Prescript: later today, when it finishes uploading, I should have an oral history interview with Col Larry Wilkerson posted on my Project for the Study of American Militarism YouTube page in which he discusses the war preparations against Iraq before 9/11, under Cheney/Rumsfeld, et al.
But to the article below:
Who can disagree with the good old Hoover Institution, home of incessant war incitement against Russia, China, Iran, . . . .
"Jacquelyn Schneider, who leads the wargaming and crisis initiative at the right-leaning Hoover Institution, stressed the difficulty of conducting campaign war games like the committee did with Taiwan, as they don’t account for classified capabilities.
“The biggest difficulty in campaign war games, and where campaign war games did not reveal what happened between Ukraine and Russia, is it’s very difficult to model public will and that really does affect how wars transpire,” Schneider told Defense News.
"She noted the outcomes highlighted issues like munitions shortages that the military and defense policy analysts are already aware of. Nonetheless, Schneider called them “an incredibly evocative experience,” adding that “if you want to convince people who have never really thought about this problem that there’s significant difficulties awaiting if you don’t preposition munitions there, then war games are extremely compelling.”
I know something about what it means for the US to "preposition munitions.” The high-level officers of the 321st Theatre Area Materiel Management Center that I was assigned to for Gulf War I as their sole “DAS3 Computer Repairman,” which was the computer system which maintained all the Army ammo stockages in the War Theatre, knew before we left Baton Rouge in August 1990 that the DAS3 Computer had already been permanently reassigned to Saudi Arabia and would not be coming back to the US. In fact, much of the unit was not intended to return to the US for at least two years as plans were already in effect to use GW I as pretext for a permanent stationing of the US military in the heart of the Mideast. So we were part of Operations Desert Storm, Desert Shield, and whatever they called the aftermath which immediately commenced with the 321st establishing Logistic Bases in Kuwait, and expanding those already established in Saudi Arabia (to UBL’s chagrin, leading to the al Qaeda bombing of Khobar Towers, which we tried to pin on Iran, I recall). To keep this short, months after the “War” had ended, and we were one of the few remaining units in Saudia Arabia, with our members hounding Congress to get us home, the unit left a detachment behind, returned to Baton Rouge, and carried on the "Mission” by satellite from their. My computer remained in SA as munitions were continuously added to as prepositioned. Fortunately, a replacement for me found out unit as he wanted to stay in SA for another year, with a total of two years for the detachment we left behind, and then rotated people through that continuously as a permanently assigned unit in SA.
So when 9/11 came along, we were already “leaning forward” for a War of Aggression against Iraq, and at least 6 other countries as has been divulged by Wesley Clark and others, with almost everything we needed for that already “in Theatre.” Which became a totally reliable indicator of where the US intended to “wage aggressive war.” Like with our prepositioned munitions in Ukraine, Poland, Romania, and other countries near the Russian border. Which, unless Russia didn’t have an intelligence service to analyze what it means when the US prepositions munitions near a border, would lead to the conclusion that Russia was on our “target list.” With Trump having accelerated that “buildup” far beyond what was there previously, leading to Poland’s proposal to name our main Logistics Base there, Camp Trump!
I suspect China will quickly understand what the China War Hawks of the House Republicans who set this Committee up as a condition for supporting McCarthy, with their right-wing, Goldwater/Scoop Jackson Conservative inspired, Democratic Party counterparts in tow, intended with this Committee. Which is not only to incite war on China, but to accelerate preparations for it. As Trump had already begun, in obvious preparations for a “Fire and Fury Campaign” he so favored with his massive War Buildup/Initiation Program, against all of Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba, at varying stages of preparation when he left office. Which Biden followed up on, as part of the aforementioned “faction” in the Democrats.
The House China Committee on Wednesday advanced 10 bipartisan recommendations to deter China from attacking Taiwan, which the panel hopes will be included in the fiscal 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.
The committee agreed by voice vote to advance the Taiwan proposals, drafted as a response to Apriltable top war games led by the Center for a New American Security. Rep. Andy Kim, D-N.J., was the only lawmaker to vote no.
“At the select committee’s Taiwan war game, we saw the terrifying result of deterrence failure,” Gallagher said in advance of the vote. “If we want to have a hope of stopping World War III, we need to arm Taiwan to the teeth right now. We must clear the embarrassment that is the $19 billion [foreign military sale] backlog.”
The 10 recommendations include establishing a war reserve stockpile of weapons in Taiwan, prioritizing weapons delivery for Taipei and authorizing multiyear munitions procurement contracts. The proposals also call for hardening and distributing American forces throughout the Indo-Pacific region and expanding training and coordination between the U.S. and Taiwanese militaries.
The war games illustrated the difficulty the U.S. would have arming Taiwan in the event of a China crisis, the same way it has for Ukraine given the lack of a land border. To preposition critical weapons on the island, the China Committee wants the Pentagon to establish a war reserve stockpile for Taiwan and other Pacific allies akin to U.S. Central Command’s stockpile in Israel.
Another recommendation is quarterly updates on the Biden administration’s efforts to address the foreign military sales backlog, especially for Taiwan. The report calls on congressional appropriations to provide “grant assistance” for Taiwan to buy more U.S. equipment.
The war games found the U.S. would run out of precision-guided missiles within a week in the event of a conflict with China, and Gallagher is leading a push to get appropriators on board with funding multiyear munitions procurement authorities.
Hoping to send a strong demand signal for the defense industry to ramp up munitions production, the China Committee wants the FY24 NDAA to authorize up to five years of munitions procurement contracts for long-range anti-ship missiles, naval strike missiles, precision strike missiles, MK-48 torpedoes and Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
Multiyear procurement authorities historically have been used for big-ticket items like ships and aircraft, but the Pentagon and some lawmakers have recently expressed interest in using them for munitions acquisition to encourage defense companies to ramp up production amid concern about insufficient U.S. stockpiles.
The panel also recommends expanded base access with allies and partners throughout the region, and says “Congress should direct the U.S. military to invest in passive defenses, such as hardened fuel depots and other logistics facilities, and reserve supplies and direct the U.S. Air Force to increase resourcing for fielding deployable airbase sets at U.S. bases in theater.”
The remaining recommendations are:
Building upon an FY23 NDAA provision to “establish or expand a comprehensive training program with Taiwan”
Establishing a U.S.-Taiwan combined planning group
Establishing a standing joint force headquarters or joint task force in the Pacific
Planning with U.S. allies to impose diplomatic and economic costs on China in the event of a Taiwan attack and including India in NATO Plus, an organization that currently allows South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Israel to closely coordinate with the alliance
Gallagher and seven other lawmakers on the 24-member China Committee also sit on the Armed Services Committee, putting them in position to advance many of these bipartisan proposals as amendments to the FY24 NDAA. Gallagher chairs the Armed Services Committee’s cyber panel and fellow China Committee member Rep. Ro Khanna of California serves as the top Democrat on that same panel. Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., and Seth Moulton, D-Mass., also sit on the China Committee while respectively serving as chair and ranking member on other Armed Services subcommittees.
Kim, who sits on both committees, said he voted against the Taiwan recommendations because all but one focused on military deterrence.
“You have to look at that across a comprehensive approach that includes what we can be doing to build a global coalition, what diplomatic and economic tools are at our disposal, and I don’t think that was reflected in that document,” Kim told Defense News.
Jacquelyn Schneider, who leads the wargaming and crisis initiative at the right-leaning Hoover Institution, stressed the difficulty of conducting campaign war games like the committee did with Taiwan, as they don’t account for classified capabilities.
“The biggest difficulty in campaign war games, and where campaign war games did not reveal what happened between Ukraine and Russia, is it’s very difficult to model public will and that really does affect how wars transpire,” Schneider told Defense News.
She noted the outcomes highlighted issues like munitions shortages that the military and defense policy analysts are already aware of. Nonetheless, Schneider called them “an incredibly evocative experience,” adding that “if you want to convince people who have never really thought about this problem that there’s significant difficulties awaiting if you don’t preposition munitions there, then war games are extremely compelling.”
Bryant Harris is the Congress reporter for Defense News. He has covered U.S. foreign policy, national security, international affairs and politics in Washington since 2014. He has also written for Foreign Policy, Al-Monitor, Al Jazeera English and IPS News.