by Gordon G. Chang • Gatestone Institute • August 6, 2024
It is incomprehensible that the U.S. after the Cold War would allow militant regimes to develop stronger fighting forces than its own, but that is exactly what happened. Global conflict on the horizon, and the leaders of America’s enemies are not squeamish. China’s President Xi Jinping relishes making war references at every opportunity. “Dare to fight!” is one of his favorite lines. (Image source: iStock/Getty Images)
- “The Commission finds that DoD’s business practices, byzantine research and development and procurement systems, reliance on decades-old military hardware, and culture of risk avoidance reflect an era of uncontested military dominance… Such methods are not suited to today’s strategic environment…. The U.S. public are largely unaware of the dangers the United States faces or the costs (financial and otherwise) required to adequately prepare,” — Commission on the National Defense Strategy, July 29, 2024.
- “The Department’s usual laser focus on mission has been supplanted by Marxist-inspired instruction, an eradication of meritocracy in favor of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion promotion programs, with an extra emphasis placed on administration fetishes like climate change… The Chinese, Russian, North Korean, and Iranian militaries are not burdened by such nonsense.” — Blaine Holt, former US Air Force brigadier general, to Gatestone Institute, August 5, 2024.
- Unfortunately, Biden has not addressed the American people in a comprehensive and meaningful way about the greatest threat they face.
- The Commission on the National Defense Strategy is clear on what must be done: “A bipartisan ‘call to arms’ is urgently needed so that the United States can make the major changes and significant investments now rather than wait for the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11.”
- It is unlikely, however, that bad actors will give America a decade more to prepare.
- General Mike Minihan, the chief of the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command, predicted in a memorandum to his command leaked in January of last year that America would be in a war with China “in 2025.”
- Xi Jinping can see the United States is starting to stir; why would he wait for his foe to get ready?
“We are closer today to World War III than we’ve been since the Second World War,” said former President Donald Trump at the Believers’ Summit in West Palm Beach on July 26.
Trump hyperbole? No.
The former president is not alone in thinking this way. “China and Russia’s ‘no-limits’ partnership, formed in February 2022 just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has only deepened and broadened to include a military and economic partnership with Iran and North Korea, each of which presents its own significant threat to U.S. interests,” states the Commission on the National Defense Strategy in its 114-page report released three days after Trump spoke. “This new alignment of nations opposed to U.S. interests creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multitheater or global war.”
Hi, Peloni
“The West” is a geographic term. Concerning “blending national identities”, Joe Allen and Noor bin Laden agree that the current policy of forcing natives to live with incompatible aliens, is not intended to “blend” them, but to force a clash — such as we see beginning to happen in the British Isles.
This clash, then, is neither about geography nor about borders, but purely about the elites taking over power.
In Vietnam, many young GIs went there expecting there to be “white hats” and “black hats”. Those who survived to return home, had generally disabused themselves of the notion. I think in war, the notion of “white hats” exists only of civilian memories of pre-war times.
It WWIII does break out, it will probably become territorial; because kinetic warfare tends to be all about “taking territory”. the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the “Cold War”, the Israeli Wars, you name it — they all became territorial.
@Michael
Thank you for the Noor Bin Laden video. In truth, you sort of had me with the title of Anarchy created by Elites, for Elites, as it truly says it all, or most of it in any event. As to the war between the East and West, I would argue that there is more afoot than simple geography.
While Chang sees the Eastern players as being the source of evil in the world, I would challenge him to accept that this current contest has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with borders, and national identity,. The West wants to melt borders, blending national identities, and i would argue that there is nothing more sinister than the continued enactment of this policy which is in pursuit of establishing a one world govt under the control of oligarchic elites, trapping the ‘democratic’ peoples of the world in a box of unrestrained control and enslavement. Those nations most obtusely focused on enforcing borders rather than eliminating them, and who are focused upon national identity rather than limitless immigration, would be the White Hats in this contest, and to Gordan Chang’s surprise, that would include only a very few of the smaller nations among the West, which he generally considers en masse to be the ‘good guys’.
Peloni,
This seems up your alley (which should surprize nobody, seeing that you’re co-editor).
I’ve just finished listening to a post about the unrest in the UK —
https://rumble.com/v59zq3x-warroom-battleground-ep-586-anarchy-in-the-uk-created-by-elites-for-the-ben.html
— a post you might find interesting, since the titile is “Anarchy in the UK — Created By Elites, For the Benefit of Elites”
Coming from that discussion, including an interview with none other than Noor Bin Laden, to Israpundit, was, in essence, going from country-wide riots to world war in a span of less than a minute. I thought you would be interested in Noor’s and others; pinning the cause of the unrest as “elites”, which included mention of NATO, of the Fabian Society, of the Royal Family and others, well back to the beginning of the 18th Century. The sum of it all, is that these “elites” are engineering chaos as a means for these same elites to take political control and implement their (supposedly converging) agendas.
The “Elites” hypothesis of what is causing the malaise of our times doesn’t seem drawn along national lines; but the current OP presents the “WWIII” model along the lines of the “West” vs.
“The Chinese, Russian, North Korean, and Iranian militaries”
Gordon Chang clearly identifies this Eastern bloc as the “bad guys”
(“It is unlikely, however, that bad actors will give America a decade more to prepare.),
and NATO & Co., by default, as the “good” guys. Bin Laden et al, on the other hand, implicate the NATO leaders as the “bad” guys. This is all getting “curiouser and curiouser”, as Alice would say. Could we all have somehow fallen through the looking glass?