Geo-Strategic Orbit

27/02/2025

THE CURRENT CHINESE NAVY FLOTILLA SHADOWING AUSTRALIA’S EAST COAST
(and a commentary on and hopefully ending, the fantasy that Australia could win a conflict with China)

There is a People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) flotilla presently navigating the east coast of Australia and it has been deemed by, and within, the Defence Department—in general terms—as provocative and ‘reckless and provocative’ (according to Senator James Patterson on ABC’s 7:30, in particular). The point being that regardless of what Australia thinks of this circumnavigation there are some important issues that Australia has to come to terms with; and it would be helpful; safer; and one could argue, more respectful to the Australian public to actually admit to what is happening in the current Asia-Pacific with what has become (now), closer-to-home actions.

The first issue to understand is China as a nation-state (not unlike many other powerful nation-states such as Germany, France, Japan, America, Russia etc.) have people employed by the military to ‘work out’ their advantages and disadvantages should a war break out and moreover, there is nothing exotic about these ‘types’ of people: they are called ‘strategists.’ So, what is China actually ‘doing’ aside from gaining the 'upper hand' and gaining publicity from conducting a live-fire exercise which was designed to embarrass the Albanese government; and cause some chaos amongst Australian politics more generally. Thus, what and how should Australians’ comprehend said actions.

The following overview of current PLAN activity is assessed and within each situation/action a general commentary has been included to in the first instance, highlight the abysmal state-of-affairs that Australia has allowed to happen; and in the second to temper any belief that a war with China (remember the ‘winds of war are blowing’ comment), would by definition, mean Australian forces would not prevail.

The following is an assessment and commentary:

China is synching the PLAN with its other military assets—especially its satellite assets—and is expanding its projection and expeditionary force profile; and in doing so observing the capability of Australian assets in terms of observation and monitoring platforms (which would to some extent include New Zealand). The PLAN would also be refining its distance accuracy capabilities in order to make sure that if conflict breaks out the possibilities of a direct and accurate hit on a target would be vastly improved. The PLAN flotilla would also be observing timing as this is crucial to understanding a response co-ordination. How many sea- and air-borne assets has Australia deployed; at what intervals; and how many. For instance has Australia deployed one or two Poseidon aircraft (or five?). Have they been at one hour intervals or three hour intervals? What base have they returned to? Are there any F35s in the vicinity and are they preparing a fly-by? And for additional information has the USA shifted any of its assets and/or joined in the observation and tracking. The list of what the PLAN flotilla would be compiling is significan;t and ongoing.

Now we turn to Australia.

Australia has no military space programme and is totally dependent on its allies—often referred to as the ‘five eyes.’ For the live-fire exercise to be reported by a civilian airliner directly reflects the parlous state of Australia’s observation capability; and in doing so delivers a message to the Australian public as one of total vulnerability. The questions asked at the subsequent Senate hearing centred on the inabilities of the military were directed at the Labor Party which is a political maneuver by the LNP—as the party should in order to gain political points—although this does not address any appalling military decision-making by the LNP from the Howard government onwards. This is long-term decision-making that has left Australia near-completely vulnerable.
Furthermore, Australia (with its inability since the rusted on Morrison years that seem to have cast an indelible stain on the relationship), should expect more of the same as China’s aim will mirror what it is currently doing/achieving against Taiwan—each response to a Chinese incursion means the wearing down and wearing out of assets that will eventually need replacing. This is what the Allies did in the bombing Germany during WWII—the British bombed by night; the Americans by day. This not only struck terror into the German people; it wore out Germany’s fighting assets—especially its air force (Luftwaffe).

On to a more salutary lesson for us all. At least one ship within the PLAN flotilla is equipped with hyper-sonic long-distance, surface-to-surface missiles. Should Australia go to war with China (no doubt at the whim of the US, as Dutton considered it ‘inconceivable’ that Australia would, as an ally of the US, go to war against China over Taiwan). Make no mistake, missiles such as the ones within the flotilla would be used against targets in Australia.

And as such, this essay should end with a triad of unpalatable information: Firstly, Australia has no protection against said PLAN missiles even if it purchased the US’ ‘iron dome’ capability (what if the PLAN fires 10 or 50 missiles at Australian assets?). Secondly, what if there are 15 PLAN ships surrounding Australia where do you place the one, two or three iron domes? Thirdly, (and on a more personal note), should the PLAN fire a hyper-sonic missile on to a target such as an RAAF base or a piece of major decision-making infrastructure (Parliament? ASIO HQ?), the casualties it will have caused means there is no ‘ducking for cover,’ option as the missile will have exploded many seconds before the sound signal of it arrives at the target—in simpler terms, the missile is way ahead of its sound profile. To be sure, there is no Hollywood ‘run for cover’ thrilling action sequence when a hyper-sonic missile coming at you at 3,000 kph takes place—you are simply dead before you realize it. The last reason alone, is why Australia should avoid a war with China at all cost.

30/01/2025

Malcolm Sutton, (ABC Radio Adelaide) recently wrote a very informative article on Australia’s military capabilities and how they ‘fall short.’ It was truly an eye-opener and should be IMO viewed by anyone with some interest in whether Australia can actually meaningfully defend against China. The article can be found here:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-01-07/australia-fuel-security-falling-short-foi-war-game-report/104745210

Here is my reply to that article which is an edited version of the email I sent to him at the ABC:

Firstly, your article about Australia’s fuel security ‘falling short’ is very timely. This article is not only relevant it is sorely needed in order to inform the Australian people about the incredible and real dangers of going to war with China – especially over China’s impending retrocession of Taiwan. Perhaps more so because consecutive Australian governments believe in the ‘One China Policy’ which amounts to agreeing that Taiwan is in fact, part of the China as a nation-state; and the Chinese motherland. Thus the US going to war with China over its claim on Taiwan is its prerogative per se however, should Australia join the US in any actions to defend Taiwan will convey Australia’s position to be one of abiding by US foreign policy requirements and thus superseding Australia’s policy position within the UN. No surprises there.

Secondly, may I refer you to my book which (in part) deals with the exact same scenario you have stipulated; and may I also add some commentary to your article. My book can be found at this link:
https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/the-brink-of-2036-why-there-must-be-a-war-in-the-asia-pacific
The book was originally going to be titled The Brink of 2028 although the outbreak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine changed that title effectively because China needs Russia as a bulwark against the US; and it now must wait until how much naval- and air-power Russia has after said war.

Back to my commentary: should Australia go to war with China the ‘holding out’ capacity you refer to is correct within the axiom of ‘everything going to plan.’ This seldom happens in war and Australians can be assured China will act with a focused ferocity against Australia in order to gain an immediate upper-hand. China, should war be declared will destroy Australia’s most important assets within days of a declaration; and this will be done as a reaction to our siding with America. All (or most) of Australia’s fuel reserves will have been targeted; the RAAF air-refueling tankers will have been taken out (rendering our JSFs distance capacity near-useless and RAAF defence capability severely incapacitated per se); major highways will be unserviceable (rendering what little ‘rolling stock’ we have to not be able to reach the north); the submarine shipyard in WA will be targeted and rendered unserviceable; and any and all service personnel locations in the NT will summarily be decimated. Essentially, Australia’s ‘capabilities’ will be annihilated.

The above will be achieved by cruise missiles being fired from some of the 50+ PLAN submarines that will be in Australia’s littoral waters; and through the use of orbital- and sub-orbital missiles that will be in use by Chinese military forces.

All of the above, will significantly shorten the timelines referred to in your article as the Australian economy will be in near-total collapse within a week; there will be chaos as people are forced to migrate south; and any major asset losses (RAN ships and submarines, RAAF aircraft and RAA tanks and trucks etc.) will simply not be able to be replaced at all. The shortfall will rapidly become a catastrophe for Australia. And all of this with no actual legal/written guarantee that the US will come to Australia’s aid.

Read more about Author Dr. Strobe Driver. The Brink of 2036: Why There Must Be a War in the Asia-Pacific Published By Austin Macauley Publishers

23/10/2024

America votes: Fourteen days to go before Australia knows its fate

Focusing on the upcoming November 24 election and the possibility of another Trump presidency, it is timely to reflect on the voting system in the United States of America (US) to understand just how disabling it is to the American people; and the stain on democracy it has become per se. Reflecting on this factor is to put the US’ voting system under scrutiny within the previous Trump election and subsequent administration when he became president (2016). Trump had achieved enough collegiate points/votes to become president by the time the votes had been counted and reached the middle of America—the part of the country termed the Midwest. To place this in perspective the voting population of California—equivalent to approximately the entire population of Australia—did not have their vote/s counted as America had already gained its president having reached the 270 collegiate vote requirement. So much for the liberal-democracy being for ‘all Americans.’

The atrocious undemocratic voting system of America aside, it is pertinent to delve further into milieu of what has become their brand of politics (and what will it mean for Australia). First and foremost the overt support by Nikki Hayley, herself a presidential candidate and originally one that did not support Trump, permits even the most casual observer to think she has been offered some conditions by Trump in order to back his policies; and to and for her own gain. The conditions referred to could consist of but not be limited to, an ongoing and unwavering support for Israel and in particular, the war against the Palestinians by the US would be one; a declaration of war against Iran could possibly be another; and a powerful position within the Trump administration—probably Assistant Secretary of State could come to pass. All would solidify the Jewish vote within America for the Republicans; be a statement that the US is refocusing on the Middle East and will in the future, become more overtly involved with and definitively act within the region with a greater naval and boots-on-the-ground presence; send a message to Europe and in particular NATO, that Europe should solve its own problems and it has underappreciated America for too long; and further signify only strongman tactics gain comprehensive results—which in turn one can safely argue, would offer a byproxy approval of Putin.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned, it should be duly noted and not be underestimated that Iran remains an arch enemy of Israel and in keeping with this factor Israel is desperate to have it removed from the power-stakes of the Middle East. Hence and due to the continual and ongoing lobbying of the Republicans to enhance Israel’s status within the Middle East there is no reason to believe Trump—in keeping with the continual arming of Israel by the US—would not act militarily toward Iran. Such an undertaking would be deemed in military parlance a ‘pre-emptive defence arrack,’ as per the Second Gulf War of the early-2000s. The aforementioned issues are but a small component of what can be expected from a Trump administration immediately; and from a Harris administration more subtly and over a longer period of time. With this in mind we can turn to Australia and its role in the four years that is about to come.

Australia has to follow the US or its economy will be threatened and AUKUS will be sunk

Where would Australia ‘land’ in all of this upcoming horror story of a Trump (or Harris) presidency? In the first instance Australia would be expected by a Trump presidency to overtly support his (and his administration’s decision) to go to war with Iran; and Australia’s prime minister will be expected to focus the Australian people on the ‘stability’ of the Middle East being paramount to our venture into yet another Middle East war—at the behest of our strongest ally. That being bad enough there will be worse to come. Should Australia hesitate, Trump will declare the Australian ambassador persona non-grata and with much fanfare, have the ambassador escorted to the airport. Trump will then tear up the AUKUS understanding/s; ask for Australia to be removed from the ‘Five Eyes’ spy-sharing arrangement; demand Australian personnel exit Pine Gap; and walk away from American-import contracts (and moreover, it is entirely feasible, Putin will follow-up on Trump as a sign of support). Australia, facing numerous forms of political and economic retardation will be placed in a similar position it was in the attack by the Imperial Japanese Navy on Darwin in 1942—unprepared; caught off guard; surprised; stunned; totally incapable of responding adequately from a military perspective; and bereft of ideas of what the next step will, or should be.

International politics is ever the dynamic—especially in a globalised, and increasingly digitised world—and whilst the abovementioned is only one scenario of that ‘dynamic,’ a Trump presidency will extract and squeeze any country that does not comply with his view of a reinvigorated new world order, as per the original ‘new world order’ outlined by president George H.W. Bush of the early-1990s. Though it is true Australia has been squeezed before, in the Gallipoli landings of WWI, where the Crown’s loyal subjects were slaughtered under the incompetent strategies’ of the English, a Trump administration will show no politico-mercy if Australia even moderately diverges from the US’ pathway, especially in the Middle East. Australia will be expected to absolutely conform to the next US presidency regardless of who comes to power and the simple although unpalatable truth is Australia has no forward-defence capabilities; effectively, the capability for replacement of destroyed assets does not exist as Australia has never had an industrial revolution and the small automobile building industry was dispensed with decades ago; is near-totally reliant on the US for its replacement assets and other necessary components (e.g., spare parts) and this is why Australia has no influence over and must now follow US’ foreign policy objectives; is at the behest of the US and to a lesser extent British assets in the protection of Australian sovereignty; and must support the US per se in its Middle East and/or Asian regional commitments—this is writ large in Australia’s meaningless and pitiable response to the situation in Gaza, which essentially, has the backing of US Congress.

Should Australia decide to ‘stand alone’ and become more independent in its regional attitude (e.g., step back from its focused support of the US in bringing ‘stability’ to the Middle East, it will feel the full wrath of America’s influence in the United Nations, and this will happen regardless of the president the citizens of the US will choose—those lucky enough to have their vote counted. This sorrowful state-of-affairs is in large part due to consistent Australian governments refusing to acknowledge (and if it has been acknowledged having left any sort of meaningful response far too late) that policies need to, and have needed, to be put in place so as to circumvent any adversary; and have the capabilities to back up any losses should a kinetic engagement take place. Placing this in perspective, China embarked upon its pathway of developing self-sustainability through its socialist reform policies (circa-mid 1980s), under Deng Xiaoping knowing that it could not have any focused influence globally or in the Asian region without domestic building assets programmes; and a stringent asset replacement capability. Meanwhile Australia continues to do what it has always done: buy stuff from others who actually have research and development budgets; and factories that are able to produce (and replace) complex pieces of machinery such as ships, submarines, cars, trucks, weapons. The list goes on.

And for Australia, the list is so huge it’s now an impossible reach. Build Back Better, is an excellent idea, however as much as it is better than anything the Coalition could ever have thought of, it is yet again far too late; far too limited; and does nothing to future-proof Australia from any pending threats (read: a robust and determined China stamping its authority on the region). And moreover, if the US goes down the isolationism pathway via Congress as it did in the mid-1930s and decides it’s time for Australia to ‘stand on its own two feet,’ then we are by definition and in no uncertain terms, in a world of pain.

22/02/2024

What a war with China will actually ‘look like: The Honourable Richard Marles and the nonsensical inane yet persistent, beliefs that reside in Australian ‘power’

Watching the Defence Minister, the Hon. Richard Marles be interviewed on 7:30 on Tuesday evening was painful in the extreme. Almost as painful as watching previous Coalition ministers in the Morrison era remain committed to the drivel of how strong Australia is. The honourable minister was somewhat more straightforward than the ramblings of the previous decade of Coalition defence ministers, but it was painful nonetheless. The pain for me resides in their total lack of understanding of what is going to happen if Australia actually enters into a conflict with China over either the Asia-Pacific region in the support of America; or over Taiwan as China ramps up its retrocession demands.
There is a persistent belief within the current government (as there was in the preceding governments) that Australia actually has long-term capabilities’ and that there are no strategists in the Chinese military that are not working on how to remove Australia’s already limited capabilities to those of making Australia a near-zero actor—one that is incapable of any meaningful military input into the active war situation that must come about if a ‘shooting war’ takes place.
China will in the first instance and in order to reduce Australia to that of a position of peripheral actor and one of no real importance, fire cruise missiles into the ship-building points in South Australia and Western Australia. China will then sink as many Royal Australian Navy surface vessels in a single action as possible. And this will be done for two reasons: inking three or four vessels will create pandemonium in the military; and Australian society in general. Why would a Chinese strategist not utilize all of the facilities available to its forces and especially its missile capabilities? To think that this would not happen is by any measure and by any Australian government folly in the extreme. History has shown this happened in 1942 when the Japanese Imperial Navy’s fleet-air-arm destroyed Darwin, thereby catching Australia completely off-guard; and in doing so, proving the tyranny of distance did not exist; and of it causing pandemonium in Australian society. Furthermore, the Chinese government will takes such actions because it knows and understands Australia cannot and does not have any real and meaningful capability to repair any disabled ships and any sunk will, because they are such high-profile assets, will show Chinese superiority; and not be able to be immediately replaced. More to the point and to exacerbate Australia’s defence-dilemma (which is what it will become), to think that strategists in China will not destroy any and all air-tanker refueling capability on the ground which will immediately reduce the distance and on-station capability of the Royal Australian Air Force Joint Strike Fighters, is to remain within the same ill-understood realm that it appears, many parliamentarians’ reside.
War, is just that ‘war.’ And to think that siding with America and buying American-made assets will offer Australia a level of defence greater than what the assets actually offer—which is very little—and this factor will not deter China from striking and if need be, striking hard. Australia is not Israel and does not have any ‘rusted on’ allegiance by America irregardless of what its politicians’ (whimsically) believe. The hard truth is, China comprehends Australia has not ever, and in the third decade of the twenty-first century does not have high military capabilities; and has virtually no replacement capacities. When a ship is sunk and an aircraft destroyed, they it will not be able to be replaced which is the truth of the matter. If Australia enters a war against China the life and lifestyle of Australians will immediately enter a downward spiral—akin to that of Ukraine after Russia’s invasion—all of Australia’s military capabilities will be destroyed per se and unlike Ukraine, there will be no ‘coming back.’ Ukraine has had and does still have to a certain extent an industrial revolution in place—Australia simply does not.

10/01/2024

Here is a link to my Youtube video explaining my book including a brief commentary on how by China's retrocession of Taiwan has been interrupted (and therefore, delayed) by Russia's invasion of Ukraine; and the complex dynamics of International Relations in general.

This book 📖 is a (quasi-academic, evidence-based) work written in a narrative-style which attempts to offer an explanation of war; the trajectories therein;...

07/01/2024

Here it is... finally...the book 📖 landing 🛬 on the shelves on January 5. A commentary on war, hopefully a book that will change the way in which war is 'observed.'
For instance, in the lntroduction l suggest the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor should be seen of as a revenge attack, rather than a surprise attack per se --and l offer the reasons why etc. Also, and crucially, that a war does not happen in a vacuum which is what politicians' persistently suggest, there are always signals. The coming war in the Asia- Pacific will be no different. Now to start on book 📖 number 2....

04/12/2023

Finally ... it's all done ... finished -- a little later than expected due to editing and formatting -- but it's HERE and up on the Austin Macauley website pre-orders available and then published on 5th January, 2024 What a fantastic way to start the NY

https://www.austinmacauley.com/book/brink-2036-why-there-must-be-war-asia-pacific

For those of you who are interested here is a synopsis and a bit of commentary thrown in :-)

Book Synopsis: The Brink Of 2036: Why There Must Be A War in the Asia-Pacific
An Exploration of War; Geo-strategies within the Asia-Pacific; and the Coming Age of Pax-Sino
Author: Dr Strobe Driver
This abovementioned book is a quasi-academic narration—in that commentary of others’ is footnoted—which offers a brief analysis of what war ‘is,’ what it comprises ‘of’ and the different ‘types’ of war that occur. Having gained insights about war the narrative then moves to more contemporary times and deals with the way in which a war will evolve as China – Taiwan frictions continue; and remain undiminished. The analysis deals with China’s persistent irredentism and the way in which it will become more sclerotic as the year 2049, (in which all of China must be reunited) comes ever-closer; and the retrocession of Taiwan—through force if necessary—develops into a more pivotal and urgent requirement within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The narrative is designed to engage with the ideas and notions behind what the coming ‘brink’ will demand, observe the nuances within the reality of what a war will bring, and crucially, to apply these aspects to a war that must transpire within the Asia-Pacific region. To be sure and remaining true to the aspect of a ‘type’ of war happening, the commentary acknowledges there is already a ‘type’ of war that exists between Taiwan and China and it is a ‘war of rivalry.’ This situation must indubitably therefore, evolve from its current state-of-affairs and the stalemate therein, to a full blown kinetic exchange or series of exchanges in order for China’s ambitions to be satisfied.
Hence, the book is premised on a war that must take place as China approaches the deadlock beyond the aforesaid ‘war of rivalry’ and stagnant politico-result that has formulated over time. The end therefore and the evidence-base that has been created, must assuredly be not whether a war will take place, but when. Included in the analysis is also the possibilities associated with the enormity of a war happening—in particular, will it remain regional and only include two belligerents, or will it quickly escalate into a broader regional conflict? One which draws in numerous other actors which then evokes the possibility of it evolving into a total war. To be sure, the evidence-base and the usage of 2036 as the ‘brink,’ is further stipulated and placed in context through an event beyond China’s control. The narrative argues China will not ‘move’ on Taiwan until the (future) position of the Russian Federation is known. Specifically, will Russia exit from its invasion of Ukraine weaker or stronger? It is the contention of the author that China would have claimed Taiwan pre-2030 should Russia’s incursion into Ukraine not taken place. The reality of the situation is and remains, China would have been relatively confident Russia would have been a strong bulwark against the navies of the US and Japan when the time came to positioning and manoeuvring their forces around Taiwan. As per the aforementioned, China would have had more freedom-of-movement in the politico- and military-spheres with a strong Russian navy supporting its regional placement and military distribution of assets. This is no longer the case, at least in terms of military might. China must now wait.
Nonetheless, predicting when a war will take place is and remains an inexact science. However and with this in mind, it is equally true that the CCP, due to its regional- a and global-ambitions and especially under the auspices and mantra of a unified China, cannot and will not wait for the 2036 election in Taiwan to take place—particularly if there is a persistent attitude within Taiwan’s domestic sphere for unremitting calls of and for independence. The narrative argues China is sure to ramp up its rhetoric, influence and military presence around Taiwan post-2030, which in turn will create the brink of 203. To be sure the narrative argues, China will use a confluence of factors to not let the election take place; and invoke a much more focused military response from 2030 onwards.

War and conflict never occur ‘in a vacuum,’ as there are always signallers and events that indicate and then dictate the onset of an upheaval. This has been true of relatively minor conflicts such as the Japan – Russo War of (1904 – 1905), the Vietnam War (1963 – 1975), the Afghanistan War...

08/10/2023

A small commentary on the current Israel – Palestine conflict.

The current escalation of the Israel – Palestine conflict in which Hamas has attacked Israel in air-; sea- and land-borne missions is stunning though not unusual. The root of the actions on the part of Hamas that have taken place comprise in the first instance of what is called warfare of a ;Third Kind’/ 'Third Way' and is also often referred to as warfare of a ‘Third Type.’ Nonetheless, it is not unusual for the lesser-power to adopt this approach as it usually catches the superior power completely off guard—which has indeed, happened to Israeli forces.

This happened to the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), the US and its allies in the 1968 Tet (New Year) Offensive during the Vietnam War (or the American War as the Vietnamese call it); and was also the type of war that the Algerians used in expelling the French occupation of Algeria; and was the type of war the Taliban and its allies waged against the USSR, the US, NATO and its allies during the numerous Afghanistan conflicts. It is one of the most successful types of warfare when used with asymmetrical warfare tactics; and is one of the most successful because of the surprise factor; enemy intelligence failures; and creates mayhem which the opposing force/s military and government has to explain to its citizens and allies.
The type of war of a Third Kind is comprises of but is not limited to (as per my research)
A war of the ‘third kind/way’ is a complex event and has a multitude of factors involved. In relation to the Vietnam War and the resistance displayed by the North, the notion of ‘third way’ warfare is eminently traceable and involved the guerrillas being ‘indistinguishable from the general population [and] engagements must be sporadic and their perpetrators unobserved and unidentifiable … The deadly game [of direct combat and psycho-political interplays] is played in every home, church, government office, school, highway, and village.’ (See: The State, War and the State of War, 36-39). The crucial issue to understand here is the war is planned through ordinary, everyday meetings and events which is largely untraceable to the superior power and is designed for maximum politico- and military-impact, although it is the politics and the changing of the narrative therein, that is the primary aim.

The result for the 1968 Tet Offensive is writ large in this explanation by Karnow:

At three o’clock in the morning on the first night of the Vietnamese New Year, nineteen NLF [National Liberation Front] commandos blasted their way through the outer walls of the American embassy in Saigon...In the early morning of January 31, NLF troops attacked almost every important American Base, every town in the city of South Vietnam. The combined force of eighty-four thousand men simultaneously moved in to five out of the six cities, thirty-six out of the forty provincial capitals, and sixty-four district capitals …. One unit penetrated the grounds of the presidential palace, four blocks to the south; another took over the government radio station and a third assaulted the Tam Son Nhut air base, breaking through the heavily guarded perimeter to blow up aircraft and engage in gun battles with American troops. In the Delta, Front forces moved into the most “secure” of the province capitals—Can Tho, My Tho, Vinh Long, Rach Gia, and Ben Tre—entrenched themselves in the poorer quarters, and drove the ARVN units to the defense of their headquarters … But it was in the First Corps, where North Vietnamese troops joined the battle, that the offensive was by far the fiercest. From a hamlet outside of Da Nang the Front troops lobbed rockets and mortar shells into the American air base, closing down the field from which most of the tactical air strikes were run … Simultaneously, other units moved in on other American bases at Chu Lai and Phu Bat ... destroying scores of American airplanes and forcing American troops to defend their positions while they overran all five of the provincial capitals. (See Vietnam” A History. 526).

And with regard to having to explain on the part of the government why and how it all happened is also, writ large in the way in which this type of happening unfolds: In 1968 it was as follows:

‘WAR HITS SAIGON,’ screamed the front-page headline of Washington’s afternoon tabloid The News. But newspaper accounts paled beside the television coverage, which that evening projected the episode in all its vivid confusion, into the living rooms of fifty million Americans. There, on color screens, dead bodies lay amid the rubble and the rattle of automatic gunfire as dazed American soldiers and civilians ran back and forth trying to flush out the assailants. (See: Why Wars Happen 22.)

Which was then followed by this politico-commentary in Congress :
[Senator McCarthy stated] "In 1963 we were told we were winning the war…in 1964, we were told the corner had been turned. In 1965, we were told the enemy was being brought to his knees. In 1966, in 1967, and now again in 1968, we hear the same hollow claims of programs and victory…Only a few months ago we were told that 65 percent of the [Vietnamese] population was secure. Now we know that not even the American embassy [in Saigon] is secure." (See: The Vietnam Experience. Nineteen Sixty-Eight. 104 – 105).

Regardless of the successes (or lack thereof) Hamas has in the current state-of-affairs, already won in many ways as the Israeli government will have a lot of explaining to do to its citizens; as the US government had to in 1968; the French before them; and many other governments when security is so woefully lapsed.