Some things never change. The Democrats hold the White House and run Congress, but military spending is going up. It's as if George W. Bush never left office.
The Pentagon budget is the definition of wasteful, unnecessary spending. The U.S. spends almost as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. In real, inflation-adjusted terms, Washington devotes more to the military today than during the Cold War, Korean War, and Vietnam War.
Big-spending advocates speak of America being "at war" today. Former president George W. Bush even called the war on terrorism World War III. But terrorists, though evil, pose no existential threat to America. The idea that al-Qaeda and underwear bombers are a substitute for Nazism and armored divisions or communism and nuclear-tipped ICBMs is ludicrous.
Decrepit and impoverished Third World dictatorships pose no significant threat either. Over the last three decades the U.S. has intervened in, invaded, and/or bombed a number of nations: Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Iraq (twice), Somalia, Serbia, and Afghanistan. The U.S. has threatened to attack or treated as an enemy a potpourri of other states, including Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. Put them all together and they collectively can't match the firepower of one U.S. carrier group.
What else is there? Russia is the enemy du jour for some, but Moscow today is a pale imitation of Moscow during the Cold War. The Soviet Union has been dismantled; its constituent states have seceded and shifted westward in orientation; the European Union alone has more than ten times Russia's GDP and spends more than Moscow on the military. Most important, though Vladimir Putin's Russia has taken a nasty authoritarian turn and exhibits near paranoid concern about the security of its border, world domination is no longer on Moscow's agenda. Even the most nationalistic Russian is not suicidal, and initiating war against America would be suicidal.
Which leaves China. For some, the Yellow Peril is the latest excuse for ever more military outlays.
A decade ago the Project for a New American Century, also busy promoting war with Iraq, declared: "Raising U.S. military strength in East Asia is the key to coping with the rise of China to great-power status." The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission routinely worries about the Chinese threat. The Rand Corporation has warned of U.S. military "vulnerability."
The Center for Security Policy even charged that China hopes to be able "to defeat us militarily." Common are "China as enemy" books, including Jed Babbin's and Edward Timperlake's Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States and Richard Bernstein's and Ross Munro's The Coming Conflict with China. The conservative web service NewMax.com once advertised Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America.
The U.S. government affects a more measured tone, but worry still underlies U.S. policy towards China. Wallace C. Gregson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, told Congress in early January: "There are other [military] capabilities China is developing that are destabilizing to regional military balances, that could restrict access to the maritime, air, space, and cyberspace domains, or that could enable China to exercise military aggression or coercion against its neighbors."
The Pentagon produces an annual report which warns of expanding Chinese military capabilities. A few weeks ago Adm. Robert F. Willard, Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, testified before the House Armed Services Committee, contending that the PRC's "military modernization program [had] raised concerns in the region--a concern also shared by the U.S. Pacific Command."
It seems a lot of people in Washington are searching for the next "necessary" enemy.
It is a quixotic quest. Mao's China was an impoverished and murderous madhouse. By some estimates, Mao Zedong killed more people than did Joseph Stalin. Mao's Cultural Revolution consumed many of the Communist Party faithful, just like Stalin's purges.
That China has disappeared. Today the PRC is more prosperous, open, interconnected, and responsible than ever before. True, Beijing is no ally, but it certainly is not an enemy. On some issues China is a "strategic partner." On others a "strategic competitor."
None of this should surprise U.S. policymakers. The last two decades have been an artificial moment of history, when America dominated the globe and was able to disproportionately enforce its will on other states. Despite the apparent assumption that any nation which disagrees with Washington is guilty of ill, even evil, intent, there is no reason to expect the positions of other countries to always match those of the U.S.
Washington obviously has important issues with Beijing: human rights, proliferation, military transparency, trade, North Korea, global economic cooperation, Iran, terrorism. Tensions exist: economic competition between China and America is reaching Africa and Latin America and there is nervous wariness in Washington about East Asian security. The challenge facing the U.S. is real. But the best response is thoughtful, nuanced diplomacy, not self-righteous scare-mongering.
Most important, as serious as are some of the differences between Washington and the PRC, none of them is important enough to trigger war. For all of the discussion of conflicting security interests, Beijing has neither the will nor the ability to threaten America. And it is hard to imagine the time when China will be able to seriously threaten America.
Beijing's military build-up is real but measured. Official PRC military spending was $71 billion last year; estimates of China's real defense outlays range up to $150 billion.
That's more than any other country -- except America. U.S. military outlays this year will run around $700 billion. Strip out Afghanistan and Iraq and spending will still exceed $530 billion. So Washington starts with an enormous head start over the PRC: the U.S. possesses the most sophisticated nuclear arsenal, advanced air wings, numerous carriers. And America continues to spend four to seven times, depending on how one measures what, as much as Beijing on the military.
Moreover, the U.S. is allied with every major industrialized state other than Russia, while China is surrounded by countries with which it has been in conflict: India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and Vietnam. The PRC is not well-positioned to launch a war of aggression even if it had both the ability and desire to do so.
The real issue for Washington is dominance, not defense. For instance, Adm. Willard complained that China's military capabilities "appear designed to challenge U.S. freedom of action in the region and, if necessary, enforce China's influence over its neighbors -- including our regional allies and partners." House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) opened the recent hearing: "the United States must demonstrate our own interests in the Asia-Pacific region including our ability to project power effectively there."
In short, what worries U.S. officials is the difficulty of preserving Washington's ability to intervene every where at any time, even along China's border. Over the last two decades the U.S. has had the world's air and ocean space largely to itself. But, observed Assistant Secretary Gregson, "As China's international role expands, our two militaries will increasingly find themselves operating in the same space." What he meant, though was unwilling to say directly, was that Washington will no longer be able to threaten the PRC with war.
That ability is fast disappearing. To deter the U.S., Beijing need not match American military power. Rather, China must modernize its nuclear force, to forestall atomic coercion, build missiles and submarines, to sink U.S. carriers, improve its air force, to end automatic American superiority, and develop asymmetric weapons, to take out U.S. satellites and attack America's information infrastructure. All of these the PRC is doing.
Thus, the Chinese build-up looks threatening -- but only to Washington's global ambitions. To no longer be able to intervene at will might unnerve U.S. policymakers, but that was the world which faced America for most of its existence. And it is the world in which every other country finds itself today.
Moreover, Washington can only delay, not prevent, its return to normalcy. Beijing can build a solid deterrent force at far less cost than the U.S. can maintain its offensive capability to overwhelm China's military. And in a time of extraordinary financial crisis and widespread social need, America doesn't have the money to waste trying to remain the globe's "unipower." Far better for friendly states, including Japan, South Korea, and Australia, to cooperate defensively to encourage Chinese restraint than to assume America must defend every state against every possible adversary under every circumstance.
Why the seemingly incessant search for a new enemy by Washington? Is peace too boring?
The U.S. has vital interests, but not all interests are vital. Moreover, not all interests are worth war.
Rather than continue a foreign policy of promiscuous intervention, which requires an ever larger military and military budget, U.S. policymakers should gratefully embrace the benefits of peace. Instead of finding another enemy, Washington should end global meddling, avoid foreign confrontations, demobilize unnecessary armed forces, and cut wasteful military outlays.
Finally, the U.S. should pursue a cooperative relationship with China. Differences between the two nations are real and serious. But the outcome of the 21st century depends much on the nature of the relationship between the globe's current superpower and likely next superpower. The international order accommodated America's rise without causing world conflict; Germany's rise triggered the two worst wars of human history. It is in the interests of the world's people that China's entry on the international scene follows the former, not the latter.
It is time for genuine change in U.S. foreign policy. It is time to make defense rather than dominance the cornerstone of American strategy.
how about that poisoned Dog food?
and those poisoned toothpaste and faulty heart medicine?
and don't forget the Drywall that is causing Copper Pipes to corrode and causes lung and skin problems for the people?
how about all the cyber attacks?
More aggressive Military in the Pacific?
the poisoned milk two times now?
and don't forget China is America's 2nd biggest lobbyist right behind Israel's AIPAC.
or how China refuses to PROVE its currency is worth the paper its printed on!
Sure, even "I" could buy 2.3 trillion of other nations currency while expanding at home and abroad at a unbelievable rate if i had a printing press and just kept it running!
If you don't have to prove the 'money' your printing is worth the paper its printed on, then why aren't all nations doing it and buying up each others nations?
or is that exactly what's happening?
A lot of the neocon publications claiming about China wanting war is 10 years old when China when things were less certain and had very aggressive rhetoric.
If the US and China went to war, even if China had a capable military, they would ruin their economy.
But the fact that our relationship isn't solid does leave the possibility for conflict in the future.
As for why we must have W a R? Orwell described it in 1948....to control population politically it's only necessary that there be endless w a r...the identity of the enemy is unimportant...only endless w a r is important.
You can very well see the first star war where both countries will take on each other's satellites.
I don't think a war is brewing. The only conflict I have seen is this recent US arms sale to Taiwan, which as many HP posters have noted, may be more about our MIC, our weapons manufacturers making a sale, than any brewing war, or even brewing discontent.
http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2c913216495213d5df646910cba0a0a0/?vgnextoid=e8e3bdd884586210VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=teaser&ss=China&s=News
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-01/13/content_9310330.htm
Americans don't know how to live in peace, which is understandable as very few of them have ever experienced it.
When it's not the Commies, it's the Japanese, when it's not the Japanese it's Muslims, when it's not Muslims it's the Chinese and after the Chinese it'll probably be the Indians.
I'm not afraid of a new breed of Mongols knocking on Europe's doors; Americans have even less to fear. My only hope is that - as someone here mentioned - China's internal tensions erupt into a real democratic revolution.
As for the "Arsenal" part, the US and allies had a of help from 1) the Soviet Union (never would have won without them bothering Hitler from the east) and 2) a massive mobilization of workforce and natural resources, and finally science - all at breakneck speed and unlimited budget.
"Without a strong manufacturing base, we can't takle on a real opponent and win. We won WWII by being the Arsenal of Democracy. We aren't in that position now. Japan, Korea, China, etc. have the industry. We are really in an economic competition and, without coordinated trade/investment/industrial policies, we are losing."
I didn't realize I wasn't in the "respond" box.
The US on the other hand, where somewhat behind in technology with the Germans, we more than made up with the capacity and resources to mass produce. Auto and other mfg plants retooled quickly to build planes, tanks and jeeps. And because of the technology that spurs from mfg - we were able to close the technology gap as well
Another example is the civil war, the South clearly had the better leadership and more experienced generals, but for the large heavy industrial base of the North overwhelming the largely agrarian south.
Realizations point is right on. We find ourselve much like pre war germany - a technology leader but rapidly losing our capacity to produce, while china and others are rapidly building their productive (as well as innovative) capacity
It is naive to believe that a country can be strong both economically and militarily without a vital industrial base
China has been rapidly buildling up its industry and infrastructure, and increasing its national wealth, while we are doing the opposite thru bad trade and economic policy driven by blind free trade/free market ideology. The US is the only major modern nation that is actively de-industrializing. We would be hard pressed to be the arsenal of democracy - we can no longer make our own clothes and shoes for petes sake, let alone retool heavy industry to make the planes tanks and ships that are needed for full scalle warfare
Now we final here the media and politicians admit china is winning the tech war for alternative energy technologys - a race we lost before we even started. We outsourced far too much productive capacity and the interelated R&D capabilities.
Yep china is winning the "war" without even firing a shot
Any industry requires resources and labor to produce a product. Competition today is global and past a certain size, any US company/manufacturer has to compete globally for any hope of growth. There is a finite world market, and others want a share. It's John(US)vsWang(China)vsJuan(Mexico/Central-South America)vsYuri(Russia)vsPierre(Europe).
The problem is John and Pierre won't work for the wages the other guys will. Regulations and ecological concerns means the resources cost more in the US/Europe. It is not rocket science from there. Our end products cost too much, and we cannot offer any real qualitative advantage to justify our costs.
NOW, I own a company. I don't want it to fail. If transportation costs allow me to lower my labor/resource costs and ship my product and still charge a competitive price, I stay in business but I have to move outside the US. And your idea that you can contain that by erecting trade barriers which is the logical assumption based on your "blind free trade/free market" comment won't fix anything and is called protectionism. But the ultimate fix is not pretty. The US must compete again. But will John be willing/able to compete against Wang or Juan labor-cost wise? Will we be willing to loosen up regulations so resource production in the US is financially viable? If not, then expect more industries to go bye-bye.
no one is suggesting we should not trade. We should however be smarter about how and who we trade with.
Clearly the lack of labor stds, low wages, environmental and safety protections, intellectual property theft, illegal subisdies, and currency manipulation distort the market in their favor.
there are lots of US based companies that would and could compete but for those distrotions.
All other countries except the US realize that trade deficits are bad, and have coordinated industrial policy and trade policy to protect and promote their domestic industries. unilaterla free trade and th emost open market in the world is not working for the US.
So you anwer then is for everyone to make third world wages? - I think not. Who will the customers be then for your products and services?
The US did just fine before the "free" trade era. - most would agree the heyday of US mfg was from 1949 thru the late 70s - a time when we were much more "protectionist" than today
a country with higher wages, higher taxes and stricter regulatory environment?
does just fine
the labor regulation argument isn't working any more
It is a system that the USA finds incredably difficult to understand. Why? Because western nations have always dominated and controlled through military force. What is missing in the white race that they would rather kill than think it through and outwit their adversaries. With the USA it is always bomb them back into the stone age as first and last policy initiative.
If war ever comes between China and the USA, Chinese military strategy will defeat US military strategy. Remember Korea, when the USA army under McArthur was soundly defeated by the Chinese because McArthur was out manuvered and the Chinese took advantage of US hubris. The Vietnamese and Chinese combined handed the USA one of it's most resounding defeats by sound military planning based on US hubris.
When the USA military began it's exchanges with the CPA in the 90s they were surprised at the stuff the Chinese were working on that in the event of war would have attacked America's achilles heel. That is it's sattellite system. I am certain that they will always be working on surprises for the USA military if war does come.
They've sent us poisoned goods, faulty product after faulty product, stole military secrets, hacked into many a gov't and civilian enterprise and have dumped product on our shores. So much product that it forced American companies overseas to compete. What a great arrangement, they get a future, we get to fade into the nite.
China is seen as an adversary in order to justify massive military/corporate expenditures.
All the while, the right wing delights in using China to to purchase US debt in order to finance the very same military expenditures. China accepts this situation. Why? I don't really know. But, it might be that they understand they influence their situation gives them in the corporate world. They probably also realize that, in Corporate America, economic power trumps everything; They can use their economic influence to obliterate Americas military strength. They may do whatever they deem is necessary in any theatre without regard to American Force, provided they exercise that influence first. And the holy rollers on the Supreme Court are their ally.
The glorious right has also deemed it necessary to outsource production in China. One of the reasons is to destroy the power if US labor in American politics.The down side of that is that, now, all military parts are made in China. So, how does one outsource a war to the country that built your military? A better question is: how long? Not very.
Rather clever, I'd say.
They might even add a militarily aggressive " ... and mind your own business!"
Bummer.