About a week ago, cable services and the Internet broadcast an interesting story, which flashed by. Unfortunately, because this is an important story, it is reasonable, and because we no longer owe the US military the suspicions when it received the version of the incident. Via Reuters, China says it “destroyed” U.S. warships on the anniversary of the court ruling.
The Chinese military said on Monday that it “drove” a US warship that illegally entered Chinese waters near the Paracel Islands. This is the anniversary of the International Court of Justice ruling that Beijing has no claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea.
China’s comments are similar to Beijing’s usual reaction after US warships conduct freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea almost every month.
The Southern Theater Command of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army stated that the US Navy destroyer “Benford” entered the waters without China’s approval, severely infringing on China’s sovereignty and undermining the stability of the South China Sea.
“We urge the United States to immediately stop this provocative behavior,” it said in a statement.
On July 12, 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that China has no historical ownership of the South China Sea, and Beijing said it would ignore this ruling.
Think about it. China claims that it expelled a U.S. surface ship from international waters in an unspecified manner, in this case the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Ben Fold.
The navy is like this Events described a few days later.
USS Benfold will conduct “freedom of navigation operations” or FONOP in the South China Sea, especially near the Paracel Islands.
The US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Benfold (DDG 65) conducted Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOP) near the Paracel Islands.
The ship was forward deployed to the combat area of the US 7th Fleet to perform missions to support the free and open Indo-Pacific region.
USS Benfold (DDG 65) sailed in the South China Sea while performing its routine operations.
Operation FONOP was conducted in accordance with international law and demonstrated the freedom of navigation in sea areas illegally claimed by some countries.
According to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, ships of all countries enjoy the “right of innocent passage” through territorial waters.
The US Seventh Fleet said in a statement: “This Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP) has upheld the maritime rights, freedom, and legal use recognized by international law by challenging China, Taiwan, and Vietnam’s illegal restrictions on innocent passage. It has also challenged China’s The idea of the baseline of the strait surrounding the Paracel Islands.
“The illegal and extensive maritime claims in the South China Sea pose a serious threat to maritime freedom, including freedom of navigation and overflight, free trade and commerce, and freedom of economic opportunity for countries along the coast of the South China Sea.”
The Paracel Islands are the fuse of any potential war between the United States and China because China claims that the important international trade route is territorial waters. China is building reefs, developing natural resources unscrupulously, bullying ships of other countries, and doing everything possible to establish “facts on the ground” that support its ownership of the region. Freedom of navigation is one of the historical missions of the U.S. Navy, and we have been doing this since the time of the Barbary Pirates.My personal opinion is that we are very close to the war with China, and I am How far are we from going to war with China?
Here is good background information on this issue and situation:
In normal times, this kind of story will make people sneer at. But since 2016, this has not been the case. In January 2016, the Iranian army boarded two U.S. Navy river patrol boats in the Arabian Sea. Ten sailors, nine were described as male and one was described as female (I said “description” because in Obama’s Navy and the postscript, we really don’t know the actual meaning of these words), imprisoned in eternity In the shame of the former maritime power.Who can forget the ugly and rebellious spectacle The admiral refused to obey The President of the United States exercises constitutional powers as commander-in-chief
Recently, Senator Tom Cotton, in collaboration with Representatives Dan Crenshaw, Mike Gallagher, and Jim Banks, published “U.S. Navy Surface Fleet Combat Culture Report. “It portrays a regrettable service, it can barely sail, let alone fight against them.
Related stories:
U.S. Naval Academy: Critical Race Theory Advances at Full Speed
The new revelation shows how dangerous our military leadership has become
Report: The Navy says sailors can use locker rooms that suit their gender identity
This is the headline of the report:
There are not enough leaders to focus on combat. Perhaps the most worrying comment and consistent observation among the interviewees was that the service did not promote or advance surface warfare in a meaningful way. Finding and sinking the enemy fleet should be the main purpose of the Navy. But many sailors found their leaders distracted, over-constrained by bureaucracy, and were rewarded for successfully performing administrative functions rather than their skills as fighters. People are very worried that in the years after the end of the Cold War, the surface warfare world in particular lost its combat advantage. As China builds and operates a competitive fleet, many interviewees are deeply concerned about the lack of proper attention to war.
Dominate and paralyze zero defect mentality. A common theme emerged during the interview: almost universal contempt for the so-called “a faulty navy”, this approach is to treat certain errors as career termination and not provide any chance of recovery. A former senior leader used an evocative historical analogy to describe this problem, showing that none of the four key admirals who led the Victory Fleet in World War II could become a captain of today’s navy. The general unwillingness to correct one-time errors, unwillingness to weigh errors throughout the navy’s career, and the practice of paperwork are widely considered to be a drain on the Navy’s retention work.
Insufficient investment in surface warfare officer training. Compared with investment in aviation and submarine communities, investment in surface warfare officer training pales in comparison. The surface navy has repeatedly “reimagined” its officer training program in the past 20 years. This has complicated the problem of underinvestment, often seeking efficiency (that is, even smaller investment), and allowing commanders to use inconsistent and poorly prepared Ward.
The surface ship maintenance plan has insufficient resources and poor execution. Almost every interviewee has a story of cancellation, delay, or drastic reduction in the availability of major maintenance. This is generally considered to be a problem driven by senior civilian leadership and combat commanders, who always accept the “maintenance risk” to extend the deployment time by one or two months. But this is also regarded as a failure to equip and train the ground community to develop and evaluate maintenance work packages. Finally, there is an overwhelming view that the surface navy is the “payer” because aviation and submarine nuclear maintenance programs are considered too risky and insufficient funds. The cumulative effect of this lack of funding and poor execution has led to a low level of modernization of surface warships and insufficient preparation for combat operations.
Expand the micro-management culture. The worries of micro-management in the surface warfare community are worrying. The sailors’ concerns are twofold. The first is technology that enables admirals and brigadier generals to exercise greater and arguably unhealthy control over the captain. The second is that this control has led to toxicity and lack of accountability and initiative in the naval operational command hierarchy. In view of the increasing possibility that naval headquarters will be isolated or cut off communications in high-end combat, excessive reliance on higher-level headquarters for daily command may have a negative impact on future naval operations.
Overreact to the corrosiveness of media culture. The sailors believed that naval leaders overreacted to the indomitable news cycle of the United States and could not distinguish between stories that needed a response and stories that did not. A common perception is that naval leaders have subverted the responsibilities of the chain of command to the pages of Military.com or the Military Times, and made punitive decisions based on negative news reports rather than serving their own disciplinary standards.
Other topics mentioned by most interviewees include:
– The surface naval ordnance room has lost its focus on training excellent ship operators;
– Tsunami-style administrative work distracts the crew, and has nothing to do with the lethality of their ships;
– The navy is too small to complete all the tasks assigned to it by senior civilian leaders and combat commanders;
-Sailors and officers lack sufficient resilience and are not prepared for the difficulties in battle, partly because their training does not emphasize continuous exposure to adversity.
The speed at which the story disappeared convinced me that China’s response is more representative of what happened than the navy’s response. China has expressed its views to the audience it is trying to reach, that is, countries that have territorial claims on the Paracel Islands and the Spratly Islands. Our fearless media firefighters closed this story before Stumblebum Joe, and State’s Blown Hair Brigade proved to be their incompetent poser.
I don’t think anyone, left or right, really thinks that Joe Biden has the ability to hold Beijing accountable for everything because he and his son, who is drug-addicted and addicted to sex, has been damaged by the Chinese intelligence services. It’s also hard to believe the navy’s leadership. The level must at least be as aware of the navy’s incompetence as the rest of us. In the face of China’s obstruction, he did not order Benford to hesitate. The U.S. Navy, in fact, the U.S. military, has no ability to engage in limited conflicts to defend the freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and protect the territorial integrity of countries in the region, including the territorial integrity of our allies. Chinese people know it. Our allies know this. Our military and political leaders know this. Perhaps, in the end, the American people will realize how bad the service they receive before too many young Americans have to die to explain this.
