<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, December 16, 2010

Charlie Wang's war? 


Ever read Charlie Wilson's War? If so (and you should), you know how it turned out. We've seen this story before. Indeed, we wrote it:

Chinese advisers are believed to be working with Afghan Taliban groups who are now in combat with NATO forces, prompting concerns that China might become the conduit for shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, improved communications and additional small arms to the fundamentalist Muslim fighters.

A British military official contends that Chinese specialists have been seen training Taliban fighters in the use of infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles. This is supported by a May 13, 2008, classified U.S. State Department document released by WikiLeaks telling U.S. officials to confront Chinese officials about missile proliferation.

Now, there may be less to this than meets the eye -- read the whole thing -- but if the story is true we should get out of there before the Chinese train and arm too many Taliban. Because once they are trained and armed with modern weapons somebody is going to have go back and kill them.

15 Comments:

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Dec 16, 10:02:00 AM:

If the Chinese really are training the folks we (most of the western world) are currently in a war with then the world is far further down the rathole of global conflict that I ever thought.  

By Blogger Kinuachdrach, at Thu Dec 16, 10:38:00 AM:

Tigerchicken -- sometimes I wonder about you. A lot of the time, you seem to have your head on straight. But occasionally you slip some poisonous defeatism into your data stream. Deliberate?

There is a coalition of countries in Afghanistan supporting international order. If China is deliberately arming & training the other side, then that is the functional equivalent of a Declaration of War.

The correct response is a nose-to-nose with the Chinese leadership, backed up by the credible threat of a highly disproportionate use of nuclear kick-ass on high-value Chinese targets. Because if China can arm enemies in a hot war in Afghanistan and get away with it, then it is only a matter of time until the options for the US vs China are surrender or fight to the death. Of course, if our side is represented by Obama, then we have already lost in a mano-a-mano with China.

Let's hope that the stories about China's involvment are false. Let's hope that Fifth Columnists in the US are rooted out and destroyed. But if the Chinese really are arming the other side and getting away with it, we are on an unstoppable path to World War III. And running away from Afghanistan would only make the situation worse.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Dec 16, 12:42:00 PM:

For several years I have heard tales from a very good friend in Houston who is good friends with the Texas socialite involved. My thoughts which I kept to myself were yea, right. Well about a month ago I went to a very small birthday party dinner. My wife could not attend and we were to pick the socialite up to go to the restaurant, she canceled the ride and arrived by herself. 80 years old with the body and attractiveness of a 50 year old, the mind of a 40 year old! Zero pretense or arrogance detected. A complete surprise and shock to me. I can understand Charlie's interest.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Dec 16, 12:53:00 PM:

"The correct response is a nose-to-nose with the Chinese leadership, backed up by the credible threat of a highly disproportionate use of nuclear kick-ass on high-value Chinese targets."

What a great idea! World War 3, nuclear from the start. That'll show 'em.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Dec 16, 01:06:00 PM:

I hope this isn't true, but if those fuckers in the PLA want a Cold War, we can give them one.

There are Muslim separatists in Xinjiang, unhappy Buddhists in Tibet, over a hundred million Catholics, large (but unknown) numbers of liberal minded students, and 20 million people on Taiwan.

The Chinese do not want to get into this with us, just for the joy of taking Uncle Sam down a peg. We've got all sorts of ways to hurt them at home without going anywhere near nuclear.  

By Blogger DEC, at Thu Dec 16, 02:29:00 PM:

PRC government? I doubt it.

Rogue Chinese intelligence agents? Highly unlikely. Nevertheless, Afghanistan is a long way from Beijing.

Chinese mercenaries? Some Overseas Chinese (ethnic Chinese outside Mainland China such as those in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia) care more about money than they do about world politics.

Are there ethnic Chinese Muslims in the Taliban? That's what I hear.

In 1993, two countries had American-made F-14 Tomcats -- the U.S. and Iran. (The U.S. had sold some to the Shah.) Selling F-14 spare parts to Iran became illegal in the U.S. after the overthrow of the Shah. However, as a supplier of aircraft spare parts, I occasionally received price requests for F-14 spares. I looked into the matter thoroughly that year. The requests came from private companies in Malaysia and in Taiwan. (Yes, I told U.S. Customs. The Feds didn't seem interested. At the time, they were focused on Mainland China.)

P.S. TH, the story you linked to refers to a "British military official." Most Europeans can't tell a Chinese guy from a North Korean guy. Hell, I know Chinese and Koreans who can't tell them apart.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Thu Dec 16, 04:12:00 PM:

The Stingers were so useful in the 80s because the Red Army absolutely relied upon rotary wing aircraft to fight the mujahidin. We don't. They relative difference the presence of such weapons will make is much less.

"If China is deliberately arming & training the other side, then that is the functional equivalent of a Declaration of War."

This is incredibly naive.  

By Blogger Kinuachdrach, at Thu Dec 16, 06:14:00 PM:

Easy to say "naive", Dawnfire. Naive is pretending that it is OK for China to arm enemies fighting US troops. Naive is pretending that wetting our pants and running away is an effective response.

Oh well, from the perspective of North-East Liberals, the American soldiers dieing in Afghanistan are all inbred Southern retards anyway. Much easier for you guys to pretend it is not happening and keep buying your Chinese gee-gaws.

As I said, let's hope these reports are not true. But if they are, the very definition of naive would be ignoring the very unpleasant implications.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Thu Dec 16, 07:22:00 PM:

"Oh well, from the perspective of North-East Liberals, the American soldiers dieing in Afghanistan are all inbred Southern retards anyway. Much easier for you guys to pretend it is not happening and keep buying your Chinese gee-gaws."

First of all, it's 'dying.'

Secondly, I'm from a small town in southeastern Texas.

Thirdly, I'm an Army veteran who served during this little conflict.

So save your self-righteous outrage, hyperbole, and tough talk for someone it'll influence.

It's naive because nations do this all the time, including ours. Funding and arming separatists, revolts, third party invasions, and so on go all the way back to ancient Greece. It's a way for rival nations to struggle for influence in relative secrecy. Just because you heard about it does not make it a "Declaration of War."  

By Blogger TigerHawk, at Thu Dec 16, 07:35:00 PM:

Heh, I *knew* that Dawnfire wouldn't take that one sitting down...

Here's the operative thought experiment: Did the United States "functionally declare war" on the Soviet Union when it armed the muj? Maybe yes, maybe not. The whole point of proxy war is that you can functionally wage war without actually declaring it, because neither side will admit that a war is even going on even if there could be casus belli until traditional law. In an age of nuclear weapons, there is a lot to be said for everybody to deny a war while applying violent pressure nonetheless. Sort of like two brothers who beat on each other, but both deny that they do when mom walks in the room.  

By Blogger Dan Kauffman, at Thu Dec 16, 08:02:00 PM:

You have 2 assumptions that I am not certain are valid

A) That the Chinese will stop their activity if we leave Afghanistan. Might it be the case that will prompt them to increase such activity, there and elsewhere around the world

and

B) that it will be leass costly to leave and come back and kill them, than to stay and kill them.

I prefer some hunter killer teams tasked with taking out Chinese advisors  

By Blogger Kinuachdrach, at Thu Dec 16, 08:09:00 PM:

Dawnfire, I bow to your superior ability in spelling. But I seriously doubt that you are anything other than a North East liberal.

A Texas military veteran who thinks it is OK for US soldiers to be killed because China is deliberately selling highly-destructive weapons to the other side, and providing training to make sure the maximum number of US servicemen die? That Texas veteran does not exist in this Universe, Dawnfire. Wherever you came from, whatever you were -- you no longer are.

To repeat again, let's hope these rumors of Chinese involvement are false. If they are not, even superior spelling abilities are not going to save us from what follows. Issuing panicked calls to get out of there won't do any good either. Nor will indulging in wine & brie intellectual discussions about the benefits of deniable war -- while braver men's lives are at risk.  

By Blogger Gary Rosen, at Fri Dec 17, 01:56:00 AM:

I will only say that Kinuachdrach has obviously not read many posts by DF82.  

By Blogger Don Cox, at Fri Dec 17, 07:01:00 AM:

Isn't it likely that these "Chinese" characters are Central Asian Muslim fighters?

Or, they may be Chinese freelance weapons smugglers. There are millions of Chinese folk around the world who are interested in making money.  

By Anonymous Boludo Tejano, at Sat Dec 18, 10:05:00 PM:

Gary Rosen:
I will only say that Kinuachdrach has obviously not read many posts by DF82.
Ditto.
I find it plausible that there is a segment of the Chinese government that would do this. The ascendancy of China in the last 20 years gives confidence to those who have no love lost for the Gwai Lo, which is by no means a minuscule minority.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?