Left behind?

[abc_123]

And the reason we would fight a land war in China would be?

Not saying that I don't agree with the sentiments of this thread and that we need to pay more attention to our heavy armored forces. Not for Asia, but for Europe.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by abc_123

And the reason we would fight a land war in China would be?

Not saying that I don't agree with the sentiments of this thread and that we need to pay more attention to our heavy armored forces. Not for Asia, but for Europe.

A land war IN China and ground combat AGAINST China are different things, though you are correct that any conflict with China would be a mostly air / naval / space affair. I should have been more clear, the ground concerns were mainly aimed at Russia. That said, capabilities that our ground forces rely on these days lie GPS, satellite communications, ISR, and general radio comms are all threatened by capabilities both countries have developed.

[Leozinho]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

the secretary of the Air Force, Deborah Lee James, directed the service’s Special Operations Command to review the seven Air Force Crosses awarded since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for possible upgrades. She recently recommended the award to the defense secretary, whose approval is required before it goes to the White House.



Slabinski said he wondered whether the Air Force was motivated as much by hopes of receiving its first Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War as by a desire to fully understand what transpired on the mountain.


I wonder that as well.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by Leozinho

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

the secretary of the Air Force, Deborah Lee James, directed the service’s Special Operations Command to review the seven Air Force Crosses awarded since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for possible upgrades. She recently recommended the award to the defense secretary, whose approval is required before it goes to the White House.



Slabinski said he wondered whether the Air Force was motivated as much by hopes of receiving its first Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War as by a desire to fully understand what transpired on the mountain.


I wonder that as well.

That was my take away when I read the article. The AF is feeling butt hurt and well it's been high on this POTUSes list to award as many as he can. While the services have routinely denied SOF especially Army SF higher than Silver Stars or the highest awards for bravery in combat.

The bar has always been set high, as it should be but, some sure seem to be handed out while others get downgraded based on rank or specialty. Even posthumously for courage above and beyond.

I'm not against the process and if TSGT Chapman and many others get a second look now that the war has dragged on for fourteen years maybe it is time to concede that the actions of those killed in the earliest days of the GWOT or throughout it have actually met the requirements and rank, MOS, or time in service will not be used as justification to deny them the highest honor this country can bestow upon them.

We all made jokes about it in my day, because the only way to get it was because you were dead. Laughing over beer came the reality of, I'd rather spend the pension money that comes with living.

[WarriorDiplomat]

Originally Posted by Leozinho

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

the secretary of the Air Force, Deborah Lee James, directed the service’s Special Operations Command to review the seven Air Force Crosses awarded since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for possible upgrades. She recently recommended the award to the defense secretary, whose approval is required before it goes to the White House.



Slabinski said he wondered whether the Air Force was motivated as much by hopes of receiving its first Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War as by a desire to fully understand what transpired on the mountain.


I wonder that as well.

Their taking advantage of the political climate good on her.

The politics in the awards system makes me roll my eyes and mine and the rest of our experiences during the entire GWOT leaves me suspicious of every citation.

[EricV]

Originally Posted by scooter

A land war IN China and ground combat AGAINST China are different things, though you are correct that any conflict with China would be a mostly air / naval / space affair. I should have been more clear, the ground concerns were mainly aimed at Russia. That said, capabilities that our ground forces rely on these days lie GPS, satellite communications, ISR, and general radio comms are all threatened by capabilities both countries have developed.

Meanwhile with the passing of time...

https://www.memri.org/reports/chines...longside-assad

Considering how the Chinese are going into Africa economically, their land forces probably won't be far behind.

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by EricV

Meanwhile with the passing of time...

https://www.memri.org/reports/chines...longside-assad

Considering how the Chinese are going into Africa economically, their land forces probably won't be far behind.

They are looking for a base (port) in the region to extend their growing navy program.

[EricV]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

They are looking for a base (port) in the region to extend their growing navy program.

My understanding is that the Chinese are pursuing expansion into Africa for it's resources. Naturally, they'll need a Navy to support all that. It's hand in glove.

In a way I can't wait. The Chinese getting bogged down in local politics.

I'll be able to bring back 1960's slogans with a twist :

"Bashar al-Assad, Running Dog of the Chinese Imperialists!!" for example.

I think that has a nice ring to it.