20140411尖閣：PLA部署現玄機，美軍發言展實力

【Comment】

4月8日美中防長開聯合記者會，Hagel 發言支持美日安保，而3月25日 USPACOM 司令的發言表示並無足夠的兩棲船艦進行尖閣戰役。

顯然，兩人都未說謊──根本不需要進行傳統的兩棲作戰。美國在太平洋地區有4+1艘兩棲登陸艦，還可再調派1艘。

4月11日英文報導的重點是美駐沖繩第三陸戰隊遠征軍司令在早餐的非正式表示：China has deployed naval assets near the Senkakus in recent months. 意指中國將已有實際動作，所以美司令才有此發言。

對於日本，美軍是 come to aid ，美軍根本不派人上陸，這當然有軍事外的政治考量。

另外，John Wissler 提及陸軍的意願（意見），意即登陸戰。可以看出美軍多麼不能失去此島。當然，也表示除了海軍陸戰隊之外，美國還有陸軍在背後。

The real risk is who is in charge of Taiwan’s NSC?  Can any US uniform officers neglect the challenge?

美媒：陸若占釣魚台美軍可擊退○中央社 (2014.04.12) http://www.cna.com.tw/news/acn/201404120118-1.aspx

（中央社台北12日電）美國軍方報紙「星條旗報」引述美國駐沖繩司令魏斯勒中將的話說，如果中國大陸占領釣魚台，美軍可從海空攻擊擊退大陸軍隊，不須強行登島。

英國廣播公司（BBC）中文網今天引述「星條旗報」報導說，假設大陸占領與日本存在領土爭端的釣魚台，美國駐沖繩司令魏斯勒中將（John Wissler）中將有上述表示。

報導指出，魏斯勒向記者表示，雖然中日雙方已有克制，但現場發生判斷錯誤引發武裝衝突的可能性依然存在，「如果受命奪回釣魚台，我們能辦到嗎？是的」。

他還說，釣魚台是由一些狹小島嶼所組成的，「也許甚至不必派兵登陸，就可以消除威脅。這也是美國海軍及海軍陸戰隊戰力的整個集成價值所在」。

不過魏斯勒也表示，「告訴你怎樣奪回該島，或諸如此類問題，那純屬猜測。」

報導引用日本新聞網報導說，這是美軍高級司令官首次在公開場合表明美軍會在大陸軍隊攻占釣魚台後，採取直接介入的軍事行動，「幫助日本奪回該島」。

報導說，美國國防部長黑格（Chuck Hagel）日前訪華時，曾和大陸國防部長常萬全舉行的聯合記者會上重申，大陸聲稱擁有主權的釣魚台處於美日安保條約保護範疇，如果釣魚台遭到外國軍隊的攻擊，美國有義務援助日本。1030412

Top Marine in Japan: If tasked, we could retake the Senkakus from China○Stars and Stripes (2014.04.11) http://www.stripes.com/news/top-marine-in-japan-if-tasked-we-could-retake-the-senkakus-from-china-1.277555

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.

Wissler, however, expressed concerns about the Army’s desire to contribute to the joint force in the Pacific by putting its attack helicopters on flat-deck ships.  He said he isn’t opposed to the idea in principle, but he’s worried that the Army’s use of the ships will impinge upon the Marines.

“We, the Marine Corps, have no shortfall of capability of sea-based aviation,” he said.  “[But] I’ve never been anywhere [in a combat area] where I’ve said, ‘[expletive], there’s too many guys here.  I wish some of our capability would go away.’  So if the Army has a capability to bring in an amphibious environment, a capability that we need as a joint warfighting team, good on ’em.  I just think there’s challenges to it … There aren’t enough amphibious ships for us to train to our mission right now.  So how you jam a bunch of other guys on that platform is going to be [an issue that needs to be addressed].  We’ve got Marines who don’t get sufficient amphibious training, [and] we have a very big challenge for those [Marine aviation] units to get sufficient what we call deck-landing qualifications.”

He said the Army should also have concerns about the potential maintenance and readiness consequences of deploying its aviation assets at sea.

Commander: US military can’t conduct amphibious operations in the Pacific○Stars and Stripes (2014.03.25)

http://www.stripes.com/news/commander-us-military-can-t-conduct-amphibious-operations-in-the-pacific-1.274419

WASHINGTON — The Navy and Marines do not have enough assets to carry out a contested amphibious operation in the Pacific if a crisis arises, the top commander of U.S. forces in the region told lawmakers Tuesday.

As the war in Afghanistan winds down, Marine Corps leaders want the service to return to its roots of being a force that can attack enemies from the sea, as the Marines did frequently during World War II.  But Adm. Samuel Locklear III, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the capability does not presently exist in his area of responsibility.

“We have had a good return of our Marines back to the Asia-Pacific, particularly as the activities in the Middle East wind down in Afghanistan … But the reality is, is that to get Marines around effectively, they require all types of lift.  They require the big amphibious ships, but they also require connectors (meaning landing craft and other amphibious vehicles).  The lift is the enabler that makes that happen, so we wouldn’t be able to [successfully carry out a contested amphibious assault without additional resources].”

His remarks come at a time when there are growing concerns in Japan and elsewhere that China might try occupy the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea.  The islands are under Japanese administrative control, but China has claimed sovereignty over them.  The Obama administration has said that the Senkakus fall under America’s defense treaty with Japan, which would require the U.S. military to come to the aid of Japan in the event of an attack on Japanese territory by China or any other country.  Last year, the Marines and Japanese Self-Defense Forces conducted a large-scale amphibious warfare training exercise off San Clemente Island, Calif.

There are four amphibious ready groups in San Diego and one in Sasebo, Japan.  Locklear said he has requested additional amphibious lift capabilities from the Pentagon, and that request is under consideration, he told members of Congress.

Locklear partly blamed global force requirements for the problem.

“I’m not the only combatant commander that desires amphibious shipping or the Marines that are on them.  So there is a global competition among us as the world situation kind of moves around.  [And] the global demand signal today is … greater than what we can resource,” he said.

He told lawmakers he sometimes must send amphibious forces that he has trained and maintained to commanders in the Middle East and Europe.  Going forward, he believes that the Pacific should be given highest priority when it comes to amphibious capabilities.

“In the Pacific though, it is my view that as the Marines come back that we should optimize the capability of the Marines in the — particularly in the area west of the [international] dateline.  And to do that we have to have adequate amphibious lift,” he said.

During the same hearing, Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, the commander of U.N. and U.S. forces in Korea, raised doubts about his ability to effectively counter a large-scale North Korean attack.

“I am concerned about the readiness of the follow-on forces in our theater.  Given the indications and warnings and the nature of this theater and the threat that we face, I rely on rapid and ready forces to flow into the peninsula in crisis.”

Scaparrotti agreed with the statement that low readiness among forces stationed outside Korea would cause a delay in the buildup of combat power, allow the enemy more time to build his defenses, and likely prolong combat operations and lead to more American casualties in the event of a Korea contingency.