare in our pathetic, limited understanding of the term while the Chinese are practicing true all-domain warfare, as we speak.
 
The US and the Western world need to recognize that a war is happening, now, and engage with urgency.  There is no reason that the US couldn’t have done what China did.  We were just too geopolitically lazy.  We’re losing the war.
 
 
 
__________________________________

 
[1]Newsmax website, “Think Tank: China's Reach Goes to Latin American Ports”, Solange Reyner, 25-Jun-2025,
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/china-latin-america-caribbean/2025/06/24/id/1216332/
 
[2]Jamaicans.com website, “Chinese Company Takes Total Control Of Kingston Freeport Management Firm”, staff, 1-May-2020,
https://jamaicans.com/chinese-company-takes-total-control-of-kingston-freeport-management-firm/
 
[3]Jeff Newman Law website, “China funding port constructions in Mexico to shorten shipping routes to U.S. back door”, Jeff Newman, 23-Jan-2025
https://jeffnewmanlaw.com/china-funding-port-constructions-in-mexico-to-shorten-shipping-routes-to-the-u-s-back-door/

Russian Naval Base in Syria

The Russians have long cultivated a relationship with Syria for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the access to a Mediterranean naval base. 

Before this week, Moscow in part projected power in Syria and beyond through two military installations: Hemeimeem air base near Latakia and Tartus naval base on the Mediterranean.[1]

With the overthrow of Assad, the Russians have been ejected (or elected to leave to avoid combat and losses) from Syria and the Tartus naval base. 

Open source intelligence photos indicate that Russian military ships have departed from Tartus naval base …[1] 

The loss of a Mediterranean naval base greatly complicates Russia’s attempts to exert influence in the region and cedes dominance in the region to the West.
 
Given that there is no coherent ruling government in Syria, at the moment, Russia faces difficult choices:
 

• Abandon the Syrian base
• Fight to conquer and hold the base
• Pull back and hope that they can work out a future diplomatic arrangement that would allow them to use the base again with whatever force eventually seizes power

 
None of the choices are particularly palatable or easy.
 
Similarly, the US faces choices although it does not need the base for its own use:
 

• Do nothing which could result in Russia regaining the base one way or another
• Hope to work out an eventual political arrangement that would deny Russia the use of the base
• Eliminate the base as a functional facility thereby denying it to Russia

 
The last option, eliminating the base, would require the US to destroy the facilities to deny them to Russia.  There is precedent for this.  Israel has already launched heavy attacks that have destroyed Syria’s naval assets, air force, and chemical weapons, among other targets so that those assets cannot be used against Israel in the future.
 
Since Syria no longer exists as a coherent country with a functioning, recognized government, attacks on potential threats are not a legal obstacle.  Right now, Syria is open, unclaimed territory controlled by various factions.  The US has the opportunity to act boldly, if it wishes.
 
Now, just for fun, let’s stir the pot a bit and rattle the timid …
 
An extremely bold move would be for the US to actually seize and occupy Syria, thereby obtaining a large foothold of sovereign US territory in the Middle East, surrounding Lebanon, hugely bolstering Israel and, potentially, securing actual stability in the region.  Of course, the drawbacks are many and far from insignificant.  Such an act would require a completely different approach to dealing with the various factions (an absolute smashing imposition of discipline and peace via military might), a zero tolerance policy towards terrorism, and a domineering approach to foreign relations with neighbors.  Before you go off the deep end attempting to rebut this, consider that the most stable regimes in the region have done exactly this.  Modified to exclude conquest of neighbors, this approach could work.  The US becomes the biggest warlord and rules by might – the way of the Middle East.
 
Anyway, back to the main premise of the post, crisis, unrest, and turbulence creates opportunity for the bold.  We have an opportunity to reduce Russian influence and, possibly, improve the Middle East.  Do we have the boldness to do it?
 
Once upon a time, we acquired our entire country through various bold acts. Do we still have the courage and boldness to seize the future?
 
 
 
__________________________

 
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Russian bases and Hezbollah weapons: Key questions follow fall of Syrian regime”, Agnes Helou, 12-Dec-2024,
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12/russian-bases-and-hezbollah-weapons-key-questions-follow-fall-of-syrian-regime/

Lead Before You Ask Others To Follow

As you undoubtedly know, Iran has been increasing its attacks on international shipping in the Persian Gulf.  These attacks can be categorized in one of two ways: 

1. Acts of war against the victim’s home (flagged) country
2. Acts of piracy

In either case, the appropriate response, as allowed by international law and treaty, is, at a minimum, destruction of the attacking force.
 
Rather than taking legal, allowable, forceful action, the US Navy has stood by and watched, doing nothing.  An article by two retired Navy admirals, and others, calls for other countries to “accept greater responsibility”, whatever that useless phrase means, as the way to address Iran’s increasing lawlessness. 

In order to convince Tehran to stop its illegal activities in some of the world’s most important sea lanes, determined American leadership is necessary to convince our partners to accept greater responsibility for protecting freedom of navigation.[1]

So, rather than take forceful action, the authors would have the Navy beg other countries to do something.  What that something might be is left unarticulated. 

… the epicenter of US-led naval cooperation in the Middle East, Naval Forces Central Command (NAVCENT), recognizes the need to more effectively encourage and integrate regionwide cooperation, including by leading the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF). This 38-nation partnership includes five task forces addressing freedom of navigation, counterpiracy, counternarcotics, and, most recently, training for partner navies. However, amid this most recent bout of unchecked reprisals from Tehran, the United Arab Emirates suspended its voluntary contribution of maritime assets to CMF task forces.[1] 

The problem with begging other countries for help is that it sends the clear message that we, far and away the most powerful force in the region, are unable/unwilling to do anything.  The result of that is that other countries will wonder why they should contribute resources when the US isn’t willing to take any forceful, productive action.  As the authors note, 

Despite these admirable efforts, they are apparently insufficient to convince our partners that the United States is fully committed to countering Iranian aggression and, thus, will also be inadequate to deter or deny further Iranian aggression.[1] 

We’re attempting to substitute group hugs, meetings, and wishful thinking for forceful, effective action.  This is why no amount of forward presence can accomplish anything.  We could have ten carriers in the Persian Gulf and it wouldn’t deter Iran in the slightest since we clearly won’t take any action.  Iran is seizing ships and shooting at others and we merely watch.
 
Rather than calling for other countries to “accept greater responsibility”, perhaps we should try leading.  If we would exert some force then other countries might be more willing to contribute resources.
 
If we want others to follow us, we have to actually lead and that means taking forceful, effective action.  No one is going to follow a trembling coward.
 
This mindset, as evidenced by these two admirals, demonstrates the lack of courage endemic throughout the Navy today.
 
 
 
____________________________ 

[1]Breaking Defense website, “To counter Iran at sea, US must sell partners on doing more”,Donegan, Miller, Ruhe and Cicurel, 12-Jul-2023,
https://breakingdefense.com/2023/07/to-counter-iran-at-sea-us-must-sell-partners-on-doing-more/

Chinese Seizure of Solomon Islands

The Chinese just completed a security agreement with Solomon Islands which gives China’s military access to the islands.  What, specifically, does the agreement allow?  No official copy of the agreement has been released but a leaked ?draft? copy reveals,

 

A draft of the deal leaked online said it would allow China to send armed forces to the Solomon Islands to protect Chinese investments. Chinese warships would also be permitted dock on the islands.[1]

 

Prime Minister Mannesseh Sogavare told his parliament in Honiara a day later that [the security agreement] will allow China to send police and military personnel to the Solomon Islands “to assist in maintaining social order”. Chinese warships also could stop in port there for “logistical replenishment.”[2]

 

According to the draft text, the agreement would allow China to “make ship visits to, carry out logistical replenishment in, and have stopover and transition in Solomon Islands”, leading to fears that China could secure a naval base less than 2,000km from Australia’s east coast.[3]

 

“The agreement states that China may, according to its own needs and with the consent of the Solomon Islands government make ship visits to the Solomons and carry out logistical replenishment and stopover and transition in the Solomons.”[4]

 

The above is bad.  It gives China the opening it needs to begin establishing a permanent naval base.  However, far worse is the following passage from the document:

 

… the relevant forces of China can be used to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands.[5]

 

This passage gives China carte blanche to establish a permanent military presence in the Solomons in the name of ‘protecting the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects’.  How flimsy of an excuse would the Chinese need to justify bringing in military forces?  The thinnest of excuses would suffice.  Given the blatant lies the Chinese routinely engage in, they won’t hesitate to concoct some ‘safety’ issue when the time comes to establish their base.

 

Does anyone recall the Chinese assurances that the illegal artificial islands in the South China Sea would not be militarized?  Of course, they were militarized in short order.  China’s word means nothing and China has a habit of militarizing everything it touches.  There is absolutely no doubt that China will construct a naval base in the Solomons under the guise of ‘logistical replenishment’ facility improvements.

 

There is also a confidentiality clause in the agreement which prohibits either party from publicizing any of the terms or actions related to the agreement without the other’s consent.[5]  This provides further cover for the Chinese to act clandestinely.

 

So, what has been America’s response?

 

A high-level American delegation will go to the Solomon Islands next week.  The United States said it will re-open its embassy in Honiara, which has been closed since 1993.[1]

 

Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has got out! 

 

The US has talked about a Pacific Pivot but has utterly failed to do anything.  We haven’t substantially increased our military presence.  We haven’t made any significant attempt to conduct a political campaign in the region.  We’ve exerted no economic influence.  And so on.  Clearly, we’ve ignored relations with the various Pacific countries. 

 

Sending a delegation to the Solomons after the fact is simultaneously useless, embarrassing, and humiliating.

 

At this point, one might ask whether a Chinese base (and there will be one) in the Solomon’s is a serious concern for the US.  After all, the Solomons are around 3970 miles from the Chinese mainland coast, depending on exactly where one measures from.  Isn’t that an awfully distant and isolated base for China?  Is it really a threat?

 

A Chinese base in the Solomons gives them their Pearl Harbor … their far forward base to support deep Pacific air and naval forces in both times of war and times of war.  Huh?  Did I just repeat myself?  Don’t I mean times of war and times of peace?  No, I don’t because, for China, there is no difference between war and peace.  For China, peace is just the non-shooting portion of the war.  They are already at war with us and they’re winning.  We’re steadily retreating and appeasing.  They’re achieving all their objectives and we’re failing ours, to the extent that we even have any objectives. 

 

In the mind of the Chinese, peace and war are the same thing.  There’s no difference other than methods and means.  China is at war and we’re just sitting back in a Chamberlain appeasement mode.  A base in the Solomons gives the Chinese a resupply and support facility to further their expansion efforts.

 

Just for fun, let’s check the distance from Pearl Harbor to San Francisco … it’s 2400 miles.  That’s awfully isolated and far from the US mainland and resupply.  So, if the isolation/distance argument is valid for China in the Solomons, it’s also valid for the US and Pearl Harbor.  Of course, Guam is even more isolated and far from the US and resupply at 5800 miles.  On a related note, the distance from Pearl Harbor to Guam is 3800 miles.  So, as China acquires bases in the Pacific, who’s more isolated and distant? 

 

Consider these distances: 

• Distance from Chinese coast to Solomon Islands = 3970 miles 

• Distance from San Francisco to Solomon Islands = 5960 miles
• Distance from Pearl Harbor to Solomon Islands = 3560 miles
• Distance from Guam to Solomon Islands = 1914 miles
• Distance from Darwin to Solomon Islands = 2000 miles

 

It is the US that has far flung and isolated bases.  With a couple more security agreements with other Pacific island nations, it will be the US in the position of being isolated and unsupported in the Pacific.

 

Aside from Japan, the only other Pacific military of any note is Australia and they are an extremely small force.  For example, the entire combat fleet of the Australian navy[6] consists of :

 

• 8x Anzac frigates
• 3x Hobart destroyers
• 6x Collins submarines

 

That’s not a significant naval force. 

 

The US currently has a significant advantage in terms of global geopolitics, finances, economics, presence, and military force.  However, we are doing very little to maintain those advantages and almost nothing to enhance them.  Meanwhile, China is expanding their influence in all those areas at a breathtaking pace.  They are expanding and winning;  the US is shrinking and losing.

 

A Chinese Pearl Harbor in the Solomons is just the next step in China’s plan to conquer the Pacific.

 

We need to recognize that we are at war with China and start fighting back.

 

 

 

_________________________________

 

[1]VOA News website, “Solomon Islands Sign Security Pact With China”, Phil Mercer, 20-Apr-2022,

https://www.voanews.com/a/solomon-islands-sign-security-pact-with-china-/6537279.html

 

[2]https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/solomon-islands-china-pact-has-us-riled-2642971

 

[3]The Guardian website, “China requested heavily armed security team be sent to Solomon Islands, leaked documents reveal”, Kate Lyons, 12-Apr-2022,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/12/china-requested-heavily-armed-security-team-be-sent-to-solomon-islands-leaked-documents-reveal

 

[4]https://asiapacificreport.nz/2022/03/25/leaked-draft-china-solomon-islands-security-pact-causes-pacific-stir/

 

[5]https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2022/03/text-of-whats-reportedly-a-securitymilitary-cooperation-agreement-between-china-and-solomon-islands/comments/

 

[6]https://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/current-ships

Sri Lanka Collapse – China Takeover?

Here’s a fascinating development that illustrates the brilliance of China’s expansionistic plans.  You may recall that in 2018 China negotiated a 99 year lease for the Sri Lanka port of Hambantota (see, “China Seizes Sri Lanka Port”).

 

Now, a few years later, Sri Lanka is apparently in the midst of total collapse and anarchy.

 

Sri Lanka is in the middle of a full-scale collapse after the president announced the nation is “bankrupt,” having run out of both money and energy.[1]

 

How did this occur?

 

Sri Lanka’s government has been implementing ESG policies (environment, social, and governance) for years, following the lead of the World Economic Forum. That includes banning agrochemicals such as fertilizers in an effort to lower nitrogen emissions. Flowery tales of “organic” farming and saving the planet have now been replaced with horror, as the island nation’s top exports have been laid to waste. People are starving, they can’t get gas or electricity, and none of the globalists who used Sri Lanka as a testbed for their green fantasies are coming to help.[1]

 

I won’t go any further than that with the hows and whys since this is a naval website.  You can investigate the causes on your own, if you’re interested.

 

What this means is that the one organization on Sri Lanka that will continue to function and function quite well is … yes … the Chinese establishment at Hambantota.  In fact, if Sri Lanka totally collapses, this would give China the immediate presence and access to implement life-saving measures for the populace - in exchange for greater access, control, and dependence of the people on China, of course.  This would allow a ‘soft’ takeover of the country.  

Alternatively (or in combination), China could opt to declare martial law over the entire country, in the name of protecting Chinese ‘civilians’ in the country.  Either way, China could wind up owning the country, if they so choose.

 

I can’t imagine that China isn’t gleefully rubbing their hands together at this development.  What is the US doing while this is happening?  Nothing that I’m aware of.

 

You’ve got to acknowledge brilliance when you see it.  China is on the verge of ‘conquering’ an entire strategically vital country without firing a shot and may even be perceived as saviors! 

 

 

 

Note:  Ref [2] has a nice write up about the Sri Lanka state of affairs.

 

 

_____________________________________

 

[1]Redstate website, “WATCH: Protesters Storm Presidential Palace in Sri Lanka After Climate Hysteria Destroys the Nation”, Bonchie, 9-Jul-2022,

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/07/09/watch-protesters-storm-presidential-palace-in-sri-lanka-after-climate-hysteria-destroys-the-nation-n591691

 

[2]https://www.aidiaasia.org/research-article/will-hambantota-port-become-a-chinese-military-base

Plausible Deniability

Plausible deniability is one of the cornerstones of clandestine actions.  It means that you recognize that the targeted foreign government may know you were responsible for an action but you don’t leave them a ‘smoking gun’ of evidence to parade on the world stage.  In fact, you may even want them to know it was you … just as long as they can’t incontrovertibly prove it.  In fact, we did a story along these lines (see, “Mark VI – Gunboat Diplomacy Story”).

 

One of the common comments among naval analysts is the lament that our military forces can’t really do anything effective because then we’d risk …  *horrified whisper* … ESCALATION.  Aaghh!  Sorry, I frightened myself there.  I’ve got to go change into a dry pair of pants.  I’ll be right back.

 

…   …   …   …

 

Okay, I’m back and I’ve stopped shivering with fear.  I can go on now.

 

Is our military really that bound and helpless?  Well, by current policy we certainly are but are there actions we could take if we had a modicum of fortitude?  Let’s consider history as a prelude to answering the question.

 

 

History and Precedent

 

In the Cold War, our submarines routinely violated Soviet territorial waters, tapped communications, lingered just outside (maybe inside??) Soviet harbors, and tightly trailed Soviet subs.  We even stole a Soviet sub!!!!!  Our U2 flights routinely overflew Soviet territory.  If rumors are to be believed, we routinely engaged in assassinations and all manner of skullduggery. And that’s just the stuff we know about!

 

It would seem, then, that we most certainly have used our military aggressively, in the past, during times of ‘peace’.  Precedent exists and the world did not ESCALATE  * aagh!!!!!  sorry, I thought I was ready for that word but it still scares me *  into nuclear war.  So, if we could somehow muster the courage and will, are there any actions we could take, today, that would appreciably benefit our general geopolitical aims and still allow us to maintain plausible deniability?  I think there are! 

 

 

Actions

 

*Warning!* The following may be considered escalatory.  If you are timid and faint of heart, stop now and go sing nursery rhymes until you are relaxed and reassured.

 

Note that I’m not necessarily recommending these actions;  just noting what could be done.

 

Submarines

 

Let’s use our silent service the way they were intended to be used:

 

• Lay some mines around the Russian naval forces operating near Ukraine.  Clearly, the Russian navy has little or no ability to detect or threaten our subs.  They’d never know we were there.  We can publicly claim the Russians hit Ukrainian mines.
• Launch a few torpedoes into Russian ships and, again, publicly suggest the Russians hit Ukrainian mines.
• Launch some Submarine Launched Mobile Mines (SLMM) into NKorean naval ports and sink a few ships … you know, like they sank the SKorean ship.  They’ll never figure out what it was.

 

SEALs

 

Let’s pull our SEALs off their land combat jobs and use them the way they were meant to operate … clandestinely, from the sea:

 

• Sabotage port facilities in the Solomons that the Chinese attempt to use or build.
• Sabotage the illegal Chinese artificial islands in the South China Sea.
• Sabotage the Chinese port facilities in Sri Lanka.
• Sabotage Iranian swarm boats and facilities.

 

Surface Navy

 

Let’s use our surface navy for something other than cruise ships:

 

• Shoot down every NKorean test missile and claim that we projected the missile’s course to come perilously close to our ships or civilian shipping and had to shoot them down for safety.  It’s not without precedent since NKorea has shot missiles into Japanese territorial waters.
• Let’s sail large groups into the South China Sea and ‘herd’ Chinese ships away, as they’ve done to us.  Maybe we’ll bump ships and realize that we ought to be building stronger ships!

 

General Military

 

Let’s use our general military:

 

• Initiate electronic warfare against the Russians from international air, water, and friendly territories.  EW is impossible to prove on the world stage.
• Let’s take down drones as other countries have done to us.  We haven’t protested when it’s been done to us so it’s apparently open season on drones.  Let’s join in!
• Let’s buzz Russian ships as close as possible, on a non-stop schedule.  The Russians can’t protest because that’s exactly what they do to us.
• Assemble an air armada and fly into Chinese Air Defense Identification Zones exactly as the Chinese did to Taiwan on 28-Nov-2021.

 

 

Shaping

 

What I’m really suggesting is that we start shaping events in the world instead of reacting to them - usually by cowering.  We all understand the concept of ‘shaping the battlefield’ so why aren’t we doing that?  The world is a battlefield.  We’re at war with China whether we want to acknowledge it or not.  We have enemies in Iran, Russia, and NKorea who are actively working against us.  So why aren’t we using our military to shape events in our favor?

 

 

Conclusion

 

While I’m not necessarily recommending the actions described herein, neither am I recommending against them.  I’ll leave the political aspect for other blogs.  What I am suggesting is that by purely reacting – invariably with appeasement ! – to events instead of shaping them, we’ve allowed our enemies to shape the battlefield and we’ve removed a useful and effective tool from our tool box.  We’ve lost the mindset to even consider plausibly deniable actions and that is a mistake.  We have a navy and yet we’re not using it to any positive effect while allowing it to physically degrade, shrink in size, and become hollow.  We need to relearn plausible deniability.

 

The Brilliance of China

China is the new evil empire and it’s just a matter of time until China and the US square off in an all out war.  Until then, China is engaged in a geopolitical expansionist movement that is breathtaking in its scope and daring and flawless in its execution.  You can’t help but admire their approach and effectiveness.

 

China has just about completed its seizure of the South and East China Seas as bounded by the first island chain and has done so without firing a shot.  That’s impressive!  They are now moving on to the second island chain.

 

In the meantime, they have begun the annexation of Philippines.  China has, for some time, been altering the population makeup of the Philippines through state sponsored emigration.  It’s only a matter of time until the predominant ethnicity of the Philippines becomes Chinese and Chinese people begin taking over roles in government and society.  At some point, the Philippines will become a de facto Chinese territory.  What’s more, the Philippines has begun accepting military aid from China in the form of 3000 assault rifles (1), 4 patrol boats (2),  rocket propelled grenade launchers (RPG) and ammunition (2), military trainers (2), and is pursuing closer economic, cultural, and political ties.

 

This is a classic demonstration of a soft power war being conducted, quite successfully, against the U.S. and the world.  China is well on its way to domination of the Pacific Rim and more.  The US needs to engage in this soft power war and in a significant way.  As it stands, we are losing by default. 

 

 

 

_____________________________

 

(1)China Defense Blog, “China turns over 3,000 M-4 to Philippine”, 5-Oct-2017,

https://china-defense.blogspot.com/2017/10/china-turns-over-3000-m-4-to-philippine.html

 

(2)Defense World website, “China Donates 4 Patrol Boats to Philippines as part of Weapons Aid”, 30-Jul-2018,

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/23080/China_Donates_4_Patrol_Boats_to_Philippines_as_part_of_Weapons_Aid#.XMEOQPZFyM8

Afghanistan Post-Mortem

The US has been thoroughly defeated by a bunch of rabble who achieved their overwhelming victory simply by outlasting the US.

 

Of course, it’s legitimate to ask, what were we defeated from doing?  Well, nothing really.  We had no victory goals that I could discern so there was nothing for us to actually lose.  We simply left.  We didn’t accomplish anything but we didn’t seem to have any goals we wanted to accomplish anyway.  You can’t be defeated if you aren’t trying to win anything so …

 

And that’s the major lesson from this entire debacle.  Don’t enter a war without a clear cut end result – a victory condition.  Failure to do so will result in a never-ending quagmire of aimless milling and churning as twenty years of floundering in Afghanistan graphically demonstrated.

 

 

What other lessons can we draw from the Afghanistan experience?  Here’s a few:

 

Information Dominance – Afghanistan proved that this is a complete fantasy.  We had total information dominance over the Taliban and yet we left the country in defeat and humiliation.  Information dominance can’t be achieved against a peer enemy and even in cases where it can be achieved against minor threats, it absolutely does not guarantee victory and yet it’s the foundation that we’re building our future military capability on.  This is an epic failure in the making.

 

Firepower – Firepower is useless if you don’t use it.  We had total firepower dominance in Afghanistan and we did not use it.  We applied firepower only sporadically and inefficiently. 

 

Collateral Damage – We were so concerned with collateral damage that we suborned military objectives to collateral damage avoidance.  If collateral damage avoidance is more important than military objectives then you shouldn’t be ‘fighting’ a war.

 

Nation Building – This probably doesn’t need any discussion.  The very concept of nation building has been thoroughly disproven and discredited.  The only way it can work is to follow the pattern of WWII and our handling of Germany and Japan.

 

Fixation – Our fixation on Afghanistan, and the Middle East in general, cost us dearly.  Our overall military readiness declined, the Marines were turned into a pure land force and completely lost their institutional knowledge about amphibious assault, our military was transformed from an armored, high end force to a low end, lightweight force that was tailored to fight insurgents and is now ill-suited to face China, and we lost sight of why our military exists.

 

Motivation – The Taliban simply outlasted us.  They wanted their victory condition more than we wanted ours which is understandable since we had no victory condition. 

 

Total Destruction - If you do enter a war, end it in as short and violent a way as possible.  Total destruction of the enemy’s military capability is the only way to assure an effective victory.  It is also the quickest way to end the general destruction of war and it is the best way to minimize total collateral damage.

 

 

All of the above can be summed up by stating,

 

Don’t start a war you don’t intend to win. 

 

We entered a war we had no intention of winning and no clear cut victory condition and, predictably, we failed miserably.

 

 

 

 

Note:  We are NOT going to discuss the politics of this so don’t even bother.  Any comments along those lines will simply be deleted.

The Taiwan Opportunity

What do we need to counter China?  Well, lots of things but one of the major things is allies – not just any allies but, ideally, militarily and economically strong allies.  We need the kind of allies that will give China pause and make them reconsider their unbridled expansionist policies.

Japan is one such ally.  They have a strong military and robust economy.  With their strength and their proximity to China, they are a significant impediment for China.  India could be another ally if we can build better relations with them.  South Korea might be a qualified ally although their willingness to side with the US outside of the North Korean threat is suspect.

Yet another potentially strong ally is Taiwan.  They have a small, though competent, military and a reasonably strong economy.  What they lack on the military side of things is access to the latest US technology and support.

US support for Taiwan has always been a hesitant proposition, at best.  Successive US governments have refrained from demonstrating outright support and recognition in an attempt to curry favor (or at least prevent worsening relations) with China.  Well, that ship has sailed.  China has placed itself on a direct collision course with the US by flaunting international laws and treaties, conducting an expansionist territorial grab of the entire East and South China Seas and beyond, routinely trespassing into the territorial waters of neighboring countries, engaging in massive intellectual property theft, engaging in blatant currency manipulation, seizing US military assets, conducting cyber espionage, etc.  There is no need to placate China because there is no longer anything to be gained by doing so, if there ever was.

Just as the termination of the INF treaty with Russia has freed the US to pursue intermediate range ballistic missiles (as China has been doing for many years), so too does China’s now public and clearly acknowledged anti-US stance free us to pursue geopolitical strategies that were formerly off limits due to our naïve and forlorn hopes for peaceful accommodation.  Strengthening our relations with Taiwan is now a viable (it always was – we were just too timid to pursue it) course of action.

Consider what a greatly militarily strengthened Taiwan could do in containing China. 

Given the physical proximity of Taiwan to China, China would have no choice but to refocus a significant portion of their political and military resources away from expansion and towards containment and countering the threat of Taiwan.  This refocus would allow us the opportunity to push back against China’s recent expansions and incursions while China is otherwise occupied closer to home.

A militarily stronger Taiwan complicates China’s war plans by forcing them to allocate more resources to Taiwan which absolutely must by the first Chinese move in any war.

I know there are many ‘Chicken Little’ Chinese observers who are terrified that any strengthening of Taiwan by the US would instantly lead to total nuclear war but that’s simply fear-inspired garbage reasoning.  China has as much or more to fear and lose from a war with a Taiwan-US partnership (with, likely, Japan and others joining in against China) than we do.  China can bluster all they want but the reality of their military and economic position is that there’s not really anything they can do about it.  China has zero chance to win a war against the US (at the moment) let alone an alliance of the US, Taiwan, Japan, and others. 

Taiwan also provides a very strong counter to, and penetration of, China’s territorial claims.  Taiwan’s territorial claims and their associated Economic Exclusion Zone (defined as 200 miles by the UNCLOS treaty of which China is a signatory) provide the prefect legal justification for a Taiwan-US partnership to push back with military force, if needed, against China’s illegal expansionist activities.

Again, there are the same ‘Chicken Little’ fear mongers who believe that if we even strongly protest an illegal Chinese action we’ll instantly spark a nuclear war.  The reality is that China is using their military (their Coast Guard and fishing fleets are thinly disguised extensions of their military) to intimidate neighboring countries as they seek to execute de facto seizures of territory.  There is no reason we shouldn’t use our military to equally aggressively push back against these territorial seizures and partnering with Taiwan provides the necessary legal and international standing to do so by ‘assisting’ Taiwan at their behest.

So, how, specifically, should we support and strengthen Taiwan?

The answer is military subsidies.  Let’s outright give Taiwan ships, aircraft, weapons, equipment and logistical support.  It’s easily justified as an investment in our own security.  All Taiwan has to supply is the manpower to operate the equipment. 

Where would all this equipment come from?  Well, for one thing, it would help if we would stop SinkEx’ing our perfectly good ships.  Imagine what dozens of Spruances could do for Taiwan’s naval power.  We early retired the Tarawa class, if those would be of use to Taiwan.  Let’s give them F-35s and make China account for stealth aircraft right in their own backyard.  Supposedly, we’ve got thousands of M1 Abrams sitting in parking lots.  Why not give them good homes in Taiwan?  The LCS is of no use to us.  Let’s give them the entire LCS fleet.  The range, endurance, and maintenance problems that make them nearly useless to us would be greatly mitigated by operating in Taiwan’s home waters where those factors are not significant drawbacks.

Hey, if we can get some partial payments for the equipment, so much the better but let’s keep firmly in mind that the equipment transfers are for our benefit – payment is not required.  If it helps, think of these ships and aircraft as unmanned (by Americans) vehicles.

Right now, China is focused well outside the East and South China Seas - well beyond the first island chain to Africa, the Middle East, South America, etc.  Why not give China some serious problems to deal with right in their own backyard?  Let’s blur their global focus and make them refocus on their own backyard.  That can only help slow their global activities and give us opportunities to strengthen our own global positions.

In addition to providing equipment and support, let’s start conducting ‘port visits’ to Taiwan with occasional ships and aircraft and then, over time, with more and more ships and aircraft with longer and longer stays until, eventually, we’ve established a de facto permanent presence and base.  Does this kind of slow, incremental, creeping, reach sound familiar?  It should.  It’s the Chinese playbook!  Why shouldn’t we use it for ourselves?

Taiwan is an opportunity waiting to be grasped and all we need to do is demonstrate some fortitude to make it happen.

Of course, all of this depends on Taiwan being willing to cooperate and the key to that is demonstrating that such a course is in their own best interests as well as ours.

Chinese Territorial Objectives

An anonymous commenter recently discussed war with China in relation to US Army operations and land operations.   I replied with a discussion about China’s land objectives in a war.  I think it’s worth a post to repeat the essence of that discussion since China’s objectives will determine, in large measure, what our objectives will be.

Looking at a map, China has two semi-exposed flanks: to the east is N/SKorea and to the south is Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar with Thailand and Cambodia further on (Indochina). In the paranoid Chinese world view where everyone is potentially out to get them, these flanks are vulnerabilities and must be secured. Further, seizing Indochina solidifies their hold on vast sections of ocean and major shipping lanes in addition to resources.

Note:  I use the term "semi-exposed flanks". By this, I meant that the flanks are not under Chinese control but neither are they active threats - kind of like Mexico and Canada are semi-exposed flanks of the US - not controlled but not a threat (at least, not militarily). For the US, this means that we happily leave them alone. For China, being paranoid and having a global domination desire, semi-exposed flanks are unacceptable.

Taiwan, due to its proximity to China, represents another vulnerability as well as a long-stated political objective.  The seizure of Taiwan is a foregone conclusion on day one of any war.  China simply cannot allow Taiwan to exist as an enemy base that close to China’s mainland.  The Taiwan invasion will be massive and swift.  Taiwan will, undoubtedly, put up a good fight but will be swamped and the US will be unable to muster any significant assistance in time to do any good.  The most the US could hope to do is operate some Air Force stealth bombers in the area and attrite Chinese forces a bit.  It would be a useless gesture and would risk our very small fleet of stealth bombers for no strategic gain.

The Philippines are another enticing territory.  Control of the islands would provide the basing and staging to ultimately secure the South/East China Seas, expand into the Indonesian region, and roll back America’s Pacific presence.  At the moment, China is in the process of politically and culturally annexing the Philippines with the active support of the Philippine President.

Japan is the intriguing element in this analysis.  China desperately wants to eliminate Japan but Japan, supported by the US, represents a major military challenge.  Would China attempt to fight a war with the US without engaging Japan at the same time by politically maneuvering Japan into neutrality?  Undoubtedly, but given Japan’s attitudes towards China, it seems unlikely that would succeed.  Thus, any war China would initiate with the US almost automatically becomes a war with Japan, too.  Can China successfully fight Japan and the US? 

Much, much further in the future, China will want to deal with India, Russia, and the Middle East but those are a step too far for the moderate to near future.

Having some idea what China’s territorial objectives might be, we can begin to speculate about US reactions.  In other words, what territories would America fight for?

Taiwan is a near hopeless affair until the very end of a Chinese war.

Korea (South, at least) is defensible because Korea has significant armed forces of their own that could make a successful defense feasible.

Indochina is questionable. Would we care enough to commit to another Indochina war? I don't know but I suspect not.

These, then, are the possible areas where the US might engage in land combat during a war with China and, as such, are the areas where should be planning for operations and determining what force structure and size we need to be successful.

More importantly, we need to determine what naval and air forces we need since any China war will be primarily a sea and air affair.  While we may debate what exact force structure we need, there is no debate that the force we have now is not well suited for a China war.

For example, for an air war conducted over vast distances, if not intercontinental distances, we need long range, penetrating bombers and lots of them.  What do we have?  We have around 18-19 functional B-2s.  The proposed B-21 program is a step in the right direction but whether we can build the aircraft in useful quantities remains to be seen.  The Air Force “envisions” 175-200 bombers but the Air Force “envisioned 132 B-2s and we wound up with only 21 so …

We can go on and analyze what else we need but that’s not the point of this post.  Moving on …

This also demonstrates the need for a Pacific NATO-ish alliance.  Unfortunately, unlike NATO where several countries had credible, if small, militaries, there are only two such countries in the Pacific region:  South Korea and Japan.  Australia could build a credible military but has so far shown no great inclination to do so and has given very mixed messages about its desired relationship with China.  India, though somewhat outside the direct Pacific rim territory, would make a great addition for a Pacific NATO, having a credible military.  Unfortunately, the US and India have shown no great desire to engage closely with each other.  The US should seek to change that.

The main benefit to forming a Pacific NATO would not be the very small military force that most of countries could contribute but, instead, would be the basing opportunities they would, presumably, offer for the U.S.

Someday, someone will write about the future U.S.-Chinese war and state that the objectives and needs were evident in hindsight but no one could have foreseen them at the time.  Well, this is the time and hindsight is not required.  China’s objectives and our responses/needs are pretty evident.  Now, we just need to begin acting.

Depend On Yourself, Not On Others

This blog avoids politics and for good reason but this is just too good to pass up and, besides, it directly impacts military matters.  The United Kingdom (UK) has withdrawn from the European Union (EU) – Brexit – and the EU is now grappling with the resulting impact.  One of the major issues facing the EU is defense.  A Breitbart article touches on this and the discussion offers some insights and belated recognition of the philosophies espoused on this blog.

Britain’s vote to leave the EU in 2016 was followed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s arrival on the world stage. Since then, the feeling has only grown in the EU that its foreign policy has to change to meet the bruising, confrontational challenges of a new age. (1)

This is not a new age.  The world has not changed.  It’s the same brutal, ruthless, often evil world it’s always been.  The only change is that the West has grown soft and complacent.  Worse – far worse – is that the West has come to believe that the rest of the world is as civilized as the West believes itself to be.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Most of the world is a violent, hateful place ruled by warlords (regardless of what title they choose to bestow upon themselves) and governed by the ancient and still totally relevant principle that ‘might makes right’.  The strong survive and thrive and the weak die in subjugation.  Evolution does not reward meekness or pacifism as a survival strategy.

As the article succinctly states,

For decades now, the EU has tried to be the counterpoint of alpha male superpower politics, spreading its “soft power” brand across the globe based on economic and developmental aid, cultural clout and the promotion of human rights, among other non-coercive strategies. (1)

While it is laudable to strive for a world based on warm, fuzzy feelings and mutual respect it is also foolish to ignore the reality that the world is a brutal place and most of the world doesn’t respect or care about the niceties of polite society.  I’m not going to bother citing the litany of soft power failings - you know it as well as I do.

Now, the EU is being forced to confront reality.

“We Europeans must adjust our mental maps to deal with the world as it is, not as we hoped it would be,” Borrell [EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell] wrote in an article last week. “To avoid being the losers in today’s U.S.-China competition, we must relearn the language of power.” [emphasis added] (1)

Wow!  ‘The world as it is, not as we hoped it would be’.  That’s basic, eternal truth being relearned the hard way by the EU.  Hopefully, the US will also learn the lesson of reality from this.

How does one avoid being a loser in today’s world?  The answer is the same as it’s been throughout history – have a powerful military.  Unfortunately, that immediately leads to yet another painful lesson for the EU.

That will be something made even more difficult without the military clout of Britain. French leader Macron says “Europeans must take more responsibility for European defense.”

“The European Union needs to shoulder greater responsibility for its own security and also step up its geopolitical presence,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said at the EU parliament this week. (1)

How long has ComNavOps called for the US to pull out of Europe and let Europe defend themselves?  Finally, at long last, the EU is beginning to recognize the faintest glimmer of this reality and the wisdom that motivates it.  If the EU wants security and safety, they have to fight for it.  No one is going to hand it to them out of the goodness of their hearts.  As the saying goes, ‘If you want peace, prepare for war’.

A US pullout from Europe is not only in the best interest of the US but it’s also in the best interest of the EU.  It will force them to end their welfare-like dependence on the US for security.  That dependence may have been necessary immediately after WWII but it hasn’t been necessary for many decades now.  That dependence not only is a source of weakness for the EU but it breeds resentment towards the US as all dependence ultimately does toward those bestowing the welfare.

Not only should the US pull out of Europe, the EU should kick the US out and take their proud and independent place among the nations of the world !

The road ahead for the EU will be difficult and painful as noted here,

Firas Modad, a senior analyst with IHS Markit, issued a downbeat assessment of the EU’s stature as it struggled unsuccessfully to keep the Iran nuclear agreement intact.

“Europe is regulated from Washington,” he said. “The European banking system depends on the dollar, the European economy depends on the European banking system. The Europeans don’t spend on their own defence. The weak don’t have a say. (1)

Again, this illustrates the vulnerability of dependence by the EU.  It will be challenging but the EU must accept responsibility for its own well-being and security and rise up and stand on its own.

Now, how does all this tie into military matters beyond the obvious call for the US to disengage from Europe?

The answer should be obvious.  Just as noted in the article, the US geopolitical strategy must recognize that the world is a brutal place that does not recognize our desire for gentle approaches.  The world respects power and only power.  That power can take many forms but its ultimate foundation is military might.

We need to stop bending over backwards, to our own detriment, trying to persuade barbaric countries/rulers to miraculously become civilized.  By all means, let’s try the soft approach the first time but when that fails, as it almost always does, we need to switch to the application of power.  That does not mean we should instantly bomb every country that doesn’t agree with us on the first attempt.  What it means is that we should defend our interests (and our boats, drones, ships, aircraft, and personnel) with all necessary force. 

I’ve posted on the moral and legal aspects of this so I won’t bother repeating myself.  Suffice it to say that the US needs to begin reasserting itself and its interests.

• When Iran can seize two US boats and crews with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When Iran can shoot down US drones with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When China can seize US underwater drones with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When Russia can conduct unsafe harassment of US ships and aircraft with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• When China can order us out of international waters - and we comply - with no repercussions, we’ve lost our way and our nerve.
• And so on …

Just as the EU needs to relearn the brutal lessons of the world, so does the United States.  Our security is being threatened daily, in many different ways, and we need to begin defending ourselves aggressively.  While that defense should take many different forms, one of the obvious forms is the military.  Deploying around the world while being unwilling to act is pointless, wasteful, and provocative.  It’s past time for the military to take aggressive action, when threatened.

__________________________________

Note:  While it should not be necessary to say this, I’ll say it anyway for those who are incapable of grasping the obvious.  Calling for the US to pull out, militarily, from Europe does not mean cutting off all diplomatic, financial, trade, cultural, and scientific interactions.  All of that would continue.  It also does not mean zero interaction with European militaries.  There is nothing wrong with cooperative training, personnel exchanges, technology exchanges, etc.  In fact, there’s nothing wrong with the US maintaining basing rights or a military presence where it suits American interests. 

__________________________________

Breitbart website, “EU Mired In Squabble Over Who Should Pay to Cover Lost British Money”, 15-Feb-2020,

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/15/eu-mired-squabble-over-who-should-pay-cover-lost-british-money/