We can’t sit on our hands this time

      In just a few short years, the American military has gone from “shock and awe” to “shocked and awed.”

      It seems like yesterday that our stealth aircraft and overwhelming air superiority crippled and humiliated Iraq, one of the largest military forces in the world. In the past week, a previously undisclosed “visit” by a Chinese submarine, a mysterious missile launch, and a completely unexpected artillery attack on one of our key allies in Asia have us back on our heals.

      In November 2006, the U.K.’s Daily Mail eventually reported, a Chinese submarine “popped up” in the midst of a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group.

      U.S.S. Kitty Hawk was involved in a military exercise in the Pacific Ocean, complete with its entourage of about a dozen surface ships — and a classified number of submarines (typically at least two Los Angeles-class attack subs) — providing a shield around the 1,000-foot, 4,500-crew supercarrier. Suddenly, a 160-ft. Song-class submarine made its presence known by surfacing in the midst of the exercise.

      The incident got almost no play in the American media, but The Mail quoted an unidentified NATO official as declaring it the “Sputnik moment” for the Chinese navy. Previously, U.S. military officials doubted the Chinese had the level of sophistication necessary to evade American sonar, allowing to be a threat to major U.S. assets, such as a multi-billion-dollar aircraft carrier.

      The incident took place in the South China Sea between Japan and Taiwan, both of which were partnering in the naval exercise.

      The new assessment of the Song-class, according to Jane’s Fighting Ships, was that it was “deadly silent” and capable of averting almost all forms of sonar detection. Again, this received almost no mention in the American mainstream media.

      One need only look at the final sentence of The Mail’s November 2007 (a year after the actual incident took place) article to see the real danger China poses to all of our military assets: “In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.”

      The test created a debris field in orbit around Earth that endangered low-orbit space travel for months. If China can shoot down a target satellite in orbit, it can shoot down any of our own military satellites, if it discovers where they are.

      This is an element of the 1980s-era Strategic Defense Initiative, which Democrats derided as “Star Wars” science fantasy. We, too, can knock satellites out of orbit, but our own military sophistication has only advanced to a better than 50-50 chance of shooting down an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile.

      Who knows how far the Chinese have advanced in three years’ time?

      There’s little question as to how the Chinese got there. One need only look as far back as the Clinton Administration to see the U.S. was soft on the growing influence of “The Dragon” in Asia.

      Almost three years to the day of The Mail’s article, a CBS affiliate in Los Angeles airs footage of what appears to be a missile launch at sea. Military officials initially scratched their heads and said they weren’t conducting a test.

      Eventually, the story changed to suggest the “missile launch” was nothing more than the contrail of a commercial airliner. But, as Joseph Farah of World Net Daily reports, the FAA has reported there were absolutely no aircraft in the area at the time of the “missile launch.”

      Farah quotes U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. (ret.) Jimmy Cash, a former fighter pilot, squadron commander, and assistant director of operations for NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain complex in his report:

      “There is absolutely no doubt that what was captured on video off the coast of California was a missile launch, was clearly observed by NORAD, assessed by a four-star general in minutes, and passed to the president immediately.”

       Farah also quotes Wayne Madsen, a former naval officer who worked for the NSA and who is now an investigative journalist. Madsen claims the Pentagon is “working overtime” to cover up the whole incident, but that several full-time defense reporters are starting to question the official story.

      Madsen’s own website offers some interesting details about the missile launch.

      “There are no records of a plane in the area having taken off from Los Angeles International Airport or from  other airports in the region. The Navy and Air Force have said that they were not conducting any missile tests from submarines, ships, or Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Navy has also ruled out an accidental firing from one of its own submarines.

      “Missile experts, including those from Jane’s in London, say the plume was definitely from a missile, possibly launched from a submarine. WMR has learned that the missile was likely a JL-2 ICBM, which has a range of 7,000 miles, and was fired in a northwesterly direction over the Pacific and away from U.S. territory from a Jin class submarine. The Jin class can carry up to twelve such missiles.

      “Navy sources have revealed that the missile may have impacted on Chinese territory and that the National Security Agency (NSA) likely possesses intercepts of Chinese telemtry signals during the missile firing and subsequent testing operations.”

      Lyle Rapacki, a defense intelligence expert, noted several levels of defense systems had to fail for a missile launch to take place 30 miles off the coast of a major U.S. city without warning. He also laid the authority for any cover up of the alleged missile launch at the desk of President Barack Obama.

      “The decision to officially announce that North America was not threatened, and all the excitement was due to an aircraft leaving a contrail is a decision that reaches beyond the four-star general level and goes directly to a decision made by the Commander-in-Chief.”

      Why would the president cover this sort of thing up? One need only do a quick assessment of Barack Obama’s personality.

      In December of 2007: “Ambitious/confident–self-serving and Dominant/asserting, with secondary features of the Outgoing/congenial and Accommodating/cooperative patterns.” In April of 2008: “Ambitious/confident and Accommodating/cooperative, with secondary features of the Outgoing/congenial pattern.”

      The final assessment of Obama’s personality: “The combination of Ambitious, Accommodating, and Outgoing patterns in Obama’s profile suggests a confident conciliator personality composite. Leaders with this personality prototype, though self-assured and ambitious, are characteristically gracious, considerate, and benevolent. They are energetic, charming, and agreeable, with a special knack for settling differences, favoring mediation and compromise over force or coercion as a strategy for resolving conflict. They are driven primarily by a need for achievement and also have strong affiliation needs, but a low need for power.”

      In other words, he has a deep need to look like he’s done something, but he’s not prone to use physical force to achieve those goals. He prefers to be a mediator, as opposed to being antagonistic… he’s a lover, not a fighter, so to speak.

      For several years, the United States has had a serious economic problem when it comes to China. The People’s Republic has run an immense trade surplus with the U.S., largely through artificial controls of its own fiat currency.

      Until recently, U.S. foreign policy toward China has been one of placating and cow-tailing. Perhaps that was because of China’s economic influence over the U.S. when our own economy was slumping, or maybe there was more to it than that.

      Regardless, as China continues to rise in prominence, it also continues to meddle in global affairs, largely in opposition to the interests of the U.S. Perhaps the most frustrating instance of Chinese meddling has been with regard to the Korean Peninsula.

      As though we’ve forgotten China (and the Soviet Union) was one of the aggressors in Korea, we’ve brought to them (and the Russians) to the negotiating table over how to deal with an increasingly volatile North Korean regime. Every time Kim Jong Il has “acted up,” he was — ostensibly — rewarded with more concessions, led by Chinese prodding.

      So, should it be such a surprise that North Korea, under pressure for recent revelations of increased nuclear weapon development activity, would feel emboldened to lob a few hundred artillery shells at its neighbor to the south? Of course, Obama is reportedly “outraged” by the new development in Asian relations.

      As well he should be. His legacy as POTUS is crumbling more every day.

      Beyond the loss of global peace and stability — ironically under the watch of a Nobel Peace Prize winner — there’s a lot at stake for the United States. There are roughly 64,000 American military personnel stationed in South Korea and Japan, and 10,000 American civilians in the region.

      What’s shaping up is a whole new Cold War; one in which the United States is not the rising world power, perhaps in large part through a conscious effort by Obama and his administration. The scary part is that this might not be a war the United States (in its current form) can win.

      The message of the last few days from China seems to be: “You’ve lost.” And, it seems the Obama Administration has been all-too-happy to say: “OK.”

      During the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the Siege of Bastogne, found his unit surrounded by Nazi forces. The German general, Heinrich Freiherr von Lüttwitz, offered terms of surrender.

      McAuliffe’s reply was as audacious as it was simple: “Nuts.”

      Eventually, the 101st got support from Gen. George S. Patton’s Third Army, turning the tide at The Bulge, as well as for the war in the European theater. “Nuts” became a rallying cry of American fighting men in Europe.

      It should be the message we’re sending back to China.

      One way Obama could try to force China’s hand is through the United Nations Security Council, of which he will soon hold the presidency (even though it’s a clear violation of the Constitution). The United Nations remains at war with North Korea, although the just-broken armistice technically remains intact.

      While China does have veto power in the Security Council (and will hold the presidency of the Security Council immediately after the U.S.), the weight of world pressure could convince the People’s Republic to bend.

      Obama also could emphasize the importance of a stable Korean Peninsula to China’s well-being. Although re-unification will be costly, the status quo — with rampant border crossing by job-seeking Koreans that makes our own border situation with Mexico almost pale by comparison — will eventually drag that nation down.

      Regardless, sitting on his hands will only make matters worse.

      Bob Eschliman has been covering Iowa politics for more than a decade. He is a founding member of Liberty’s Lighthouse and The Iowa Sentinel.