Change We Can Believe In

Now that I've got you looking, this isn't going to be about what you think it is. Or, at any rate, not in the way that you may think. But there is, nonetheless, a point behind the title.

A friend of mine just posted an article released by the Agence France-Presse, commenting on an article that appeared in the Financial Times. The article, it appears, was an interview with a Chinese defence official, a Major General of the People's Liberation Army(Navy), in which that individual asserted China's "right" to build an aircraft carrier.

Well, so what? After all, we've got eleven of them, why can't the PRC have a few, too?

Absolutely no reason at all. Any nation has the "right" to do whatever it wants in terms of its military. I would, however, question the why . . . just as I would question the justification and, I might add, what our own potential response to such a development would - or, in this case, will - be.

We, as a people, have a tendency to be . . . how do I put this? . . . rather oblivious. By which I mean it is far easier for us to ignore things, preferring to live in a fantasy world of our own construction at the expense of approaching the world as it is. We insist that the world, and the other people in it, behave according to our preconceived notions and ideas, and we are invariably left at a loss when that doesn't happen.

What concerns me about the Chinese desire to field aircraft carriers are the following statements made by that officer in the article: "Navies of great powers with more than 10 aircraft carrier battle groups with strategic military objectives have a different purpose from countries with only one or two carriers used for offshore defense," he said, apparently in reference to the United States which has 11, according to the FT.

"Even if one day we have an aircraft carrier, unlike another country we will not use it to pursue global deployment or global reach."

Well, that and the fact that many of us, in our delightful naivete, are going to accept that at face value.

First of all, B.S. and other choice words in response to those two sentences. Look, folks, the whole point behind an aircraft carrier is power projection and the ability to control the seas, the airspace over it, and to a large extent, the lands bordering the seas. Period. The fact that aircraft carriers are mobile means that you can project that power at a great distance from your own shores . . .

Starting to get the idea? The only reason you build an aircraft carrier is to give your Navy a global reach. What you don't do is use them for coastal defence, which is what the Chinese official is saying a PLA(N) carrier - or carriers, because they're like potato chips, you can't build just one - would be used for. Land-based aircraft, for example, are just as effective in that role, and you can't sink a land-based airfield.

The PRC is not a "great" maritime nation, at least not in the same way that, say, the United States or the United Kingdom are considered to be maritime nations. Neither their trade nor their economy depend on sea-borne trade quite the same way, nor does their inherent security position require or demand the power-projection capability inherent in a carrier strike group. Unless, of course, they are planning on getting in on that business . . .

Therein lies the rub. Aircraft carriers are expensive, both to build and to operate, and they are pretty unnecessary if the intent is coastal defence. They are, however, indispensable if you plan on transforming yourself from a regional to a global power.

It is interesting, and no accident, that the Chinese official in the article classifies the PRC as a great power, and there is a message in that for us. One that we would be foolish to ignore. China is announcing its intentions, if we care to listen.

The PRC already claims the oceans around it as its own. We're not talking the traditional concept of territorial waters here, or even of the recognized 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The PRC claims all the waters, as far east as the Philippines and as far south as Indochina, as their "territorial" waters. What they lack, at the moment, is a true blue-water capability to enforce those claims. Fielding aircraft carriers, and the escort vessels needed to support them, gives the Chinese that ability.

Not to mention the issue of Taiwan. If the PRC were ever tempted to resort to a military option to solve that issue, the only real response the U.S. could opt for would be a naval one. A fleet centered on aircraft carriers gives the PRC the ability to counter that, at a distance from the island, or at least make it a very bloody endeavour.

Nor is the timing of this interview a coincidence. A new Administration is going to take power this January, under a President who has absolutely no experience in foreign affairs. Furthermore, President Obama has also been a proponent of further "downsizing" the American military. Now, before the hysteria starts, let's be clear on this issue. There are aspects of the defence establishment that he has said he is in favour of strengthening; the SOF capability, for one, comes to mind. On the other hand, he has stated that he is also in favour of significantly cutting back or eliminating things like the F-22, BMD, and the Army's FCS. Those issues, though, are really a subject for another time. What is of significance to this discussion, however, is that the President-elect has also stated that he is in favour of cutting the Navy by at least one, if not more, carrier strike group.

Which would be incredibly short-sighted and foolish, especially in light of the Chinese desire to field carriers. The only option we have to project power and presence in the Western Pacific, and for that matter the Indian Ocean, is our carrier force. A force that, given our current committments and operational demands, is already stretched thin at eleven groups.

So what happens when the PRC fields a carrier force, and if we decide to go ahead and decommission a hull or two? Is it really in our interests to cede control of the Western Pacific to China? That is the question we should be asking, for the implications of that have ramifications for the continued security of not only ourselves, but for such places as the Republic of Korea, Japan, the Philippines and Taiwan.

Change is coming, all right. Whether we choose to believe in it or not. But is it going to be the kind of change that we are really prepared for?

The Drive-by Curmudgeon Stikes Again

I don't generally believe in conspiracy theories. Conspiracies, by their nature, are supposed to remain secret, and conspiracy theories almost always involve way too many people for that to happen. But, of late, there is one conspiracy that I can not escape feeling must, indeed, be true.

You were all put here on this Earth to test my patience.

For those of you who can't seem to remember: those lines were painted on the roadway for a reason, you twits.

Solid yellow lines divide lanes of opposing traffic. You may not cross solid yellow lines, no matter how much you want to or how late you are for your fresh latte.

Solid white lines divide lanes of traffic moving in the same direction. Like the solid yellow lines, you may not cross them, even if you were so busy yakking it up on your cell phone that you suddenly realize you were too stupid to figure out you were in the wrong lane.

A solid yellow line paired with a broken yellow line means that the median strip may be used as a turning lane. It does not mean the median strip is a passing lane, or your own personal high-speed lane.

As long as we're on the subject, the shoulder of the road isn't a passing lane, either. Hence the solid white line telling everyone who isn't brain dead that you're not allowed to cross onto the shoulder. The only time your car should be on the shoulder is when it breaks down.

Contrary to popular opinion, a yellow light does not mean "Hit the gas so you'll miss the red." Nor is there, when you are in the turning lane, a "grace" period for you to charge out and make your turn after the light turns red. Fair warning, my Bronco is much larger than the little Japanese hybrid you're driving, and the next time you do that, I'm just going to go ahead and roll right over you. Trust me, safely encased in all that metal, I'm not going to notice it as you get squished.

Speaking of four-wheel drive SUVs, and since we are rapidly approaching that lovely season where the white stuff falls out of the sky . . . Four-wheel drive does not mean you are invulnerable; all it means is that you can now get stuck in a place where even the AAA-club tow truck can't reach you. In case you were too busy in 10th Grade Physics class wondering why your penis always got stiff when the wind blew or when you could finally trade in the training bra for a real grown-up woman bra and missed it, if all four wheels are moving across ice, you're not going to get any traction whether or not you've got four-wheel drive or all-wheel drive. Please consider that as you're sitting in the ditch, wondering why you lost control of your Yuppie Assault Vehicle.

On a completely different note . . . To all the proof readers, publishers, editors, authors and wannabe authors out there:

Please learn how to use the language properly. You're supposed to be professionals, for God's sake.

"Breach" is something you do when you want to make a hole in something. "Breech" is where you put the bullet so you can shoot it from a firearm. "Is" and "are" may never be used one right after the other, as in "The scientists at the LHC is are conducting important reasearch into high-energy physics." The word "affect," in the way that you most commonly use it, means to have an impact on something. The word "effect," on the other hand, means to bring about a desired result. They do not mean the same thing, nor are they interchangeable.

"Efforting" is not a word. The sentence "We are efforting that right now in order to find an answer" doesn't mean anything. Please stop. Now. Likewise, "irregardless" is not a word. Please stop trying to make it one. The proper word is "regardless." Nor is "can't not" an acceptable phrase, as in "He can't not do that." It's a double negative, which means it is a positive assertion meaning that he can, in fact, do that. Do not start a sentence with the word "however," as in "However, he can not do that." The proper usage would be "He can not, however, do that." The former is just intellectually lazy.

Heathen.

You Just Can’t Make This Up

More observations from the Land of the Absurd . . .

Hugo Chavez is, apparently, very proud of himself because he just bought a whole bunch of combat aircraft from Russia . . . including all the "weapons and pilots." Really? He bought the pilots from Russia, too? And here I thought the only human beings Russia trafficked in were women for the sex trade . . .

By the way, Hugo, there's no such thing as "Sukhoi missiles." So, when you threaten to sink U.S. ships using your "Sukhoi missiles" . . . you just make yourself look like a bigger ass than you already are.

Oh, and have fun storming Guyana. I really can't wait to see how Sean Penn is going to explain that one away for you.

Not that I believe it's the only answer, but can we all please get off this idea that drilling for more oil wouldn't have any effect on the price-per-barrel? Of course it would. The price of oil is decided by the futures markets and, for as long as demand remains where it is and supply remains where it is, the price is going to remain high. Once you start adding to the supply by finding and exploiting new sources, the price is going to drop. Even just announcing that you are going to do that - as long as you then follow-through - is going to produce a price drop.

While we're at it, the idea that if every American kept the tires on their car properly inflated, it would make a dent in oil prices, is perhaps the most ridiculous thing anyone has ever said.

Despite what you may think, Senator Obama is not the Second Coming. Nor is Senator McCain "too old." Would either one of them be the best choice for President? Probably not.

News flash for the Europeans: I don't particularly give a damn what you happen to think our national policies should be. Clean up your own houses first, or at least do us the courtesy of also insisting that we should be able to tell you how your nations should be run. I might feel differently about this had any of you bothered to lift a finger to stop the fun-and-games that went on in the former Yugoslavia, but you didn't. So shut the fuck up.

News flash for the Democrats: Bush is neither that dumb nor is he the Antichrist.

News flash for the Republicans: he isn't that smart, either.

News flash for George Soros and MoveOn.org: you all need to shut the fuck up, too.

Just so we're clear on this. Iran is sitting on one of the world's largest reserves of untapped oil. So just why do you think they're developing a nuclear programme?

Go ahead, keep jaywalking in front of me. As far as I'm concerned, you're just points.

Oh, and Brett Favre needs to shut the fuck up, too.

I'll probably remind you of this again next winter, but to the next idiot who decides to park halfway into the Handicapped spot because they don't want to trudge their way through the slush . . . I'm not going to say anything anymore, I'm just going to beat you.

To those of you who seem to believe that every Muslim, everywhere, is part of some great Islamic conspiracy to "overthrow" us: lose the tin-foil hats and move out of the basement. All you're doing is diverting attention away from those radicalized elements within that belief system that are a threat.

To the former Apollo astronaut who knows that aliens are on Earth and that the Government is covering that up: remind me again how successful your ESP experiments on the way to the Moon were?

Dear Treasury Department: no, really, I mean it. Stop fucking with the money.

Dear Department of Defence: once you've totally reconfigured yourself to prosecute asymmetric warfare, what are you going to do when someone like, say, China decides to make trouble? You do remember, right, that the "ten year plan" didn't work for the British in the 1930s?