Article

2003-08-14 Afghanistan

UN Envoy ~~Wanks~~ ~~Natters~~ Urges Security Force Beyond Kabul

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2003-08-14 12:32:54 AM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Here's a double edged thought. When I think about available military manpower (not necessarily combat competence) I always come back to China. If the Chinese troops are in fact short on upkeep cash, why not farm them out into these low intensity situations? Hire them (and alleviate their upkeep burden issues). Put vast mobs of them where their mere presence of mass will deter the Taliban. If the Taliban get frisky with them, I would expect the Chinese troops to be more than up to the task, if not immediately, then very shortly after their first encounters.
So what's wrong with this idea? I have my own reservations, but the upside seems to outweigh the downside.
Why doesn't anyone ever ask this permanent security council member to carry their own weight? Are we afraid of them getting out of their box, or getting useful OJT? The Chinese should be just as uneasy about their troops getting out into the real world. But why give them a pass? If they want to be seen as a world power, let them shoulder some of the world's burdens.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2003-8-14 5:41:56 AM|| 2003-8-14 5:41:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Yeah, and those American troops in South Korea, let's replace them also with Chinese troops.

And I am sure that some Soviet troops could have done the job in Western Europe during the years of Cold War, but unfortunately no American president ever thought of it... *rolls eyes*

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2003-8-14 6:33:30 AM|| 2003-8-14 6:33:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 I was thinking more along the lines of the Vietnamese - cheap, efficient and with a deep understanding guerilla warfare.

Posted by Shipman 2003-8-14 7:42:19 AM|| 2003-8-14 7:42:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The problem with using Chinese troops is that they get battle experience. Also notice that I never heard their battle performance being stellar against the Tibetan guerillas.

Another point is that flowing the zone with low quality troops allows the guerillas to score kills and this will do do wonders for their morale and getting support from the populace: in guerilla warfare the real battle is for the hearts and minds of the population: you don't want the Taliban becoming living legends by scoring cheap kills on.
easily ambushed Chinese troops

Posted by Anonymous 2003-8-14 7:50:55 AM|| 2003-8-14 7:50:55 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Wow, for once I agree with Aris on something! If, as the liberal cant goes, American influence and power follows American military forces, then it must necessarily hold that Chineze influence and power will follow Chinese military forces.

The Chinese had best start pulling their own weight by starting closer to home.

Actually, all that's needed is a bigger commitment to building a bigger Afghan national Army. Political power must geographically follow physical (military) power.

Demanding that NATO or the UN supply security is a military version of refugee camps and humanitarian aid: it breeds dependency and prolongs weakness. It gives the appearance of helping Afghanistan in the short run, but winds up hurting it in the long run.

Posted by Ptah 2003-8-14 8:49:21 AM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2003-8-14 8:49:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, so far Anonymous has a reasonable point.
To the other posters, thanks for the comments, such as they are, but I am not unaware of the many downsides. This would have to be managed properly, and NOT through the UN. One of the main upsides is that we turn the Chinese into mercs that WE control. And by the way, the Chinese get low intensity battle experience aplenty against just this kind of threat in their western provinces right now.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2003-8-14 8:49:58 AM|| 2003-8-14 8:49:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Unlike the U.S. et al on the Security Council, the Chinese NEVER do anything that doesn't further their national (i.e. Communist Party) interest. Letting soldiers leave the fold for peacekeeping duties? When those boys came home they'd likely be heavily watched and possibly jailed as having picked up "counter-revolutionary ideals" like...oh, saying capitalism? Which is OK only when it benefits the State...the mingling of Chinese and other military would undoubtedly be seen as a corrupting influence

Posted by Frank G 2003-8-14 9:54:51 AM|| 2003-8-14 9:54:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 back to topic

actually brahimi has a good point. The ratio of peacekeepers to population, or to square miles, or whatever is absurdly low compared to bosnia, kosovo,E timor, etc. There are of course some good reasons for that - the existence in most of the country of warlords who are quite convinced they can keep the peace well enough, thank you very much, and the general hostility to outsiders found in afghan. Both of which make the place a more difficult place to effectively use peacekeeper than even Bosnia, and much more so than Kosovo and E. Timor. However its still probably possible to expand ISAF outside Kabul, and a desirable thing. Its not completely clear whether its not happening is due to the US not pushing for it ("we dont want stinking ISAF getting in the way of anti-Taliban ops, or messing around with friendly warlords") or of the euros not having enough troops available (the Frenchies are all busy ~~maintaining l'empire~~ peackeeping in Africa, and the rest of us are all too busy reducing our defence budgets) There seem to be just enough troops in from smaller NATO countries and some non-NATO countries to release about 700 Germans, who may be available for use outside Kabul. Not likely to make a huge difference, but better than nothing.

And of course the security situation takes precedence over reconstruction money. Thats the constraint - cant spend money when the civie types are afraid to walk around.

Posted by liberalhawk 2003-8-14 12:32:38 PM|| 2003-8-14 12:32:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 "Chinese troops deployed for 'peacekeeping' duties" - I believe the proper term would be "invasion".
So, the world invites massive numbers of Chinese troops into another country. They take over the country. Stability ensues. What's to stop the ChiComs from saying, "Gee, World, thanks for giving all of this free land. Got any more countries we can take over,oops,I mean, help?"

The U.S.(whose citizens desperately do NOT want to take over some God-forsaken backwater) is always accused of wanting to annex new lands. The (brutal, unfree, Communist, racist, xenophobic)Chinese may want to do just that.

Posted by Uncle Joe 2003-8-14 9:09:52 PM|| 2003-8-14 9:09:52 PM|| Front Page Top

07:08 Kathy K
04:43 R. McLeod
00:48 fullwood
00:05 mojo
00:01 mojo
23:52 mojo
23:48 mojo
23:38 AWW
23:18 Bomb-a-rama
23:09 Alaska Paul
23:05 Alaska Paul
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:27 .com
22:20 tu3031
22:15 Steve White
22:12 tu3031
22:08 Anonymous
22:07 Steve White
21:47 Dar
21:41 tu3031
21:41 Dar
21:37 tu3031
21:35 Dar
21:29 Dar