Sigaba,

There is nothing "controversial" about my interpretation of history, as I change no facts, I just highlight certain aspects that are important for better understanding how the events of those times relate to events of our times based upon my trained, education and experience. You can find value in that or not as you chose as you interpret these insights from your own training, education and experience. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but nor does your disagreement with me make me wrong.

I'm comfortable with my assessment, and refine it constantly as new, helpful ideas and information are presented. So far you haven't helped me refine it much.

Containment is an effect, and end. It has gone through multiple official variations and certainly has been interpreted uniquely by literally billions of people over the past 65 years. What we do currently in the Pacific is layered upon what we have historically in the Pacific post 1949 to contain China. China (and many other observers around the world) perceive recently announced US strategy and actions as an escalation of US-led containment of China. Those are facts. What everyone perceive or intends? That is another thing altogether.

I don't think working to contain China is unconstitutional, I just think it is unwise and unnecessary. I do think that thinking about and resourcing the Navy and the Army equally is unconstitutional as well as unwise and unnecessary. We are caught up in a great inertia of foreign policy that is driving us in a form designed for a short, anomaly of time known as the Cold War into a bold new era of empowered populaces and non-state actors and a greater balancing of regional power among a dozen states. How we thought about ourselves and how we engaged the world prior to WWII is more appropriate for this emerging world than how we came to think about ourselves and how we engaged the world during the Cold War and post Cold War era. Problem is we have short memories and have a hard time differentiating between the two.