Mattis predicts partnership with Bolton despite differences

TU Curmudgeon · Mar 30, 2018

Tangmo said:
However, the Boyz are feeding the beast in Pyongyang because each the Boyz and Kim have the same purpose, i.e., drive the U.S. out of the region as a factor, then as a player. Kim and the Boyz have their own purposes but it is the commonly shared goal.

And this is a revelation?

How?

My comment about the consequences of an actual attack by the DPRK the United States of America apply equally to an attack by the DPRK on anyone who hasn't attacked it first.

In short, there is absolutely no geopolitical gain to be made by either the DPRK or the PRC from a "first attack" by the DPRK on anyone.

There is, however, a lot of geopolitical gain that the PRC (and the DPRK [but that isn't really a factor in the minds of the leaders of the PRC]) to having someone attack the DPRK without the DPRK attacking first.

Since the odds that the United States of America would "roll on up out of Korea" and attack the PRC directly are (at best) minimal, do you think that the PRC actually cares if the US attacks the DPRK? Do you think that the leadership of the DPRK doesn't know that the PRC doesn't really care if the US attacks the DPRK first?

Tangmo said:
Kim doesn't have to attack anyone nor will Kim nuke anyone.

Quite right, and that is why all this US government talk about the dangers of allowing the DPRK to have weapons which it can use to make an effective "statement" if some other country attacks them before the DPRK goes down in flames are crap.

Tangmo said:
All Kim has to do to separate U.S. allies of the region from USA is to have the nukes and threaten to use 'em against the countries of the region.

Since everyone knows what the results would be if the DPRK used its nuclear weapons against anyone - not just the US - the fact that the DPRK has those nuclear weapons is close to being irrelevant (except in the war plans of a country that will be on the receiving end of them if it attacks the DPRK first).

Tangmo said:
Beijing can't get enough of Kim doing this either.

Quite right. If Mr. Kim can make the US government look like a bunch of bellicose cowards while making himself look like the "model of restraint in the face of constant threats of attack", he wins.

Tangmo said:
If Washington is unwilling to take out Kim & Co then the US allies of the region will have to make a separate peace with Kim and Xi Jinping.

At which point everyone - except the US - wins.

Tangmo said:
To exclude USA.

Or at least render less important.

Tangmo said:
So Trump, Mattis, Bolton, Kelly, the Joint Chiefs have found themselves at the point of no return concerning the Pacific - East Asia strategic region of the United States.

In other words, since the people of SE Asia don't want to be locked into doing whatever the US government wants them to do, it's time for a war.

Tangmo said:
It's take out Kim & Co now or allow and accept our getting squeezed out of the region as a factor.

Right, if the US doesn't start a war then its commercial interests (and the profits from which the megadonars to both the Republicans and the Democrats get the money to influence the policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties) will suffer.

Tangmo said:
If USA fails to demonstrate it will stop Kim and do it in the present timeframe, then USA allies will have no choice than to go over to Beijing and to make peace with Kim on Kim's terms, supported by the Dictators in Beijing.

Quite right, now you are seeing the end game of this episode of the long war.

Tangmo said:
Your post is on to this only marginally so you'd need to think it through more -- a lot more.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that I have a better grip on the "Long War Plan" that anyone who is solely motivated by a fear of lost profits.

Tangmo · Mar 30, 2018

TU Curmudgeon said:
And this is a revelation?

How?

My comment about the consequences of an actual attack by the DPRK the United States of America apply equally to an attack by the DPRK on anyone who hasn't attacked it first.

In short, there is absolutely no geopolitical gain to be made by either the DPRK or the PRC from a "first attack" by the DPRK on anyone.

In other words, since the people of SE Asia don't want to be locked into doing whatever the US government wants them to do, it's time for a war.

Right, if the US doesn't start a war then its commercial interests (and the profits from which the megadonars to both the Republicans and the Democrats get the money to influence the policies of both the Republican and Democratic parties) will suffer.

Quite right, now you are seeing the end game of this episode of the long war.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that I have a better grip on the "Long War Plan" that anyone who is solely motivated by a fear of lost profits.

Geez. Here I'd though you had some strategic capabilities upstairs. Now all I see is an attic that's vacant except for cobwebs.

I'd given a generous pass to the post that presumed to lecture and scold that Kim isn't going to nuke a USA city or an island out there. This is after all common and ordinary knowledge not to mention obvious. Now I see that your missing the fact everyone knows this reveals a superficial level of cultural awareness and political knowledge. Indeed, someone who talks continually from under the feet of others isn't worth the time of day thx anyway. I'm a capitalist and rather hard core about it but Smedley Butler I'm not thx again but no thanks. You also ignore that the Boyz in Beijing are the most corrupt gang of rulers ever. Good government groups in the West figure that since 2000 the Boyz have swindled $5 Trillion into their own pockets. It's the only thingy about 'em that's deep btw.

Serving in various senior national security positions in the United States government, Michael Pillsbury has been meeting for decades with Chinese military planners and civilian strategists in an effort to figure out what they think.

In the process, Pillsbury says he’s detected a long-term Chinese strategy: First, to acquire Western technology, then to develop a powerful economy, and finally – three to four decades from now – to replace the United States as the world’s superpower. And if Chinese planners get their way, Pillsbury says, China may achieve its ultimate goal without firing a shot.

In his book The Hundred-Year Marathon, Pillsbury argues that successive US administrations have been led to believe that as China develops economically, it will embrace a more open economy and liberal democratic ideas.

[Recommended:How much do you know about China? Take our quiz.]

But it has become increasingly obvious that under China’s President Xi Jinping, things haven’t worked out that way, and Pillsbury attempts to explain why.

In foreign policy, says Pillsbury, Xi has been promoting a military build-up and pursuing much more nationalist actions than his immediate predecessors, particularly when it comes to China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Pillsbury says that Xi’s call for a “strong nation dream” can be traced back to "The China Dream," a book published in China in 2010 and written by an army colonel named Liu Mingfu. The book was a bestseller in China.

It was there that Pillsbury first spotted a reference to “the Hundred-Year Marathon”.

Fluent in Mandarin, Pillsbury is a veteran China analyst who has served in senior positions in the Defense Department and on the staff of US Senate committees. In the late 1990s, during the Clinton administration, he was tasked by the Defense Department and CIA to conduct what he describes as “an unprecedented examination of China’s capacity to deceive the United States”.

https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/Boo...se-strategy-to-replace-the-US-as-world-leader

Clinton, Bush and Obama tried to integrate the CCP Boyz in Beijing into the existing international system created by the United States. However, by the time Ashton Carter became SecDef in 2015 U.S. negotiators were spent. It was then that the Pentagon ended more than 20 years of strategic ambiguity. Carter and the JCS put Russia behind door number one, china behind door number two and Iran behind door number three. NK went to the middle of the room and under the spotlight. It is apparent to me that at this point the U.S. means to flip the switch and turn off the light. Anyone who might believe Kim and Xi are smarter than Mattis and the joint chiefs of staff is in for an equally big shock as Kim. Deservedly.

TU Curmudgeon · Mar 31, 2018

Tangmo said:
I'd given a generous pass to the post that presumed to lecture and scold that Kim isn't going to nuke a USA city or an island out there. This is after all common and ordinary knowledge not to mention obvious.

Apparently it's obvious to everyone except the US government and the US military.

Well, either that or those two are simply lying when they say that they are concerned that the likelihood of such an attack is so high as to be almost a certainty.

Tangmo said:
Now I see that your missing the fact everyone knows this reveals a superficial level of cultural awareness and political knowledge.

See comment on likelihood of attack above.

Tangmo said:
Indeed, someone who talks continually from under the feet of others isn't worth the time of day thx anyway.

A sentence that doesn't appear to make any sense whatsoever.

Tangmo said:
I'm a capitalist and rather hard core about it but Smedley Butler I'm not thx again but no thanks.

Unfortunately it doesn't appear that you are also the President of the United States of America or any part of the groups that control the finances of the Republicans and Democrats.

Tangmo said:
You also ignore that the Boyz in Beijing are the most corrupt gang of rulers ever. Good government groups in the West figure that since 2000 the Boyz have swindled $5 Trillion into their own pockets. It's the only thingy about 'em that's deep btw.

I don't "ignore" it, I just consider that that is irrelevant on the international stage.

Tangmo said:
In the process, Pillsbury says he’s detected a long-term Chinese strategy: First, to acquire Western technology, then to develop a powerful economy, and finally – three to four decades from now – to replace the United States as the world’s superpower. And if Chinese planners get their way, Pillsbury says, China may achieve its ultimate goal without firing a shot.

A blinding flash of the obvious.

Tangmo said:
In his book The Hundred-Year Marathon, Pillsbury argues that successive US administrations have been led to believe that as China develops economically, it will embrace a more open economy and liberal democratic ideas.

...

But it has become increasingly obvious that under China’s President Xi Jinping, things haven’t worked out that way, and Pillsbury attempts to explain why.

And makes a reasonable job of it too.

Tangmo said:
Anyone who might believe Kim and Xi are smarter than Mattis and the joint chiefs of staff is in for an equally big shock as Kim. Deservedly.

It's always possible.

On the other hand, if it took someone who was "in the loop" until 2015 to discover what the PRC had been doing since 1955, and was only able to make that discovery because of a publicly released work of theory (the release being sanctioned by the government of the PRC), then I'd want to take a MUCH closer look at the situation.

That being said, since neither of us is currently involved "on the inside" then what we have are opinions.

Your opinion appears to be that

The DPRK and PRC are led by stupid leaders who are going to do exactly what the incredibly brilliant leadership of the United States of America (with little or no inside knowledge about the personalities and plans of the DPRK or PRC governments) wants them to do so as to justify the US implementing an absolutely fool-proof plan that will produce exactly the results that the US leadership wants - making allowances for "exaggeration for emphasis.

My opinion is that

The DPRK and PRC are led by people of at least average intelligence who have spent a lot longer working out their strategy and tactics than most people give them credit for and have adopted the course of action that they (with a lot of inside knowledge about the personalities and plans of the US government) have determined will not only give them the greatest chance of achieving their goals but which also includes as many alternative courses of action as possible in order that they can deal with any setbacks that will - inevitably - occur.

Obviously which of us is closer to being correct is something that is going to have to await the test of time and personal vilification won't change that one little bit.

PS - You do know that making your plans based on the fact that the enemy will make exactly the one boneheaded mistake that they must make in order for your plans to succeed is making exactly the boneheaded mistake that the enemy hopes you will make, don't you? The DPRK is the "Tar Baby" and the US and PRC are the "Fox" and the "Rabbit". Which is the "Fox" and which is the "Rabbit" is an interesting question, but doesn't change which is the "Tar Baby".

Tangmo · Apr 2, 2018

Vermont has twice the GDP of North Korea. WVA has four times the NK GDP. The elites of NK are exactly the tyrants USA specializes in. People who spend their time saying how smart and clever the elites are in NK and in Beijing, while ignoring the 200 year record of the USA in dealing with tyrants abroad and at home ignore history and deny the present. Neither do youse belong to the future -- and vice versa.

Carry on.

TU Curmudgeon · Apr 3, 2018

Tangmo said:
Vermont has twice the GDP of North Korea. WVA has four times the NK GDP.

True, but also irrelevant.

Tangmo said:
The elites of NK are exactly the tyrants USA specializes in.

True AND relevant.

Tangmo said:
People who spend their time saying how smart and clever the elites are in NK and in Beijing,...

There is a difference between acknowledging that the leaders of other countries have at least enough intelligence to pour piss from a boot WITHOUT reading the instructions printed on the heel, and saying "how smart and clever" they are.

Tangmo said:
... while ignoring the 200 year record of the USA in dealing with tyrants abroad and at home ignore history and deny the present.

I agree completely. All discourse should be conducted at the "I know you are, but what am I?" level.

Tangmo said:
Neither do youse belong to the future -- and vice versa.

Those who remain fixated on a mythical past tend to not even belong to the present. If you don't like the historical reality and don't want it to continue into the future, then it's probably better to work to change the present than it is to continue to condemn the past and ignore the present.

As you say "Carry on.".

Mattis predicts partnership with Bolton despite differences

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)

Tangmo

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)

Tangmo

TU Curmudgeon

B.A. (Sarc), LLb. (Lex Sarcasus), PhD (Sarc.)