Afghanistan as a Western Front against China

I watch Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski every morning. Every morning, Joe goes off on a tangent about the war in Afghanistan being unwinnable and about never getting an answer from government officials as to why we are there; costs vs benefits. Aside from the arguments posited regarding the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, I believe that there is an unspoken and worthwhile reason that we are in Afghanistan, why we are surging our troop levels there and why we will and should be there for the next 20 years at least.

China.

As China's anti-ship ballistic missile and naval capabilities exceed our ability to cope with their range in the western pacific, we must bolster our retaliatory options. While we have traditionally had an advantage by sea globally, this advantage is shrinking with an eclipse in sight due to PLA countermeasures. The war in Afghanistan has been an excellent excuse to bolster our troop levels in a U.S. puppet state with a land route into the weakest and most ideal fighting area in China. The areas where the U.S. military is most competitive and practiced are in naval and desert land offensive combat and the air power that supports it. The Wakhan corridor is the perfect route into a perfect area that would lend well to a multi-front war with China should the need arise.

In short, Afghanistan is the western end of our encirclement policy and serves as our insurance in the event that we are met with powerful resistance in the western Pacific. Compare the cost of our activity and basing framework in and around Korea, Japan and the Phillipines combined - A western option is more important.

What do you think? With this in mind is the cost more justified?

And where, pray tell, will the US find the manpower to fight the worlds largest army when almost everyone is tied down fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq....?

And how is this goal unobtainable without a military invasion? Why couldn't diplomacy get the same result at a billionth of the price?

In short: no.

Fighting the Taliban is straining supply channels. So supplying an army that might worry China would require miracles - at the very least help from Russia, Kazakhstan and Pakistan - none of who might relish the USA having masses of troops in the area.

In anything more than a skirmish China would destroy or at the least cripple the USA's satellite net, so the USA would be fighting the world's largest Army in mountainous terrain where modern tech counts for a lot less with a vastly reduced information capacity. Perhaps EMPs would also be used to further damage the USA's advantage.

What would the USA gain from this? a war on two fronts with vast supply lines through countries that would rather a long protracted stalemate than a win for either sides.

And this nightmare scenario justifies the current waste of money and life...?

Afghanistan would be a great bulwark in a backward mess than no one important owns. Like landmines it is a great defensive weapon with no offensive capability.

~:smoking:

Maybe we are hoping that in 20 years the insurgency will be less of a threat and more of a scapegoat for staying? Xinjiang is a very weak area of China and is only associated with China by force. I think that this area is vulnerable to being broken off from China.

As our military has shown, manpower is not key in conflict anymore, beyond the brainpower that it brings. The pre-invasion Iraqi army numbered around 375k, most of whom were in the southeast when we rolled right over them in record time. The Insurgency is where we began to see casualties.

The satellite network is a major concern. We are still investigating "unmanned space exploration", so hopefully we don't lose in that field.

None of this is inevitable, all of it should be avoided - I'm just saying it is good to keep the options open. We have (or have had) plans to invade Canada, so I'm sure we have a plan for our number 1 global threat. What are all of your plans to cope with an aggressive China should the need arise?

The stone age army of Iraq cannot be compared to the modern army of China. And manpower is of course an issue. You can't even invade Iceland if you don't have a guy to carry a gun and go in there. You're going to need some hundred thousands at the very least, and you're having difficulty getting roughly 100k to die in Afghanistan...

And you haven't answered why you wouldn't be able to build up forces in the area by using diplomatic channels instead of a war that is close to crippling your economy. Oh yes, speaking of economics, have I mentioned yet that China basically owns America now?

We needed to be in Afghanistan after 2001 by most standards. We are there now and have no ability to leave at the drop of a hat. We could use this situation to our advantage.

China loaned the United States a massive pile of money and holds many reserves. It is arguable whether China owns us or we own them when they have no way to collect and we have no ability or inclination to pay on shorter notice than forever. Sure we could lose our credit worthiness, but if we still have it after this whole boondoggle, what is the holdup?

This isn't about economics - this is about what happens when neither side adheres to the reality that we all benefit from one another. I'm sure you've heard that Germany and the UK were the majority trading partner with one another prior to the breakout of war.

Does anyone know how much money we spend per year on our Pacific bases?

America's only "need" to be in Afghanistan was a short-sighted political one, as usual demanding a standard of others they never force on themselves. As any person realised who has even the sketchiest knowledge of the are or wars in general, it's easier to get into a war than out of one.

China is diversifying how it purchases goods and I imagine the long term aim is to reduce its need of the dollar. Nothing too soon, as else the value of their existing bonds will decrease.

America needs its currency to be the world's reserve currency as its current account deficit requires people to continue buying today's debts to pay for yesterday's. Defaulting would probably mean people look for other leading currencies. Personally I'd go for the Rinimbi as the Euro has weak underpinnings and Japan is celebrating almost 20 years of near recession.

~:smoking:

I think its more of a beachhead for Iran personally... Oh and look, there's Iraq on the other side. Hmmmmm

Yes, it's a beachhead. And one of the most notable thing of beachheads is that one has to move off them as soon as possible lest one is destroyed.

So, you'd have to be sniffing glue to set up shop in a vast wasteland that is landlocked, surrounded by enemies and friends who have to be bought.

America has enough bases in the area to keep an eye on Iran already.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

America has enough bases in the area to keep an eye on Iran already.

~:smoking:

---

But not next door to Iran. Sniffing glue does not take away the ability to examine a map.

Sigh. More useful countries:

Pakistan: has a coastline, more stable, already receiving aid.
Turkey - wanting to be member of EU, again has coastline and is an ally
Kuwait - practically next door and an ally has a coastline
Iraq - already invaded and is an ally. Has a coastline.

Are you sure you were looking at the right Iran? Were you getting mixed up with Tajikistan?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The stone age army of Iraq cannot be compared to the modern army of China. And manpower is of course an issue.

---

Actually, the Chinese military would be a far more suitable opponent to the US military than the low level, localized insurgencies it is currently facing. For sixty years the US has been working to negate the numbers advantage in men and equipment of another large communist state, and the tools at its disposal at this point are quite effective.

Put quite frankly, the US military is built, trained, and prepared to devour large, technologically inferior organized militaries following Soviet doctrine - which is what the Iraqi military was and what China's military still is, despite the recent increase in defense expenditures.

Also, any conceivable outright war with China would be far more catastrophic than the current conflicts the US military is engaged in, allowing the use of many of the more violent toys that could not be used in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even in a non-nuclear situation, the existence of the MOAB would render any large movements, or even concentrations, of Chinese men and material quite dangerous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Are you sure you were looking at the right Iran? Were you getting mixed up with Tajikistan?

~:smoking:

---

I did go through the United States public education system you know....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Sigh. More useful countries:

Pakistan: has a coastline, more stable, already receiving aid.
Turkey - wanting to be member of EU, again has coastline and is an ally
Kuwait - practically next door and an ally has a coastline
Iraq - already invaded and is an ally. Has a coastline.

Are you sure you were looking at the right Iran? Were you getting mixed up with Tajikistan?

~:smoking:

---

Allow me to build on that list...

Georgia - has been scheming for US military aid this entire decade.
Armenia - friendly state, would probably love a US presence.
Aserbadjan - corrupt as all hell, give the lovable tyrant a few billions and he'd do whatever the US wants him to do
Any of the -stan's - same as Aserbadjan. Would also allow access to China like OP wants

Also, I'm agreeing with PJ, though I was talking about Saddam's when I referred to Iraqs army... And I'm quite sure that you agrees that an invasion of China would take more than 50-100k troops.... ~500k would be a minimum to beat the original army I'd think, if you leave occuption forces out of the picture....

In Gulf War I, Saddam radically underestimated the power of the USA's army. Fighting a tank war in the desert was not wise.

Most other countries were shocked by this and have been trying to deal with this.

China would probably fight in depth in a guerilla war with all the nasty toys they can - IEDs with no metal in them, lots of hand held missile launchers to make helicopters a flying coffin and so on. I doubt they'd be sending phalanxes of tanks to the border, but they do have enough missiles to destroy any American concentrations that develop, such as ammo dumps or even runways.

~:smoking:

Fighting a land war with China through Afghanistan would be a logistical nightmare. Since all the interesting stuff is like on the other side of China, it would be easier to use naval superiority and do a naval invasion. Of course currently USA only has the ability to do the superiority and not the invasion bit so whatever.

If you want to invade by land you would probably be better doing just like everyone has done and follow the ancient routes from mongolia and manchuria.

Vietnam is an ally for the future there more politically secure and historically not too fond of China.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Fighting a land war with China through Afghanistan would be a logistical nightmare. Since all the interesting stuff is like on the other side of China, it would be easier to use naval superiority and do a naval invasion. Of course currently USA only has the ability to do the superiority and not the invasion bit so whatever.

---

If America decided to get its fleet close to the mainland they'd find the fact that you can build bigger more missiles on land than you can on a ship. And the horror of having enough ships to hold the men to storm the beaches... well, best choose a different route.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If America decided to get its fleet close to the mainland they'd find the fact that you can build bigger more missiles on land than you can on a ship. And the horror of having enough ships to hold the men to storm the beaches... well, best choose a different route.

~:smoking:

---

Well, no one would do an invasion without first smashing up enemy defenses as well as blinding him. But yes, USA does not have the ships for a large invasion nor the trucks for any long supply lines. So the options are pretty limited and the best would just be a naval blockade, clearing the skies and seas and then perhaps some bombing campaign.

A war between two such large powers is going to be a horrible mess anyway. If anyone thinks it will be easy and quick, well then I have a Schlieffen plan to sell, only used once and it's cheap too!

as if average Americans was Eric Cartman....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

A war between two such large powers is going to be a horrible mess anyway. If anyone thinks it will be easy and quick, well then I have a Schlieffen plan to sell, only used twice and it's cheap too!

---

Possibly a third as well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave

I did go through the United States public education system you know....

---

So you was looking at Tajikistan then?

It's a tiny mountainpass that leads to China from Afghanistan, would be suicide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

as if average Americans was Eric Cartman....

---

"I hear there's a lot of black people in Africa"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

So you was looking at Tajikistan then?

---

:laugh4:

The premise of this topic is rather undermined by the fact that the Chinese leadership will have no intention of starting a war with the US, and that there is no way the US can gain any advantage at all from a war with China at acceptable cost.

Having established this, the overland path to Xinjiang is irrelevant because, in addition the reasons given by others, it's a politically insignificant part of China that would easily soak up whatever infantry the US has left over from Afghanistan and Iraq to occupy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Possibly a third as well...

---

Do explain..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by quadalpha

The premise of this topic is rather undermined by the fact that the Chinese leadership will have no intention of starting a war with the US, and that there is no way the US can gain any advantage at all from a war with China at acceptable cost.

Having established this, the overland path to Xinjiang is irrelevant because, in addition the reasons given by others, it's a politically insignificant part of China that would easily soak up whatever infantry the US has left over from Afghanistan and Iraq to occupy.

---

:yes: :rtwyes:

"that the Chinese leadership will have no intention of starting a war with the US, and that there is no way the US can gain any advantage at all from a war with China at acceptable cost."
It seems that China would Likely win if the US come to China, except if the entire ISAF Force in Afghanistan storms the Capital and kill their entire computer system.
Battlefield 2 rocks :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Actually, the Chinese military would be a far more suitable opponent to the US military than the low level, localized insurgencies it is currently facing. For sixty years the US has been working to negate the numbers advantage in men and equipment of another large communist state, and the tools at its disposal at this point are quite effective.

Put quite frankly, the US military is built, trained, and prepared to devour large, technologically inferior organized militaries following Soviet doctrine - which is what the Iraqi military was and what China's military still is, despite the recent increase in defense expenditures.

Also, any conceivable outright war with China would be far more catastrophic than the current conflicts the US military is engaged in, allowing the use of many of the more violent toys that could not be used in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even in a non-nuclear situation, the existence of the MOAB would render any large movements, or even concentrations, of Chinese men and material quite dangerous.

---

Tell us more! Spicy post, nichie. :yes:

Hmm the MOAB? I guess it might kill everything within a few hundred meters. So all very impressive, but it still won't do much good as modern warfare is open order. One would have to be lucky to catch just one company within the blast radius.

The bomb is meant to be dropped from a C-130 Hercules. A big slow moving aircraft like that is only going to be used in places where there are no air defenses left.

If Wikipedia is correct then USA built 17 of them, so not a lot. But of course it would take several months for the buildup of forces and supplies (took 6 months for Desert Storm) so maybe they have time to build some.

The US Army estimated that a well dug-in Soviet Motor Rifle Battalion would take about 20% losses from three 1 KT nukes (from Field Manual 71-123). An attacking formation caught in the open would take a much harder hit, but nonetheless a good example of what to expect from the "puny" MOAB.

Edit:

The MOAB was a propaganda weapon meant to look scary in a way that everyone could understand: huge size and mushroom cloud. There is really no purpose for such a weapon. Similar sized bombs like the Massive Ordnance Penetrator does have a job though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Hmm the MOAB? I guess it might kill everything within a few hundred meters. So all very impressive, but it still won't do much good as modern warfare is open order. One would have to be lucky to catch just one company within the blast radius.

The bomb is meant to be dropped from a C-130 Hercules. A big slow moving aircraft like that is only going to be used in places where there are no air defenses left.

If Wikipedia is correct then USA built 17 of them, so not a lot. But of course it would take several months for the buildup of forces and supplies (took 6 months for Desert Storm) so maybe they have time to build some.

The US Army estimated that a well dug-in Soviet Motor Rifle Battalion would take about 20% losses from three 1 KT nukes (from Field Manual 71-123). An attacking formation caught in the open would take a much harder hit, but nonetheless a good example of what to expect from the "puny" MOAB.

Edit:

The MOAB was a propaganda weapon meant to look scary in a way that everyone could understand: huge size and mushroom cloud. There is really no purpose for such a weapon. Similar sized bombs like the Massive Ordnance Penetrator does have a job though.

---

1. Psych impact is one useful military tool. The Daisy Cutters and MOABs do have that impact.

2. In addition to a large blast area (larger than a soccer pitch), the nature of the munition sucks oxygen out of the surrounding area over a much larger radius. This can create a "stunning" effect on defenders even where heavily entrenched or within unsealed bunkers. This "stunning" effect can be exploited tactically.

3. The drop altitude of these munitions is well over a mile in the air. Absolute air superiority is NOT required as this puts most smaller AAA and most hand-held SAMS out of business. Suppression of guided munitions (SAMS) prior to such an assault would be required.

I'm quite sure you are thinking about a thermobaric/fuel air weapon. The MOAB is just a very big thin-walled conventional bomb. It will no doubt have a large area of effect and that will include some stunned enemy personnel.

For the similar weight one can fire off 200 155mm shells or 30 MLRS rockets and that would produce quite an effect too.

If it is supposed to be used against concentrations of enemy units, then one would have to expect to face the organic air defenses of such units. Such stuff has to be suppressed as cargo aircrafts are sitting ducks otherwise.

And yes, one can easily keep a high enough altitude to prevent getting hit by man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) but that requires a suppression of an even larger area to prevent far away air defenses from engaging.

I don't know if Air Supremacy or "just" Air Superiority is needed, but it has to be good IMO.

All big and slow aircrafts, cargo, tanker or AWACS, really do not belong anyway near a front unless one has really good control of enemy air defenses. The AC-130H/U Spectre is a great counter-insurgency platform but I don't think anyone expects it to have a big role in a conventional war.

Have you seen the area here? it's massive. To have a strategic effect you'd need a vast number of bombs, to be then followed up by a large army quickly which in turn would require further suppression of all the mortars / artillery / missiles over an even greater area lest they blast the consolidating forces to pieces. All the while China would be re-deploying short and medium range missiles to rain down on targets. Seeing this movement would be a lot harder since most satellites have long since been destroyed. Smashing a few will create enough shrapnel to shred most others, which in turn explode into shrapnel.

This gains you a few hundred miles of worthless terrain to extend one's supply chain over whilst winning hearts and minds that the locals should be pleased they're living on a cinder as America is freeing them from their livelihoods / possessions and probably family...

~:smoking:

Great Article from foreign policy on pre vs post invasion Afghanistan. Really good stuff.