Hey LV,
On one of the posts on the site from some Chinese folks (the one about the riots)- there was a link to another vision for China (I have not read it yet - lots on my list these days) about the Chinese transforming their government to pursue a type of modernization that would help it reach its potential. Also there was a piece on the BBC and NPR about Chinese Christians and how the Chinese government is pushing its own brand of Christianity because the moral and ethical values are congruent with getting the most out of a population.
Directly this may seem like white noise to their military spending, but nothing happens in and of its self on that scale. What happens when a Communist state starts to look like a Christian pseudo-democracy with a capitalist theme? I'm not sure, but I think its worthwhile to consider. Lets say instead of invading Taiwan, they just pursued aggressive capitalism ventures to buy out Taiwan - they already own allot of it.
I think the Chinese are cognizant that there are easier ways to get what they desire in regards to the things we'd consider a major catalyst. Consider if China never provokes the U.S., but continues to build its Navy and other military forces while its economic policy puts it at the forefront of regional and perhaps global (way down the road) economics. Was then the right decision to counter growing Chinese influence military one up-manship? Or should we have taken some of our $$$$ and invested them in Diplomacy, Information and Economics.
I'm not sure, but I am sure the right answer is not always the first one we turn to. A future peer competitor will be smart and robust enough that it will not rely on a single element on national power. Consider that the premier Chinese military philosopher might not be Clausewitz, but Sun Tzu who recognized the apogee of art in warfare is to win without destroying your enemy. Now why would that old Chinese guy say that? Well, in destroying somebody else you risk destroying yourself, and in our case - the consumers who fuel a large part of their economy. China is smart, and it is patient. Their military is only one instrument of their military power, and one they will not hazard lightly.
I'm an Infantryman so this is going to sound funny coming from me, but an economically competitive China may be much better then China as an adversary. Checks and balances yes, but one up-manship - maybe not. These days require a balanced policy, our immediate answer should not be diMe, until after we understand the consequences. As others have pointed out, if China were to become a military threat – means and will that portray intent (not only a build up) on the world scene, then it will not be a threat to only the U.S., but to the other states in the region – Japan, Australia, India. Diplomacy in regards to building lasting relations and like policy objectives in the region, an Information plan that strategically communicates to our allies and neutrals the benefits of working with the United States, and an Economic Policy that invests world wide in order to change the conditions that make states weak and unstable, create victims, breeed anti-Americanism, and keep the US economy strong. From a military perspective we need to be strong enough to meet our commitments and be judicial in the use of force while expressig our national ideals abroad (freedom, justice, equality, compassion).
I understand our role is the “M”, but it must be understood in the context of the whole d-i-m-e. Extremists and terrorists though are a scourge and have no desire or logical reason to pursue a course that avoids conflict. They reflect the worst of human nature (yes there are like people who influence states – just look at Iran), and will not respond to anything but force – they are the threat of our time and dealing with them will require both military force and the use of the other elements of military power to change the environment from which they spawn.
Bookmarks