Jin Yinan: deep blend of Chinese and American interests can not be a war
PLA combat exercise
Yie The war decimated the U.S. military
Comment dynamic world, exploring the future of the war room, the south and the Central People’s Broadcasting Station Military Forum.
Moderator: U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said June 18 the U.S. military need to enhance the adaptability to respond to future threats in regional conflicts, while the concept of winning two wars, has not longer applicable, so why should Gates should be made to improve two-war strategy, is to make this adjustment is to what end?
guests: Bill Gates this speech the U.S. military strategy is actually the result of long-term thinking. In fact since 2001, when Donald Rumsfeld took office, when the Pentagon to release such a wind, ready to fight two wars that the formulation of proposed adjustments, of course, not only the formulation of the problem.
it reflects the Cold War, the United States such a strategic adjustment. United States has long called it the two wars, it is a product of the Cold War. During the Cold War when the U.S. is not such a mention, when mentioning that the United States two and a half to win the war, it is the two and a half, of course, different regions, such as a European, an Asian region. In fact he was very clear point is what? On the one hand to fight with the Soviet Union, on the one hand and China fight, two, there is the other half with another rebel state, the country could in Africa, probably in the Middle East, may also be in Southeast Asia, for instance, like Vietnam, are likely.
he was thinking was two and a half, which is the highest when he mentioned. Later, with the war is actually half what he called the Vietnam War, the Vietnam War into a quagmire, like he hit two and a half, he played half of the war are very difficult, not the last withdrawal from Southeast Asia. In fact, following the withdrawal from Southeast Asia, the United States had already made the adjustment. In the late 1970s, he was already winning two and a half of his so-called war to win a semi-war adjustment, it feels like to win two and a half too much appetite, not care so much. Of course he still has some special considerations, because it was carried to the middle of the Vietnam War, the Sino-US relations greatly improved. The possibility of direct U.S. engagement greatly reduced, so in this case, it put its two and a half to adjust to a half of war, until after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a semi-war re-fight two regional wars replaced.
such as East Asia, fight, fight a Middle East, which refers to this. 1991 Gulf War is actually carried out under this concept, but on Sept. 11, with the fact that the Bush administration took office, we wanted to adjust the impact of September 11 attacks on the United States is very large. It is now so far, the United States to war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, on the one hand they are not included in the war, is the standard of war, a war between countries, he was not included. It made fighting terrorism, counter-terrorism operations in the United States is completely different concepts, including the war on terror, Congress appropriated funds that are separate funds, the funding is not within the defense, as a special funding. So it is not included within the so-called two, but he also felt the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq an influence on him and that contain very large, it put a lot of strategic resources.
up to the end of this year, about the war in these two spent $ 900 billion, very large numbers. Then such a big loss, if in other places other then the emergence of a problem, he felt very difficult to do. So we look at the adjustment of the United States he, in fact, he based his strength, according to its national strength to face the reality and the state, two regional wars that are not resolved, then in such circumstances and then continue to follow the The concept of winning two wars simultaneously, it is beyond the concept of this war in Iraq and Afghanistan military operations strategy. It’s scope is national form, or in a region or a group of countries for such a battle, on the one hand lack of capacity on the other hand you want to maintain the ability to fight two wars still bound to the United States military to do more input, is that you two are now in the so-called regional unrest, is Iraq, Afghanistan conflicts so-called regional unrest, flat explosion. He called such, can not fully sense of the war effort, as he called the steady support stability operations, have been so much difficulty. Then the war effort if you try to strategic vision based on two wars, the Pentagon has asked Congress certainly should continue to grant more money, can not stand the U.S. Congress, the Pentagon also know not to take so much money. Take so much money you can not take this task is very difficult. Plus I think there is an additional factor, the factor did not say it, the first first the Soviet Union has collapsed, it used to keep the Soviet Union to fight a Cold War nightmare of war, the Soviet Union has collapsed.
second after the end of the Cold War, is the rise of China. China’s future is likely to be a global rival the United States, the result today, the depth of bilateral exchanges, China-US bilateral trade in 2008 reached $ 330 billion, according to the U.S. is estimated to reach $ 400 billion. Blend of the interests of both countries is very deep, and then to solve the problem through war, not for both sides, but it can also see that China is not the pursuit of a world hegemonic system and not the pursuit of the Cold War patterns of confrontation, but made harmonious world demand. So from his ability to Ye Hao, Ye Hao from the demand, funds may be from Ye Hao, all aspects of the adjustment he felt he was winning two wars simultaneously demands.
Moderator: is a combination of factors to consider.
Moderator: So the adjustment of military strategy, direct impact on the military preparation and procurement of weapons systems, with the adjustment of military strategy, military development priorities will change?
guests: Of course it is mainly the adjustment of this strategy, in fact, he adjusted the wars, mainly for the opponent to judge, what is the threat? Threat comes from where? Is the country? Is the next superpower, he do not think so, now is one aspect of the forces of terror threats, and transnational terrorist forces, it is considered to be very big trouble.
So in this case, you are what you need to deal with these terrorists? You like the U.S. aircraft carrier, F22 fighter aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missiles is now clear that the security situation to deal with it, like a little flea called a fist fight, prepare a large fist, the result is a small flea, fist beat it, which can be troublesome. He need? Nature of the squad, flexible response, rapid response, and even unmanned aircraft system for surveillance against each other, it requires such a light, fast, flexible, small-scale weapons systems and force composition, to deal with the so-called existing terrorist forces, the so-called threat to U.S. forces. Rather than large-scale, carrier battle group, the Army armored divisions, air force flight over the company’s overwhelming, overwhelming you with other people over the ground cover you can not find the hole, he felt a big problem now is that the conversion of strategic goals, primarily threat to the opponent’s conversion, in fact, constitute the army of your great impact.
consumption of these traditional countries constitute a large number of military and financial resources for the United States it is the same. You also need to spend so much money, to purchase such a large army and then the expensive weapons system? He now had a lot of questions, then the big question is actually the Americans to make adjustments. U.S. military spending now, you like the $ 53 billion in 2009, $ 53 billion more than we say behind the United States, eight countries, the combined military spending can not keep up it. For instance, like in the last row of the UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, Japan, followed seventy-eight total defense spending as it does not add up to much. Coupled with a great impact on the financial crisis, how to shrink, shrinking under the U.S. security situation and do not have a big impact. What he would like to remove the so-called dinosaur era weapons, the mind is to win a war, imaginary wars and past wars, and the future of warfare is completely different war in which weapons are prepared. Large, expensive weapons systems, rather than let the weapons stay in the garage, stay in the room slowly put it out of the old end, might as well get some of the lightweight, flexible, fast things.
Moderator: So the adjustment of U.S. strategy, the United States with Russia, China, the relationship between these powers will affect it? We should think of this adjusted?
guests: I think the adjustment of its US-Russian relations, Sino-US relations it is influential. Of course, we use the term media is talking about the same time the Americans to give up the requirements to win two wars, I think we said or say he gave too little. He said not to give up, he said, is to adjust. Say that the U.S. strategic thinking to re-adjust, is to give it away, the adjustment is that it’s based on the change. The foundation is no doubt, at least we should also fight two wars on hold this strategic concept, this idea aside for the improvement of relations with Russia to improve relations with China are no doubt helpful.
because you are the two large-scale regional war, in fact to some extent, it is not self-evident. Is Russia, China has always been his so-called potential adversaries. Potential operational target is always the case, then he adjusted simultaneously fight two major wars in the pursuit of this strategy, we can not say the United States completely to Russia, to China as a potential opponent’s ideas. We can not say he has given up, but at least he made some adjustments, at least for him from the near term, Russia and China and the United States a large-scale regional war is unlikely to solve the problem of war to both sides that are not desirable. We talk about making this adjustment can be sustained regardless of how long it is, he US-Russian relations to improve US-China relations, there is certainly no doubt help.