Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
Ahem, as son of dog owners both mom and dad, I can attest that not only they can, but smallest dogs often are most aggressive... my dad's miniature schnauzer was attacking dogs 4 times his size! When dad managed to save enough to move into forest-encirceld house on the city border, he had to leash him when walking in the forest so he wouldnt try and attack wild hogs and/or deer.
The cartoon misses the fact that both of Obama's shoes and trouser legs are already soaked from being pissed on by North Korea in the Cheonan sinking, the completion of the nuclear capability, and export of nuclear technology and arms to Iran and Hezbollah. Not to mention Iran's urine from finishing its reactors and continually threatening Israel and the region. And Hugo Chavez voiding on O's leg with its cuddling with Iran, Cuba, and Russia.
We will see if the deployment of GW CBG is anything more than a gesture, and a late one at that.
Several consecutive administrations have decided to wait and do nothing with NK, and we have results... Obama probably will dodge this problem too, generating another round of talks with Russia, China, Japan etc. that eventually get to the consensus that few shells on SK aren't worth risking nuked Tokyo or Vladivostok. If there is someone to snap out of first it will be the SK, and "ready or not here I go". Expect lots of fallout , both diplomatic and literal.
Forget nuking Tokyo or Vladivostok, how about (best case) the death of a couple hundred thousand people in Seoul on the first day of a war (worst case...over a million)?
Unless you're willing to accept that cost as the price of doing business, starting a war with NK really isn't worth it. Geopolitics isn't the place for simplistic "No More Munichs" analogies.
And the deployment of the GW is a hell of a lot more than a gesture...we're operating a CSG in the Yellow Sea, in China's backyard. Their silence regarding any public protests is deafening.
Forget nuking Tokyo or Vladivostok, how about the (best case) death of a couple hundred thousand civilians in Seoul on the first day of the war (worst case: over a million)?
Unless you're willing to accept that as the cost of doing business, starting a war with NK really isn't worth it.
And the GW is already a helluva lot more than just a gesture...we're operating a CSG in the Yellow Sea, in China's backyard. Their relative silence regarding any official protests (considering the fit they pitched just a few months ago about the same thing) is deafening.
I am curious. After the sinking of a ROK warship and killing 46 sailors, and the deliberate shelling of ROK territory by the DPRK, just how is it that you would consider a military response to the next provocation as "starting a war with NK"?
Whether the casualties in the GSMA and elsewhere will be "worth it" will be entirely the Republic of Korea's to decide. And we should back their play.
Actually I have talked to a few ROK Navy guys that have come through some of the US Navy schools. They accepted that millions of thier civilians will be dead with in the first 96 hours of a war breaking out. However, more then a few of them have admitted that those costs in an attempt to stay free from the cultists NORKs. Most of those that live on the Korean Pennuisla understand the dangers of war there. However, they also understand living under the control of the NORKs is just as dangerous if not worst.
Okay, if you want to get technical, everyone already is at war since the war never ended in '53...but historically speaking the sinking of a warship and the shelling of territory is pretty small potatoes compared to the low grade war that was going on for several years in the late '60s.
SAP, they already are free from NK...and I don't really think anyone on the ROK side of the Korean Peninsula wants sudden reintegration that would follow a war. It would make the German reintegration drag look like an economic boom.
Dealing with NK is like a wild animal...I have absolutely no problem being prepared to deal with it if things come to that (I carry a gun and bear spray when I'm in bear country...which is pretty much the entire state), but when a bear begins acting aggressively I also don't go running towards it and escalate things myself.
Yes, we should back the ROK's play because they are one of our closest allies, but we should also do everything in our power to discourage them from acting rashly, because we don't know how NK will respond, and introducing more variables into an already complicated situation isn't a smart decision. The ROK responded by shelling the NK guns that fired on them...anything beyond that is an escalation on our part of a tense situation involving a state that does not always behave in a rational manner.
Hmm, I hope some of the "reciprocity" shells hit home... NK never admits any losses lol. Though the real decisionmakers as usual were safe in bunkers somewhere well in the back of the front...
Mike, I'd argue that sending the GWSG to the Yellow Sea to operate with the ROKN not only shows our support but is a tangible act that can keep them from acting rashly. Both they and the DPRK can save face without blasting the heck out of each other.
As for your comment about the Yellow Sea, the last time I looked at a chart most of it is in International Waters. To accept China's warning (yes they did issue one) not to conduct any military operations in their "exclusive economic zone" would not only restrict our own rights under international law but would fly in the face of over 200 years of American diplomatic policy. Back in the day we used to run surface action groups up along the territorial waters of the USSR when there was a lot more at stake than there is between us and the PRC.
I would agree completely with your assessment regarding the GW deployment. The whole "where are the carriers?" question when there's a crisis may be a cliche, but it's the truth.
I'd also agree with the Yellow Sea observation...I wasn't saying that we should kowtow to China's demands about the EEZ, I was just pointing out that their relative lack of serious protests (they did warn about the EEZ, but that was about it) compared to how how pissed off they got a few months ago about the same thing really speaks to the impact the GW deployment had on the situation. I was only attempting to point out that sending the carrier was quite a bit more than just a "late gesture."
You can't keep your retarded little cousin NK under control? Deal with the consequences, which include a carrier operating in what you consider your backyard. If they don't want to act like an adult on the international stage by contributing to collective security by keeping NK in line, then they shouldn't be expected to be treated as one.
IMHO you are both operating off two very shaky assumptions. The first is that DPRK believes they have to "save face" and wish to avoid war. The second is that China is constrained in its foreign policy by Western, which in this instance is to say, American rules. Neither are particularly true. NK has perpetrated these incidents with what they likely feel are virtually no consequences.
Policy makers and military advisors have warned for decades against getting into the "tit for tat" game with DPRK, as nobody is very sure what DPRK leadership is willing to risk to consolidate power domestically and be in the driver's seat on the peninsula. Whatever they are willing to risk, it is likely considerably more than the ROK is. For ROK, that becomes a game of raising the stakes as in poker, without being willing to risk folding. Remember, for DPRK, their rational is not our rational. I will say no more in open source, but those things remain true today as they were 30 and 40 years ago. If, with the next incident (and there will be one), ROK and maybe ROK/US doesn't hit and hit hard, we THEN more than any other time risk war on the peninsula.
For all its impressive firepower and potential, CVN-73 is merely symbolic unless there is determination to use that power to its full potential. If with the next provocation (that will likely NOT happen with GW on station, but she cannot stay forever) we do just what we did with this one, then it is we who have raised in a bluff, only to be called. Twenty-five years ago, there would have been no question that a CVBG deployed to the West Sea meant business. Today there is considerable question. Hence the cartoon.
Stakes are different for the leaders... US leader that fails ends up voted out, DPRK leader that fails gets bullet to the rear of his head... Also, DPRK isn't bound by interests of allies and neutrals - and of course by well-being of own citizens.
Drawing US carriers into Yellow Sea is NOT in the interest of China... I am pretty sure someone in Beijing is considering if Kims have outlived their usefulness. After all unified Korea would not need US presence, and Japan pretty much the same. No US presence = Chinese as first among equals in Asia, if not a hegemon outright.
That is some wishful thinking right there. CVN-73 in the Yellow Sea obviously there temporarily and without designs on the PRC is just about immaterial to China. Especially if PRC believes that the US will be severely constrained in the use of that power to wage war on the peninsula of things get serious.
A Korea unified will have US presence, economic presence, and likely MILPOL relations not unlike today. The 28,000 troops in USFK are a speed bump, and a small one at that, should things break quickly in Korea.
Germany unified is completely not in need of US troops there, and while it remains quite close ally it has its own policy and for example opposed strongly the Iraq war. I expect unified Korea to behave similar. US forces in SK are really tripwire to guarantee US involvement, but with NK threat gone they would be soon evacuated - US needs troops elsewhere, and needs savings from costs of stationing troops overseas. Of course you could think that SK would fear China, but while China has history of interventions in Korea, for example during Hideyoshi's Japanese invasion in 16th century, it wasnt really trying to incorporate it within their borders (compare entirely different stance of Russia towards Poland). Simply put, Korea is no threat to China unless fothold of external empire on the dragons doorstep.
Damn, that's gonna leave a mark...
ReplyDeleteMaybe the dog should be depicted on a lease with China walking him.
ReplyDeleteCongrats on the Noles win. Don't get used to it!
cartoon misses the GW heading on over...odd that. Well, not so much, really.
ReplyDeleteAhem, as son of dog owners both mom and dad, I can attest that not only they can, but smallest dogs often are most aggressive... my dad's miniature schnauzer was attacking dogs 4 times his size! When dad managed to save enough to move into forest-encirceld house on the city border, he had to leash him when walking in the forest so he wouldnt try and attack wild hogs and/or deer.
ReplyDeleteNo Jay.
ReplyDeleteThe cartoon misses the fact that both of Obama's shoes and trouser legs are already soaked from being pissed on by North Korea in the Cheonan sinking, the completion of the nuclear capability, and export of nuclear technology and arms to Iran and Hezbollah. Not to mention Iran's urine from finishing its reactors and continually threatening Israel and the region. And Hugo Chavez voiding on O's leg with its cuddling with Iran, Cuba, and Russia.
We will see if the deployment of GW CBG is anything more than a gesture, and a late one at that.
Mr. President, it's raining buckets.
ReplyDeleteMr. President,
ReplyDeleteIt's raining buckets.
Don't forget your rubbers!
Several consecutive administrations have decided to wait and do nothing with NK, and we have results... Obama probably will dodge this problem too, generating another round of talks with Russia, China, Japan etc. that eventually get to the consensus that few shells on SK aren't worth risking nuked Tokyo or Vladivostok. If there is someone to snap out of first it will be the SK, and "ready or not here I go". Expect lots of fallout , both diplomatic and literal.
ReplyDeleteAhh yes. A few shells in SK is not worth the risk of nuking Tokyo or Vladivostok.
ReplyDeleteReoccupation of the Rhineland wasn't worth risking a general European war and bombing of London or any other European capital.
Building and testing forbidden weapons in Spain wasn't worth risking a general European war and bombing of London or any other European capital.
Anschluss with Austria wasn't worth risking a general European war and bombing of London or any other European capital.
Demanding the Sudentenland wasn't worth risking a general European war and bombing of London or any other European capital.
Occupying Czechoslovakia wasn't worth risking a general European war and bombing of London or any other European capital.
A familiar tune, methinks....
The funny would be funny if it weren't so very true.
ReplyDeleteOops. For soem reason my name wasn't saved and I didn't notice. That's me, QM, above.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't worth going to war after a nation committed genocide in three days on hostile country killing more people then the Nazis did in a year of the "Final Solution".
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't worth going to war after a nation accidently attacked netural nations shipping near a target city, in an attempt to hide the genocide from the world.
It wasn't worth going to war when a facist nation invaded a non-hostile nation, even after it asked for help from the rest of the world.
Forget nuking Tokyo or Vladivostok, how about (best case) the death of a couple hundred thousand people in Seoul on the first day of a war (worst case...over a million)?
ReplyDeleteUnless you're willing to accept that cost as the price of doing business, starting a war with NK really isn't worth it. Geopolitics isn't the place for simplistic "No More Munichs" analogies.
And the deployment of the GW is a hell of a lot more than a gesture...we're operating a CSG in the Yellow Sea, in China's backyard. Their silence regarding any public protests is deafening.
Forget nuking Tokyo or Vladivostok, how about the (best case) death of a couple hundred thousand civilians in Seoul on the first day of the war (worst case: over a million)?
ReplyDeleteUnless you're willing to accept that as the cost of doing business, starting a war with NK really isn't worth it.
And the GW is already a helluva lot more than just a gesture...we're operating a CSG in the Yellow Sea, in China's backyard. Their relative silence regarding any official protests (considering the fit they pitched just a few months ago about the same thing) is deafening.
So Mike,
ReplyDeleteI am curious. After the sinking of a ROK warship and killing 46 sailors, and the deliberate shelling of ROK territory by the DPRK, just how is it that you would consider a military response to the next provocation as "starting a war with NK"?
Whether the casualties in the GSMA and elsewhere will be "worth it" will be entirely the Republic of Korea's to decide. And we should back their play.
Actually I have talked to a few ROK Navy guys that have come through some of the US Navy schools. They accepted that millions of thier civilians will be dead with in the first 96 hours of a war breaking out. However, more then a few of them have admitted that those costs in an attempt to stay free from the cultists NORKs. Most of those that live on the Korean Pennuisla understand the dangers of war there. However, they also understand living under the control of the NORKs is just as dangerous if not worst.
ReplyDeleteOkay, if you want to get technical, everyone already is at war since the war never ended in '53...but historically speaking the sinking of a warship and the shelling of territory is pretty small potatoes compared to the low grade war that was going on for several years in the late '60s.
ReplyDeleteSAP, they already are free from NK...and I don't really think anyone on the ROK side of the Korean Peninsula wants sudden reintegration that would follow a war. It would make the German reintegration drag look like an economic boom.
Dealing with NK is like a wild animal...I have absolutely no problem being prepared to deal with it if things come to that (I carry a gun and bear spray when I'm in bear country...which is pretty much the entire state), but when a bear begins acting aggressively I also don't go running towards it and escalate things myself.
Yes, we should back the ROK's play because they are one of our closest allies, but we should also do everything in our power to discourage them from acting rashly, because we don't know how NK will respond, and introducing more variables into an already complicated situation isn't a smart decision. The ROK responded by shelling the NK guns that fired on them...anything beyond that is an escalation on our part of a tense situation involving a state that does not always behave in a rational manner.
Hmm, I hope some of the "reciprocity" shells hit home... NK never admits any losses lol. Though the real decisionmakers as usual were safe in bunkers somewhere well in the back of the front...
ReplyDeleteMike, I'd argue that sending the GWSG to the Yellow Sea to operate with the ROKN not only shows our support but is a tangible act that can keep them from acting rashly. Both they and the DPRK can save face without blasting the heck out of each other.
ReplyDeleteAs for your comment about the Yellow Sea, the last time I looked at a chart most of it is in International Waters. To accept China's warning (yes they did issue one) not to conduct any military operations in their "exclusive economic zone" would not only restrict our own rights under international law but would fly in the face of over 200 years of American diplomatic policy. Back in the day we used to run surface action groups up along the territorial waters of the USSR when there was a lot more at stake than there is between us and the PRC.
I would agree completely with your assessment regarding the GW deployment. The whole "where are the carriers?" question when there's a crisis may be a cliche, but it's the truth.
ReplyDeleteI'd also agree with the Yellow Sea observation...I wasn't saying that we should kowtow to China's demands about the EEZ, I was just pointing out that their relative lack of serious protests (they did warn about the EEZ, but that was about it) compared to how how pissed off they got a few months ago about the same thing really speaks to the impact the GW deployment had on the situation. I was only attempting to point out that sending the carrier was quite a bit more than just a "late gesture."
You can't keep your retarded little cousin NK under control? Deal with the consequences, which include a carrier operating in what you consider your backyard. If they don't want to act like an adult on the international stage by contributing to collective security by keeping NK in line, then they shouldn't be expected to be treated as one.
C-dore and Mike,
ReplyDeleteIMHO you are both operating off two very shaky assumptions. The first is that DPRK believes they have to "save face" and wish to avoid war. The second is that China is constrained in its foreign policy by Western, which in this instance is to say, American rules. Neither are particularly true. NK has perpetrated these incidents with what they likely feel are virtually no consequences.
Policy makers and military advisors have warned for decades against getting into the "tit for tat" game with DPRK, as nobody is very sure what DPRK leadership is willing to risk to consolidate power domestically and be in the driver's seat on the peninsula. Whatever they are willing to risk, it is likely considerably more than the ROK is. For ROK, that becomes a game of raising the stakes as in poker, without being willing to risk folding. Remember, for DPRK, their rational is not our rational. I will say no more in open source, but those things remain true today as they were 30 and 40 years ago. If, with the next incident (and there will be one), ROK and maybe ROK/US doesn't hit and hit hard, we THEN more than any other time risk war on the peninsula.
For all its impressive firepower and potential, CVN-73 is merely symbolic unless there is determination to use that power to its full potential. If with the next provocation (that will likely NOT happen with GW on station, but she cannot stay forever) we do just what we did with this one, then it is we who have raised in a bluff, only to be called. Twenty-five years ago, there would have been no question that a CVBG deployed to the West Sea meant business. Today there is considerable question. Hence the cartoon.
Stakes are different for the leaders... US leader that fails ends up voted out, DPRK leader that fails gets bullet to the rear of his head...
ReplyDeleteAlso, DPRK isn't bound by interests of allies and neutrals - and of course by well-being of own citizens.
DPRK is bound by the interests of only ONE ally. And it is much less a courtesy than a fear. That ally, of course, is the People's Republic of China.
ReplyDeleteDrawing US carriers into Yellow Sea is NOT in the interest of China...
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure someone in Beijing is considering if Kims have outlived their usefulness.
After all unified Korea would not need US presence, and Japan pretty much the same.
No US presence = Chinese as first among equals in Asia, if not a hegemon outright.
Ewok,
ReplyDeleteThat is some wishful thinking right there. CVN-73 in the Yellow Sea obviously there temporarily and without designs on the PRC is just about immaterial to China. Especially if PRC believes that the US will be severely constrained in the use of that power to wage war on the peninsula of things get serious.
A Korea unified will have US presence, economic presence, and likely MILPOL relations not unlike today. The 28,000 troops in USFK are a speed bump, and a small one at that, should things break quickly in Korea.
Germany unified is completely not in need of US troops there, and while it remains quite close ally it has its own policy and for example opposed strongly the Iraq war. I expect unified Korea to behave similar. US forces in SK are really tripwire to guarantee US involvement, but with NK threat gone they would be soon evacuated - US needs troops elsewhere, and needs savings from costs of stationing troops overseas. Of course you could think that SK would fear China, but while China has history of interventions in Korea, for example during Hideyoshi's Japanese invasion in 16th century, it wasnt really trying to incorporate it within their borders (compare entirely different stance of Russia towards Poland). Simply put, Korea is no threat to China unless fothold of external empire on the dragons doorstep.
ReplyDeleteURR -- your equating NK to Germany is as inaccurate, as it is, well, embarrassing.
ReplyDelete