Joe Biden and his China strategy – feminize the U.S. military


 

It’s important that pregnant women are able to drop into enemy territory. Imagine a pregnant woman pilot with air sickness. Imagine a pregnant American woman captured by an enemy.

Imagine Joe Biden is President.

China is on a tear with a massive increase in Navy ship building. First we have Tucker Carlson giving us an update on China. Joe himself comes next with his military strategy and then our intrepid Mustang throws out some thoughts on the China matter for us think about.

 

 

China Joe himself with the necessary improvements to our fighting forces that will carry us to victory. Note his ever present minder Harris waiting in the wings prepared to pull the plug should Biden go off script or need direction to get off stage.

 

The Enemy of My Enemy

An Introduction to Chinese Checkers

by Mustang

 

 

Recently, Mr. Schweizer wrote about China’s Dragon Ships — a massive increase in Chinese navy shipbuilding. Despite Wikipedia’s warning about Peter Schweizer — that he’s a contributor to the far right media organization Breitbart News — I enjoy his articles.  They are well-researched and convey useful information in a well-organized and highly articulate manner.

Among his pearls are — 

  • The Chinese Navy has replaced the USN as the world’s largest 
  • China’s goal, in developing such a large navy is (a) to intimidate and threaten the economic security of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia, and (b) lay claim to the entire South China Sea as a Chinese sovereign territory
  • China’s push for nuclear powered ships reflects a longer-term goal of challenging the US and other navies around the world
  • China’s shipbuilding behavior will only get worse unless the US challenges China through diplomatic and economic penalties.

I think Mr. Schweizer did a good job in his article up until his final point.  Economic and diplomatic penalties imposed on China have never worked.  This bears repeating.  There is nothing more useless than a law that cannot be enforced, or a foreign policy that has no effect.  

So if we agree that the imposition of trade restrictions on China — or diplomatic consequences (and I cannot imagine what these might entail) — have no effect, why bother?  It makes you wonder, “Well, then, what else could the US do to challenge China?”

Beyond my reading of Chinese history and the product of the so-called China Watchers for a few decades, I am no expert.  I can say that Chinese frequently demonstrate their craftiness, and more often than not to the detriment of US foreign and trade policies (which reflects more the ineptness of American diplomats than it does on the cleverness of Chinese thinking).  As but one example, America’s involvement in the Vietnam War was entirely the brain-child of Chou En-Lai … whose trap we walked into with both eyes open.

All that aside, what could the Americans do to challenge China?

  • We could increase our naval construction program.  This is easier said than done, particularly since the US cannot bank on revenues if it intends to keep the American economy in lockdown mode.  China could more or less assure our continued lockdown by introducing yet another virus into the United States — which shouldn’t be too hard since every week, 3,881 flights arrive in the US from China.  Snap!  A robust US naval construction effort would entail more sailors (more financial outlays), but of course we cannot do that and provide unrestrained and un-budgeted-for economic stimulus programs to the American people.

 

  • The balance of power in East Asia may involve more than issues of naval supremacy; Japan, for example, purchases most of its rice from Vietnam.  We might encourage our Asian allies to pursue a more robust naval construction program — but that would only work if our Asian allies perceived the Chinese navy as a significant threat to their economic interests.  Otherwise, from their perspective, there would be no justification for increasing their spending on naval/military hardware.  Note: looking back in time, maybe FDR should have backed Japan against China in the 1930s.

 

  • I suppose the US could simply stop trading with China, although the fact is that if the US did impose an embargo on all Chinese made goods, it would only account for $106-billion (annually)… a drop in the bucket as a percentage of China’s GDP.  Plus, should we really send Wal-Mart into bankruptcy?

 

  • There is always the option of not challenging China’s naval activities at all.  Should the US really care about this — enough to spend billions we don’t have on naval construction — when China’s strategy may very well be the exact same thing we did to the former-Soviet Union, which was to drive the Soviets into economic oblivion?

 

  • Finally, the US might consider an ambitious campaign to convince Americans that Chinese noodles are deliciously nutritious.   

 Greg Poling, Director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies organization seems to agree with me, recently stating, “The South China Sea isn’t a military problem and has no military (naval) solutions.  All the force investments in the world won’t matter if the US fails to impose enough diplomatic and economic costs to alter Chinese behavior.”  

Of course, Mr. Poling probably has more confidence in America’s diplomatic corps than I do.  I cannot find one single “clever” thing the US State Department has done in the past 120 years that didn’t end up costing the American people needless loss of life or an increase in the loss of disposable income.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend is a concept suggesting that other governments who live in fear of China might become worthwhile American allies.  I laugh. 

 Our “friends” would expect that the USA subsidize their naval construction efforts, while at the same time increasing our trade deficits with them as part of the bargain.  It makes me want to question the wisdom of wasting time trying to create any worthwhile anti-Chinese alliances.  

By the way, the title expression originated in India in the fourth century before the common era.  It may not actually apply to this perceived Chinese threat since the US has no worthwhile friends and all of our former allies should have learned their lessons by now. 

Still, I wonder … what do the commenters at Bunkerville think? 

 

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

26 Responses to “Joe Biden and his China strategy – feminize the U.S. military”

  1. Press Secretary Smites Fox Host That Dissed Diversity in U.S. Military | BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades! Says:

    […] Biden and his China strategy – feminize the U.S.@military bunkerville.wordpress.com/2021/03/10/joe… […]

    Like

  2. Steve Dennis Says:

    This one is just dumbfounding! Maybe he is expecting a mass exodus from the military and he is desperate.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. peter3nj Says:

    Irony of ironies: In the early 60’s there were joke books with pictures of Mao saying “I started the Asian Flu”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. kidme37 Says:

    All future wars should be fought by each country sending a transgender representative to play a single game of Stanley Random Chess in a slightly darkened and damp room with a foul odor, (or best out of 3 if the trannies are halfway decent looking).

    The rules of Stanley Random for your edification.

    https://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/Stanley_Random_Chess#What_are_the_rules_of_Stanley_Random_Chess.3F

    Liked by 3 people

  5. billg775 Says:

    As chaplain of a “mixed crew” ship in the late 1980s, I long ago saw the brave new world. In fact, I’d give tours to visitors, showing where babies were conceived throughout the ship. Women aren’t the problem. Putting them together with men for long unaccompanied periods (deployments) devastates good order and discipline. I said several things to the captain during my tour that strike me as memorable.. First, I said, “This isn’t a destroyer tender, it’s an ark. Because everyone comes and goes two by two.” I also said “I’d rather be a good looking seaman apprentice than a commander; I’d get more respect.” My final barb came on the day we returned from a deployment and a sailor gave birth in her rack. “Sir,” I said, “This will give the term berthing compartment a new meaning.” It’s all a big lie.

    Liked by 5 people

  6. MaddMedic Says:

    I’m going to add another level under my bunker…..’Madd shuffles off looking for his shovel/, muttering/..

    Liked by 5 people

  7. Linda Says:

    banging head…sigh…that is all I can muster at this point.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. markone1blog Says:

    I did hear about the maternity flight suits touted by Biden yesterday on the radio. This seems counterintuitive to create a flight suit for a pregnant woman. Why not disallow pregnant Air Force personnel in certain positions? Don’t they have such restrictions on men that have temporary medical issues?

    Is the thought that, if the aircraft gets hit and depressurized, it’s over for that woman and kid?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Mustang Says:

      Our friend, A Lady of Reason, recently posted another of her very thoughtful essays on “Gender-blind sexism.” If you have a moment, click over and read it (https://aladyofreason.wordpress.com/2021/03/08/youve-heard-of-colorblind-racism-but-what-about-genderblind-sexism/).

      Two commenters expanded on the subject (Doug and me) relating to women in the military. Doug, who wrote about this issue in 2013, lays out a good case for why women do NOT belong in the combat arms.

      A flight suit is the aviation equivalent of battle dress uniforms; it’s a working uniform. Women who are THAT far along in their pregnancy shouldn’t be doing the “normal” kind of work in either air or ground occupational specialties.

      You’re right to suggest that doing so endangers both mother and child. If you were at the same time suggesting that women in the combat arms threaten the entire purpose of having a defense structure, I absolutely agree but Biden and the political left have apparently decided that social engineering is far more important than keeping America free.

      Liked by 5 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        Excellent link post and comments Mustang. Yet we want men to become women. Thus the push for men in women’s sports. Just put me down as “I just don’t get it..”

        Liked by 2 people

      • Bill Heffner Says:

        I will again ask the question: why do we have a military? For what purpose was the military formed?

        Was it formed as a jobs program? We had, perhaps, too many people who did not have jobs. They liked the idea of wearing uniforms, but all of the hotel doorman jobs were filled, so we said, “Eureka! Lets start an Army and a Navy and have them wear neat uniforms so that all those kids who like to wear uniforms can do so.” That means that everyone who wants to wear a uniform gets to serve in the military, that they have a “right” to do so, and we have to allow them to wear the neat uniform and be worshipped by politicians.

        Or, did we discover that we had some enemies that needed to be killed and we needed some hard nosed bastards to go into dangerous and nasty places and kill those enemies and, in many cases, get killed themselves. In that case we should only allow hard nosed bastards serve in the military, because soft nosed little brats are not going to kill many enemies before they get killed themselves, in which case we will have wasted a lot of money trying to train the little idiots.

        So who should serve? Anyone who wants to? Or those who the military decides can do the job?

        Liked by 6 people

      • markone1blog Says:

        Bill,

        If the military is meant to kill people and break things, then why such the push under the third Obama term (sometimes called the Harris/Biden administration) to recruit women and Rachel Levine look-alikes? (mild sarcasm alert)

        Liked by 3 people

      • Bill Heffner Says:

        @mark1blog
        Well, I merely asked a question, but the Harris/Biden regime obviously considers the military to be a third option, namely an experiment for “social justice.”

        Liked by 4 people

  9. bunkerville Says:

    I will stick with the Chinese noodles as our best bet. Since China the enemy is already within our gates and has infiltrated the highest levels of power I suggest a quick course in Mandarin. It’s not what we can do to China it is what China is already doing to us. They will win without a shot fired. So all those wonderful new uniforms for women will not quite do the trick.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. markone1blog Says:

    I suppose that, to Wikipedia, anything that is not to the left of Mao is far right.

    Liked by 4 people


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: