Have you heard the news? Well, a bunch of losers from "Republican" Administrations of both Bushes wrote a letter. Why losers? Because those people in normal governments wouldn't be allowed to run housekeeping in the mental ward, and yet they are expressing their "opinions" on Trump. Let's get this out of the way--I don't like Trump, he is full of shit narcissist but in comparison to utter lunatics from Democratic Party, such as Harris-Biden ticket, I would (I will) vote for Trump, because he is less dangerous to the world. As for the United States--they all are clear present danger. So, here it is, a bunch of "Republicans" calling on everyone to vote for... Biden.
We are former national security officials who served during the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump, or as Republican Members of Congress. We are profoundly concerned about the course of our nation under the leadership of Donald Trump. Through his actions and his rhetoric, Trump has demonstrated that he lacks the character and competence to lead this nation and has engaged in corrupt behavior that renders him unfit to serve as President. For the following reasons, we have concluded that Donald Trump has failed our country and that Vice President Joe Biden should be elected the next President of the United States.
Signatories are basically "who is who" on how not to govern, let alone run "national security", not to mention fight wars which no one, including military figures, in this list of signatories knows how to do. Those are losers who allowed 911, who lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are nothing more than representatives of the so called swamp. They have good skills in navigating D.C. bureaucracy and that is about the extent of their skills--excellent military leaders, outstanding diplomats, good scale geopolitical thinkers they are not and they ARE an embodiment of the American "elites", a euphemism for ignorance and incompetence. You may read those 10 points those losers concocted but the summary of those points stands out:
While we – like all Americans – had hoped that Donald Trump would govern wisely, he has disappointed millions of voters who put their faith in him and has demonstrated that he is dangerously unfit to serve another term. In contrast, we believe Joe Biden has the character, experience, and temperament to lead this nation. We believe he will restore the dignity of the presidency, bring Americans together, reassert America’s role as a global leader, and inspire our nation to live up to its ideals. While some of us hold policy positions that differ from those of Joe Biden and his party, the time to debate those policy differences will come later. For now, it is imperative that we stop Trump’s assault on our nation’s values and institutions and reinstate the moral foundations of our democracy.
Here is the point which needs separate elaboration. Biden's (not really his) national "security" team is a collection of dumb fanatical liberal interventionists, or, if one wishes, yet another issue of the neocons, whose defining characteristic is a complete ignorance on the issue of war. Enough to look at Kamala Harris who has zero qualifications in foreign, let alone military policies but who is an uber-hawk precisely because she has no idea. Same goes for mentally fading Biden, but he will be removed from the task of governing, let alone formulating any policies for the United States one way or another. But to give you a more focused insight into the "Biden's" foreign policy people, let's take a look at a possible Defense Secretary in Biden's Administration (should he win) and her name is Michelle Flournoy.
Flournoy's career reads as an exemplary fanatical neocon's advancement along the path to the highest political offices in D.C. , not forgetting, of course, getting rich while taking a break after HRC's 2016 loss. Flournoys' qualifications for SecDef within American political setup seems to be enough--she graduated some "foreign relations" and "government" programs which in Anglo-Saxon world primarily prepare illiterate ideologues and military ignoramuses--and she knows how to use big words and speak Pentagonese. Here is where this lady has some peculiar ideas on war. Even lunatic never-Trump Huffington Post had to point out to this:
Biden’s foreign policy circle also points to a potentially more hawkish approach. Michèle Flournoy, widely expected to be tapped by Biden as defense secretary, recently wrote that while conflict would not serve the interests of either the U.S. or China, the American military and its partners should consider developing capabilities to, for instance, sink the entire Chinese Navy within 72 hours to deter Beijing. Flournoy argued that China was becoming more confident because it perceives Washington as weak.You may read the Flournoy's original here, in Foreign Affairs, if you want to read yet another empty collection of consonants and vowels from a person who obviously has no idea of what it would take to develop such a capability "to sink entire Chinese Navy in 72 hours" be my guest and enjoy syllables, words and sentences in English which carry no meaning. Such ignorance and idiocy IS EXPECTED from Anglo-American humanities (un)educated elites who have no idea, including on the policy-setting level, including on the level of even uniformed top bureaucracies, of what it takes to develop such a capability. I have news for them, while I am, unlike many others, do not view PLAN as a real ocean-going navy, because PLAN for now is not a competitor to US Navy, say, in the Indian Ocean, I can certainly see how China's armed forces can respond to attempts to "sink Chinese Navy in 72 hours" within First Island Chain.
1. US cannot develop such a capability because it lags dramatically behind China and, especially so, Russia in development of the main strike weapon of the modern naval war--anti-ship cruise missiles. China has an impressive arsenal of ASMs which is far more advanced than anything the US has. The US Navy, meanwhile, has no viable defense against salvo of modern high super-sonic ASMs launched from three domains and China, allegedly, has hype-sonic weapons;
2. Unlike Iraq or Yugoslavia, China has an impressive Air-Force and air-deference capable to mitigate attacks on her naval bases by the United States and respond, as the US learned the hard way with Iran, with variety of strikes on US Navy's bases in the region. US WILL NOT be able to intercept meaningful number of modern intermediate-range Chinese ballistic missiles. Simple as that;
3. Will Russia provide Chinese ASBMs with targeting and recon if push comes to shove? I am sure Russia will do more than that within the framework of what is already emerging as a serious military Russian-Chines alliance. Vietnam cough, cough.... But situation here is even more serious, the fact that Russia aids China in building Chinese own Missile Attack Early Warning System (SPRN) speaks volumes. If Russia does this, who said that China may not "suddenly" obtain the access to such things as S-500 or some other weapon systems (or Russia's domestic, not export, variety)? I don't see why this cannot be arranged. In fact, this is highly likely. After all Russians and Chinese now train in fully unified battle-space mode as single combat units. And those funny shipping containers with 3M54s and P-800s are coming. 3M22s?
4. In the end, the United States simply has no resources to develop such a capability. China's shipbuilding capacity is monstrous and it dwarfs that of the United States and Chinese surely can "redistribute" resources, if need be, to produce more platforms.
These are just some, very few, points Michelle Flournoy must consider and reflect on when she bloviates on the issues of which she, certainly, has zero understanding. Did Flournoy contemplate a possibility, in fact high probability, of a destruction of even single US Navy's CBG? Does she even have a clue on what can of worms this will open for mostly cowardly US politicians, who would rather bring the world to the edge of nuclear exchange, rather than have a courage to stop madness and admit a defeat. Yes, it takes sometime courage to do so. US didn't win a single war in its history against peer, if one discounts US WW II Pacific War. But that is not what defines modern American "elites" who traditionally display themselves as delusional, ignorant and utterly dysfunctional and unprofessional. Flournoy is an embodiment of these "fine" qualities of modern American establishment and that should give us all a pause in a front of this display of America's utter failure to produce courageous and responsible statesman in many decades, only fools.