1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Changing rules of warfare ... (let's include China)

Reader comment on item: [Lee Harris on Why the U.S. is] Discarding War's Rules

Submitted by Chuck Ingerson (United States), Jul 24, 2003 at 12:47

Within the changing rules of warfare the nail has been hit. However, let's look beyond the surface and answer the intriguing question, "Who's the most to gain or the least to lose?" Terrorist's come and go and to a degree depend on the 'acceptance' of others. Their money, weapons, hideouts are all provided from outside of themselves which is apply pointed out in Daniel Pipes article. So who's doing the funding, etc.?

Over the years I've learned to answer this question by trying to learn who's the most to gain or the least to lose. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 how many remember that the World Trade Organization voted to allow China to be a member? Actually, within two weeks. Why they'd met none of the criteria in the area of human rights; they continued their threat against Taiwan and others; and they continued to support terrorism, North Korea and give arms to whoever wants them. A book which is somewhat more popular now than prior to 9/11, entitled, "Unrestricted Warfare (Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, 1999)" is a script for attacking the US. This blueprint (if you will) describes how nations like China and others can attack the US without the sacrifice of troops or whole scale warfare (as normally defined in Mr. Pipe's article).

Where did the planes hit? In the center of the financial district of the US, the Pentagon and one could guess where the others were headed. What did they attack? The financial well being of the US. This well being is the confidence of the people, not necessarily the money backing. One needs to remember all of history is fair to play with when seeking similarities, therefore, in 1638 the Dutch fleet captured the Spanish fleet coming out the Americas. It took another thirty years but eventually Spain was no longer a major player in world affairs. In today's marketplace with the news, dissemination of information, loss of jobs, insurance claims, political intrigue, the effects are dramatized much quicker with the spin needed to push various agenda's not necessarily the truth. Now in two years with China a member of the WTO, they've added to this burden in the US with backing out of agreements to buy farming goods worth at a minimum of $500,000,000. This isn't reported or acknowledged!

Where else can we see this idea blossom? In the educational centers, publications, ranting and the rewriting of history so badly that the truth now appears to be revisionist. Rights protected to destroy the foundation of moral and virtue, while those who defend these rights are dragged through the muck and mire. The idea is to keep attacking regardless of right or wrong; truth or fiction. In the 1930's the fruitarian of the 'big lie' told often enough gains credibility, this is what's seen and preached today.

Well enough - sorry got carried away - chuck
Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (79) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Not neccessary to know enemy [72 words]Joy BoothJan 21, 2004 02:1413454
The News from Iraq [270 words]Matt PrasteinAug 30, 2003 02:4410925
Hits the Nail on the Head [40 words]RonIAug 22, 2003 14:1710728
Know thy enemies!!! [95 words]kaderAug 21, 2003 15:1710710
Why discarding the rules is a bad strategy [211 words]Jacob FisherAug 11, 2003 08:1210503
Breaking the Rules [52 words]Elizabeth CooteAug 6, 2003 12:5210461
Thank you [15 words]Joel MorrisAug 2, 2003 16:5410419
Discarding War's Rules dated 22 July, 2003 [188 words]S.C.PandaJul 31, 2003 06:0410362
Realities [183 words]Bernard LangdonJul 30, 2003 23:1910357
maybe we need to rethink a war on terrorism [461 words]Peter HerzJul 29, 2003 01:5410287
Proportionate Response? [38 words]FRANCIS HARTIGANJul 28, 2003 16:3010278
New policy's success reflected in eliminating Hussein brothers. [49 words]FRANK G ZAVISCAJul 27, 2003 19:0810265
Right on Point [28 words]Pat LavinJul 26, 2003 22:1310257
Gratitude and Concern [268 words]Timothy Schiff, Ph.D.Jul 26, 2003 19:3910256
Great article! Is there a link to the Harris column? [28 words]TishJul 26, 2003 13:4710254
The New Rule Book says, "Let's play to win" [363 words]RPaineJul 25, 2003 23:1010243
This article is prescient [64 words]RowenaJul 25, 2003 15:3310241
Thank God [46 words]Ralph MaggioniJul 25, 2003 10:3410238
GREAT article! Now I see why CAIR and AMC don't like you... [233 words]Roddy McClainJul 24, 2003 22:4510231
Response vs perceived potential [353 words]Hector RodriguezJul 24, 2003 22:4310230
Amazement [12 words]Lee NaranjoJul 24, 2003 22:2410229
Wisdom Par Excellence [74 words]M&JJul 24, 2003 21:4510228
Morally Commendable [119 words]Michoel ZeldisJul 24, 2003 18:4810225
I couldn't have said it better! [66 words]T'yomaJul 24, 2003 17:3810221
2A constructive and non-violent solution to terrorism. [647 words]Victor LipshutzJul 24, 2003 16:2210219
Don't bring a knive to a gun fight!! [113 words]David J. BastyrJul 24, 2003 15:2610217
Common Sense And Intelligence [56 words]Heywood JablomiJul 24, 2003 13:1910212
Changing rules of warfare ... (let's include China) [483 words]Chuck IngersonJul 24, 2003 12:4710210
as usual, you are right. [64 words]jeann wardJul 24, 2003 11:2810206
Moral Relativism [99 words]Stephen BermanJul 24, 2003 09:5910203
They aren't the Nazis or the Japs [120 words]Glenn KlotzJul 24, 2003 09:0210201
Afghan Veteran weighs in [205 words]MAJJul 24, 2003 08:5710200
Rules of War [387 words]W. DuPree MooreJul 24, 2003 06:1110193
In Our Interests [254 words]Arlinda DeAngelisJul 23, 2003 18:3910186
Well Done! [87 words]Jon AlvarezJul 23, 2003 16:2610183
The Cold War had an effect too. [133 words]Carey E. StronachJul 23, 2003 12:3510181
Whose rules? [236 words]Michael ElvinJul 23, 2003 12:1110180
To win we must be prepared to sink below their level. [162 words]GRAHAM RAEL-BROOKJul 23, 2003 11:3310177
unilateral US action in middle east [231 words]mark urbanJul 23, 2003 10:2810175
Harris [50 words]MarkJul 23, 2003 10:0110174
Impose a double standard [43 words]YehudaJul 23, 2003 06:5110170
Taking the Gloves Off! [281 words]TerrallJul 23, 2003 06:3110169
It is getting too rigid [338 words]Alain Jean-MairetJul 23, 2003 03:2610167
can't agree with you more [263 words]Laura MaizelsJul 23, 2003 02:2910166
Islamist Fantasists [466 words]Peter J. HerzJul 23, 2003 01:3010164
Western Restraint or Liberal Fear [197 words]Josh FarstJul 23, 2003 01:2310163
Pipes' Analysis Right On Target [82 words]Sheila PickerillJul 23, 2003 00:3210159
Bravo Mr Harris [27 words]Molly KafesJul 22, 2003 20:5310149
rediscovering common sense [140 words]leleneJul 22, 2003 20:3510148
Two-thirds on target [92 words]Gary SiegelJul 22, 2003 20:0410147
Thanks for another fabulous column! [75 words]Louis CastellanoJul 22, 2003 19:3910146
Well this is LONG overdue.......... [86 words]Ciaran PalmerJul 22, 2003 19:0910144
Discarding war's rules [317 words]Vijay DandapaniJul 22, 2003 16:4610142
If only... [152 words]Michael LeibowitzJul 22, 2003 16:1410141
About time [38 words]Charles GatesJul 22, 2003 16:0310140
Why the U.S. is discarding war's rules [41 words]michael gibbonsJul 22, 2003 15:0510139
A very insightful article [54 words]BRIAN TAYLORJul 22, 2003 14:5710137
Lee Harris' Article [32 words]Paul KaplanJul 22, 2003 14:5610136
Half-measures [220 words]Joseph GrossmanJul 22, 2003 14:5210135
Excellent [12 words]John BacileJul 22, 2003 14:2710134
The governments vs the governed [96 words]Richard GayJul 22, 2003 13:4210133
Hear! Hear! [484 words]MarkJul 22, 2003 13:1410132
It's about time someone said this. [66 words]Reuven AaronJul 22, 2003 13:1010131
Hitting the nail on the head [40 words]PauloJul 22, 2003 13:0910130
Wonderful! [40 words]Dr. Herbert NevyasJul 22, 2003 12:5810129
This guy is great [29 words]Ken BesigJul 22, 2003 12:5010128
Right on! [187 words]Joe FitzgeraldJul 22, 2003 11:5710127
Walks, Talks and Quacks [74 words]Margaret DoddererJul 22, 2003 11:4610126
Militant Islam [293 words]john GrahamJul 22, 2003 11:3310124
Lack of Standards [277 words]Giulio BattistonJul 22, 2003 11:1510123
It sounds good, but… [147 words]Alain Jean-MairetJul 22, 2003 10:5310122
Re: Assured destruction [235 words]Cas BalickiJul 22, 2003 10:4910121
Harris article - discarding war rules [64 words]Gene LambsonJul 22, 2003 10:4410120
War rules [19 words]Sally HerbertJul 22, 2003 10:3310118
A New Set of Rules is needed [247 words]Iris HicksJul 22, 2003 10:2810117
best by test [75 words]B.R BradshawJul 22, 2003 10:2110116
why the u.s. is discarding war rules [22 words]beni t. deanJul 22, 2003 09:5210113
A fight to the finish [37 words]Melvin A. FechterJul 22, 2003 09:2110111
Sequelae to preemption [48 words]Alan E. GellerJul 22, 2003 09:0010110

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Changing rules of warfare ... (let's include China) by Chuck Ingerson

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)