article: The US Marine Corps in the Pivot to the Pacific

[CougarKing]

The US Marine Corps in the Pivot to the Pacific
EAST ASIA SECURITY
May 24, 2013
By Robbin F. Laird

The centerpiece of the U.S. Pivot to the Pacific, the Marines are moving forward.

Recently, Secretary Hagel underscored the centrality of the US-Japanese security treaty and the need to reinforce Japanese defense against the twin challenges from North Korea and China.  In so doing, he became the first Secretary of Defense to move the USMC’s Osprey onto the strategic chessboard.

more of the article here.

 

[tomahawk6]

I don't see the Osprey as a strategic asset.Marine units deployed to the Pacific is a strategic move designed to counter the PRC overreach in the region.Of course having assets in the region is one thing,quite another to be willing to use them.At the moment I dont see the will in Washington to face off with the Chinese.

 

[CougarKing]

"Would the current sitting US President even be willing to commit US Marines to the Senkakus, in spite of the treaty?", is a question that needs to be asked.

Military.com

Marine General Ready for Battle against China

WASHINGTON -- If the Chinese invaded the Senkaku Islands, U.S. Marines in the Pacific could recapture them, the commander of Marines in Japan said Friday.
 
The Senkakus have been administered by Japan for decades, but China now claims sovereignty over them. Amid other heated territorial disputes with its neighbors, China has deployed naval assets near the Senkakus in recent months.
 
During his recent trip to Asia, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel reiterated the U.S. position that the Senkakus fall under the scope of the U.S. defense treaty with Japan, and the U.S. would be obliged to come to the aid of its Japanese ally if the islands were attacked by a foreign power.

Hagel's comments came after Adm. Samuel Locklear III, the commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, told lawmakers last month that the Navy and Marines don't have enough transportation assets in the region to carry out amphibious operations in a contested environment.
 
"If we were directed to take the Senkakus, could we? Yes. [But] to tell you how it would take place or would it take place or any of that would be pure speculation," Lt. Gen. John Wissler, the commander of the III Marine Expeditionary Force based in Japan, said at a breakfast with defense reporters in Washington.
 
"They're not real big," he said. "I think sometimes people get this idea that the Senkakus look like the island of Okinawa or, you know, any of the other major islands. It's a very, very small collection of small islands."
 
Wissler suggested that U.S. naval and air assets could take out the Chinese forces on their own, and a forcible entry probably wouldn't be required.
 
"You wouldn't maybe even necessarily have to put somebody on that island until you had eliminated the threat, so to speak. And that's where that whole integration of our full capabilities as a Navy-Marine Corps team would be of value," he said.

(...EDITED)

 

[Nemo888]

Having superpowers slug it out is not a great plan. We need rule of law and economic sanctions not brute force.  The best solution is for the nations of Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia and India to form a mutual protection pact.  Combined they are a match for China.  The land grabs China is trying are so egregious they couldn't last even a cursory investigation in an international court. If these countries can't work together we would need financial support to keep up with China. This in itself will empower China to develop a military based economy and start an arms race.

International courts with power are the only sane alternative, but if I thought the world was sane I never would have signed up in the first place.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

"Rule of Law"...
"International court"...

:rofl:

Do you think any nation, much less China, actually gives a crap about those two things?

Nations have interests. They will pursue those interests. International law is a fairly meaningless concept for the simple reason that you need someone/something to actually enforce it.

Who do you suppose will force the Chinese (or Russians or Americans or ....) to follow International Law, if it conflicts with what they want to do?

 

[Griffon]

The best action the United States could take against China would probably be economic sanctions, yes.  The United States is a very large importer of Chinese-made goods, and they would definitely feel it if those goods stopped flowing out and the cash stopped flowing in.

But there's a problem: the Chinese lend money back to the U.S. at low interest rates, which is helping to keep interest rates low and consumption high, keeping the U.S. economy on life support.

Oh, and if we longer have Chinese-supplied goods, who's going to fill the shelves at Wal-Mart, or make your next iPhone?