No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we need to finish up in Iraq first, then move on. Sorry, I'm not really awake today, still half asleep, can't articulate, must sleep.

CP

Yeah. Our resources are stretching too thin. Another flaw to being the world's policeman

I agree. We need to start beefing up our military again, this is a dangerous world and we are stretched far too thin for my taste.

I only approve of going to Liberia because of historical ties and that they actually want us there. But it better be a quick operation, let the WA forces and the UN (god help us) do most of the work.

As much as i hate to agree, i think the UN needs to be in on this because we can't handle this ourselves.

Thankfully, we got them to take ovcer the operation in October, which should help in the way of resources

Bush & the Pentagon need to start working on a way to pulling out some of our troops out of spots where it is no longer hot. For example, Kosovo and Bosnia. We currently have 8,300 troops in Bosnia & Serbia/kosovo. We need to at least pull out half

as was mentioned earlier, the french are willing to help. the people of liberia (as well as both sides) want us to intervene. it doesn't need to be done unilaterilly. we can get france too help us, as they have somewhat already. we could also ask other countries to contribute troops to help us out. they should be under international command though.

I was against Iraq as that was an obvious war of aggression. this would be a peace "making" mission, so I support it (plus the liberians WANT our help) and today taylor announced that he would step down from power at noon of the 11th of this month (2000 marines are nearing the coast of liberia BTW) it seems he is willing to step down peacefully (he said he would not leave until peacekeeping troops were in the region)

So far we're handling Liberia as well as can be. As we move our forces closer, Taylor get more ready to leave. We need to keep the pressure on, but rest assured we have no desire to send troops in.

Passion, he's had all month to back up and leave. Why wait while his troops who are loyal are killing innocents & shooting at our embassy with mortars accidently, risking the lives of U.S. personnel

No you don't - you have about 800 troops out there.

As for should the US send troops to Liberia?

Absolutely they should this could provide the perfect setting for the United States to demonstrate the success of multilateral intervention in Africa and the restoration of democracy with a relatively limited investment in troops and time. If it (the US) fails to do so - it will only confirm the sceptics view that the US has little to no interest in intervention for humanitarian reasons.

No, actually we have at least over 5,000.

Link

We are stretched too thin, leave Liberia for the West Africans to deal with.

Lest anyone think we can let the Nigerians handle this, here's another TNR article about their dismal "peacekeeping" record over the past decade.

Looking at this article, this makes me hope that the Nigerians won't take over the whole operation or we are screwed. I think we will need a peacekeeping force just to enforce the Nigerians

I dunno, if there are enough Africans willing to help out, I don't see a reason for us to get in there.

CP

Look back at previous posts for the answer to that question

Normally I would support the U.S. intervening in Liberia, but I think the timing is bad. With large numbers of troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with North Korea and China remaining security threats we risk being strected too thin. I think also that getting too involved with Liberia is placing too much of a burden on our troops. They are only human, and those Marines now waiting of the Liberian coast are veterans who just returned from Iraq. Let the Africans take the leading role in policing up Liberia.

Since when has China been giving us trouble? Not since the U2 plane incident. The squable with North Korea seems to be settling down for the time being as well.

Besides, the UN, with the resolution that was passed, will be relieving our guys in October.

China has drastically increased military spending, and much of that has been spent on modernizing the PLA and purchasing ballistic missiles. They still view Taiwan as a rogue, breakaway province and have not ruled out pre-emptive action against the state. While I don't think war between Taiwan and China is imminent, it remains a possibility in the future. As such it is important that the U.S. does not stretch itself too thin and maintains a large military deterant. It is the same situation with North Korea.

Pentagon Details Chinese Military Build-Up
Aviation Week & Space Technology 08/04/2003, page 22
Robert Wall
Washington

China is boosting its military intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability while fielding increasing numbers of ballistic missile and modern fighters, the Pentagon's latest report on Beijing's military capabilities indicates.

One of the more significant revelations is a looming shift in the strategic balance of power in east Asia. For instance, while Taiwan still maintains twice as many fourth-generation fighters as the Chinese air force, the PLAAF, last year's Pentagon assessment put that advantage at three-to-one. Moreover, the Pentagon now believes Chinese fourth-generation fighters "eventually will surpass those of Taiwan," while last year it merely noted that the gap between the two was narrowing.

The development is closely related to significant military spending by Beijing, in particular to import modern equipment. The Pentagon notes that for the fourth year in a row China is spending $2 billion on Russian hardware, double the average of the 1990s. Although Beijing claims it spends only $20 billion on defense, the real amount is $45-65 billion, the Pentagon estimates in its most recent version of the congressionally mandated report released last week. By 2020, the funding level is expected to increase by a factor of three or four.

One of the main beneficiaries of the willingness to spend money on Russian hardware is the PLAAF, which has bought Su-27s and Su-30s, and is license-producing the Su-27. Modern fighters in Chinese inventory are now estimated to be 150, a 50% increase over last year's estimate. The Defense Dept. report also indicates China may have overcome problems with Su-27 license production. Previous reports highlighted that the effort was progressing only slowly, but that caveat was dropped this year.

The number of modern fighters in China's inventory continues to represent only a fraction of the overall force of 3,200 fighters--last year's inventory was estimated at 3,400. China has been trying to retire some of its obsolete fighters as more modern versions are fielded.

The capabilities of the new fighters are further enhanced with the fielding of the Russian R-77 (AA-12) radar-guided air-to-air missile. China is using elements of the missile for its indigenous Project 129, also designated the PL-12 (AW&ST June 3, 2002, p. 26). Moreover, the Pentagon's review refers to, but doesn't confirm, Russian reports that China has agreed to buy a naval-strike version of the Su-30.

The U.S. assessment also directly mentions for the first time the Chinese-developed J-10 fighter, also referred to as the F-10. Although Chinese reports have indicated a small number may already be in service, the Pentagon asserts the J-10 will only become operational "in the next few years."

The Pentagon believes the Chinese air force will operationally deploy the J-10 fighter "in the next few years."

There are several other new twists in China's modernization plans. For instance, China is now able to increase its arsenal of short-range ballistic missiles (SRBM) more rapidly than before. Not only has the number of missiles deployed opposite Taiwan grown to 450 from 350, but the rate with which new ones are added has increased to 75 per year from 50. Additionally, the Pentagon now believes China is developing versions of the CSS-6 SRBM that could use satellite-aided guidance and, thereby, be able to strike Okinawa, where U.S. forces are based. The upgrade would also allow China to strike Taiwan from places farther inland.

The ballistic missile trend poses "a growing and significant challenge" to the U.S., Taiwan and allies, the Pentagon notes.

Chinese military (PLA) officials appear concerned that U.S. missile defense efforts will undermine their nuclear deterrent and that the shield would be extended to Taiwan. However, the Pentagon observes that resistance to Taiwan becoming a partner in missile defense efforts is more muted than before.

Despite the increasing numbers, Beijing's missile efforts appear to be suffering development problems, as well. The next-generation intercontinental ballistic missile, the DF-31, should be deployed "later this decade," the Pentagon said, after estimating earlier that it would be in the field by 2005. Moreover, the submarine-launched JL-1 is slated to be fielded only this year, after having been set for deployment last year.

For intelligence collection, China for several years has bet heavily on unmanned aircraft. However, the Pentagon study indicates the country is ready to pursue technologies to develop an unmanned combat aerial vehicle, a more sophisticated, armed unmanned aircraft.

Deployed reconnaissance drones include the ASN-206 and ASN-207, the Pentagon said. The ASN-206 has a 110-lb. payload capacity, 8-hr. endurance, and an 80-naut.-mi. range. The AN-207 doubles those performance parameters, although range could grow to as much as 325 naut. mi. when using a second AN-207 as a command-and-control relay. Payload options are believed to include electro-optical and infrared sensors, signals intelligence, jammers and decoys.

China also may have two surface-wave over-the-horizon radars for long-range surveillance, the Pentagon now asserts. Previously, it merely discussed the probable existence of the three sky-wave OTH radars. The country also plans to add Russian-made tethered aerostats with a sea-surveillance radar along its southeast coastline.

The Defense Dept. also is detailing new PLA efforts to bolster its information warfare capability, including "an unusual emphasis on a host of new information warfare forces." Augmenting that thrust are new specialized reserve units that are trying to create centers of excellence from which to grow "a corps of 'network warriors.'"

In addition to computer warfare, the military appears to be strengthening its electronic warfare (EW) skills, with units established to test new equipment and develop employment concepts. One of the more recent additions to Beijing's EW coffer is the Israeli-developed Harpy loitering anti-radiation weapon.

China also has long shown interest in directed energy, in particular, laser weaponry. Here, too, Beijing appears to be making progress by augmenting the existing laser blinder with a system to produce a false target to thwart laser semi-active-guided weapons. Another laser capable of blinding naval personnel may be in development.

In the space realm, the report notes that China is working on direct-ascent anti-satellite systems that could be fielded in 2005-10.

On the space-launch side, the Pentagon highlights China's development of a new, small solid-propellant launcher, the Kaituozhe-1 (also known as the Pioneer-1, KT-1, or KTZ-1). The effort is seen as only the first of several to allow the country to launch small satellites, possibly from mobile platforms. The country's goal by 2007 is to possess the ability to put 25 tons into low-Earth orbit and 14 tons into geosynchronous orbit.

U.S. anti-submarine forces in the coming years could also be facing a more formidable foe as they patrol near China. The country in the next two years is expected to deploy a new vessel, the Type 093-class submarine, that could eventually be equipped with the JL-2 next-generation submarine-launched ballistic missile. It will also serve as a cruise missile shooter. The Pentagon also confirms that China's contract to buy Project 636 Kilo submarines from Russia includes the 3M-54E anti-ship cruise missile. The subs would carry wire-guided torpedoes and the 53-65KE wake-homing torpedo. China already can fire the YJ-82 Exocet-like missile from its indigenously-built Song diesel subs.

The PLA continues to lag in army aviation, despite last year's acquisition of 40 Mi-17V5 helicopters. The Pentagon notes Russia and China are discussing the acquisition this year of another batch, these in the Mi-17V6 configuration. But "China still lacks a heavy-lift and a dedicated attack helicopter," the report states.

The Pentagon so far sees no clear signs what lessons China may have learned from U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, although it points out there has been much attention paid to the heavy use of special operations forces and mobile warfare. In the past, Chinese military thinking has been heavily influenced by U.S. military activities. Observations made during the 1991 Persian Gulf war shaped Chinese planning in the 1990s, while the 1999 Kosovo air campaign has significantly impacted military thought in recent years.

The Pentagon assessment highlights that in addition to buying arms and developing its own, China continues to run an active program to collect technical know-how from overseas by drawing on its huge diaspora. One cited example was an effort by two Chinese students to collect information on Terfenol-D, a rare metal developed by the Energy Dept.'s Ames Laboratories, which is used in aerospace and naval systems. These collection attempts are orchestrated at a high level, the report points out.

Just two years ago one of their fighter jets intercepted (hit) our Navy EP-3E spy plane over international waters. The damage forced our plane to land so they could dissect the technology...Unless you believe a large prop plane aggressively hit a fighter jet, which is fairly impossible unless they let 12 year old drunk pilots fly jets over there (even then, I doubt the stall speed of the jet would be slow enough). They also outnumber us five to one, and have much lower regard for human life. The Tienamen square massacre wasn't much more than a decade ago. Of course, we are also wearing a giant 'I'm stupid and overextended' sign.

I say we shouldn't take on any new commitments, and leave as soon as reasonably possible elsewhere.

That must be why the Pentagon keeps saying they may not commit troops to Liberia after all.