Originally Posted by carl
Thanks carl, here is a link for those interested, has some information that is relavant to this thread and a lot of other stuff.
http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/
Ray,
The US is not "hated", in general, at least not according to most studies I have been aware of. When pressed, most who express discontent with America are quick to point out that it is not America, Americans, or American culture that angers them, but rather American foreign policies and how they are implemented. They are angry at our government To which most Americans would say, "get in line, I'm angry too and this is my fight, not yours."
But then, most Americans and certainly our politicians seem to be blissfully unaware of how are policies are perceived abroad. It used to be that large states did not have to worry a lick about what people thought, and as to states, only had to worry about what stronger states thought. That may still be true about states, which is why we place so much emphasis on nuclear proliferation. Gaining a nuke gives any small state a much louder voice than they had before, and those states who are already members of that club don't like how that forces them to change their security/influence calculus. More importantly, what I believe is still overly ignored, is that in the modern era large powerful states must take into account how POPULACES feel about the impact of their policies. Populaces are hard to deter. Populaces are hard to target. Populaces create a massive problem for large powerful states. Observe the past 10 years of "War on Terror" by the US as exhibit "A."
This is not an impossible situation to deal with, but it is a very new situation requiring very new priorities and approaches than those employed for the past several centuries, or perhaps forever. It's a bold new world. We have departed an American Century and entered a Millennium that belongs to the average person everywhere. States are in denial and lashing out currently, but states are evolving slowly as well.
So, yes, the US has suffered a decline in the Middle East as populaces there have grown increasingly resistant to a family of US foreign policies designed for a Cold War threat that no longer exists, and policies that have been far too slow to adjust to the changing times. Equally, the US is enjoying a growth of influence in the Asia-Pacific region as populaces and governments there grow increasingly wary of (while at the same time enjoying the benefits of) the growing economic power of Regional powers such as India and China.
The US is right to shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region, but not to rekindle old programs built around designs to contain the Sino-Soviet conglomerate of old, but rather to re-balance to the world we live in today. A world where Taiwan and Korea are no longer critical terrain necessary to keep China on the mainland, but rather are economic giants in their own right and quite capable of funding their own security requirements. A world where the US shares as many security interests with China as it has in opposition, and should seek partnerships to maximize the economies of working those interests together. Trust but verify. it won't be the first time that navies worked together to secure their shared interests while at the same time trained to fight each other on the day conflicting interests came to the fore.
The US may well someday be viewed as am odd historic anomaly of powerful nations an "Empire who paid retail" for what it took and that subsidized the costs of security for other nations on the backs of the American taxpayers. This is all going to balance out over the next few decades, but hopefully without the need for some major cataclysmic event to force that change.
We live in a era of transition. How well the US fares in that transition will be based upon how well we envision and adjust to the world that is emerging, not how loyally and doggedly we cling to and attempt to sustain the one that has faded into history. Meanwhile small states have options. They need not join one team or an other, but wisely spread their bets across many partners. This is not a bad thing, nor is it a new thing. It is just something that has been on hold during the odd, ideologically divided era of Cold War that has so defined that American Century.
Last edited by Bob's World; 04-13-2012 at 09:23 PM.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
Thanks carl, here is a link for those interested, has some information that is relavant to this thread and a lot of other stuff.
http://www.gertzfile.com/gertzfile/
Slap:
I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
You state with certainty that full scale war with China is inevitable within the decade,and the decisive factors contributing to a probable US defeat are the lack of advanced fighters and an intel community packed with fools and communist sympathisers. Shouldn't the bulk of the defense budget be redirected to the USAF and the intelligence community be ruthlessly purged of traitors?
Does this mean that any nation engaged in trade with China is in effect aiding the enemy? Shouldn't these countries be called out on their perfidy, whoever they might be?
What do you recommend countries in the region do to prepare for this? Should they all immediately set about developing nuclear deterrence?
List of Countries by Military Expenditures
Trying (failing) to keep up... part 1
In case anyone's actually interested, the Chinese fishing vessels have withdrawn. There's still a Philippine Coast Guard ship around, which probably won't be there for long. What some people may not realize is that these incursions by fishing vessels happen regularly. In most cases there's no response, as the ships are often not detected (patrols are irregular) or there's no ship close enough to respond. In any event it's winding down without anything remotely close to, say, the 1988 Johnson Reef incident, which might be looked at by anyone thinking China's current behaviour is a new thing.
Dangerous, yes, but both sides seem aware of that and are actually being quite conservative. The ships sent by the Chinese to support the fishermen were civilian vessels without overt armament; they didn't send Navy vessels or produce any direct threat, which they certainly could have done. Based on publicly available evidence it's really not possible to say whether the incident was purposely generated to produce a message or whether a routine pillage at Scarborough Shoal turned into an incident due to detection and response.
How is it a change? It's been happening for a long, long time. As I said above, the intrusions of fishing boats have been a constant for years (not just Chinese; the Philippines has had issues with Taiwanese and Japanese fishermen as well). Poaching fish is old practice in the SCS.
I'm not sure I agree that this is a strategy to undermine US influence. If anything it seems calculated to increase US influence, as neighboring States look to the US, and become more willing to make concessions to the US, to balance Chinese influence. Certainly Chinese economic and political influence in the region is not enhanced, as ASEAN countries come under popular pressure to do less business with China and to seek other balancing alliances. I'd say that they're less concerned with undermining the US than with stamping their own pressure, even if that means increased US influence.
Threat is a question of perception. Many Americans perceive China as a threat to America... hell, many Americans perceive Iran as a threat. These perceptions may not have much rational basis, but they are still held. We might say that China's military force is out of proportion to our perception of any threat to China, but they build their forces according to their perception of threat, not ours. Much of the world believes that American military force is far out of proportion to any realistically assessed threat to America... are they entirely wrong?
We don't keep the lanes open. Nobody's threatening to close them, and we could pull our entire Navy back to our shores without putting commerce at risk, except perhaps near Somalia. What we maintain is the capacity to interfere if we choose to do so. That's kind of like a nuclear bomb: you don't have to use it to maintain the threat, because everybody knows it's there.
Much of the world, many Americans among them, believes that the US wastes a lot of resources seeing and countering threats that are not there. We don't make decisions based on other people's assessment of threats, we make them on our assessment of threats. The Chinese do the same. Throughout history nations that depend on maritime commerce for survival have built navies. Should that be different now?
Aside from the perception of threat, we have to consider the generalized Chinese desire to force their way into the top table, to be taken seriously, to be a player with military weight equal to their economic weight. If you've followed Chinese commentary over the years, you'd have noted a phase of public exasperation over what was considered an absurd situation: that has-been nations like Britain and France had more potent navies, greater expeditionary capacity, and more perceived influence on global affairs than China. China's in a "coming out" phase, blending great arrogance with great insecurity... the US went through a phase like that in its own history. It may not be entirely rational and it's not the only influence out there, but it's not a factor that can fully be discounted either.
India has in fact built a quite substantial Navy, and the British still maintain a Navy that might be considered out of proportion to their economic needs. The difference is that you don't perceive these nations as a challenge. Again, remember that China's dependence on maritime commerce is greater than that of any other nation on earth. A hostile power that could cut off Chinese access to Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, which could be done far from China's shores, could bring their economy grinding to a halt in no time. Powers exist that can do this, and those powers are not entirely friendly. In their position, would we not perceive a threat? If China could, at any time of their choosing, cut us off from our primary commodity imports and merchandise exports (to the extent that we have any), would we not see that as an issue?
Did they chase off the USN? When did that happen, I must have missed it. The 7th fleet flagship was parked in Manila a few weeks ago, so it must have been recent...
Is the US "hated"? Maybe in some parts of the world, but not in SE Asia, despite a rather mixed historical legacy. People are suspicous of American motives and don't want to be in a subordinate position to the US, but given the history that's not irrational. They also see the US as potentially useful and they're not averse to having a relationship with the US... they just want it to be a peer-to-peer relationship, not one where the US is in charge. Again, this is not unreasonable. I'd say SE and E Asia aspire to have a relationship with the US similar to the relationship between the US and Europe, not one that brings them back to the colonial/neocolonial rut of bygone days.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
When did the Chinese convert the US from anything to anything else?
The sub story is a bit overstated; I can't see it inflaming any tensions with China. There will be a ritual denunciation and business will go on as usual.
The idea that China intends to "grab all" seems a bit over the top, as is the belief, widespread in much of the world, that the US intends to "grab all".
Gertz is an ideologue with a specific ideological agenda, and I wouldn't base an opinion on anything he writes or publishes. I know he refers to a Congressional report, but we all know those reports can be cherrypicked to "support" any number of agendas. A whole lot of looking into the other side of the picture would be called for.
Certainly one wouldn't go all Pollyanna and decide that the Chinese are entirely benign and couldn't possibly be any threat to anyone... but the hysterical Sinophobia that pops up now and again is every bit as irrational and potentially every bit as dangerous. Useful, though, if you're one of those who feels bereft without someone to fear.
A side note for those who love to look for linkages... the annual US/Philippines military exercises start Monday, which may or may not have anything to do with the Scarborough incident. Not the only exercise, but the largest scheduled bilateral one.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Given the refrain in some posts making out that US is the 'villain of the piece' and China pure as driven snow, I was merely being obtuse, if that is the right word to express what I was meaning.
But then, most Americans and certainly our politicians seem to be blissfully unaware of how are policies are perceived abroad. It used to be that large states did not have to worry a lick about what people thought, and as to states, only had to worry about what stronger states thought. That may still be true about states, which is why we place so much emphasis on nuclear proliferation. Gaining a nuke gives any small state a much louder voice than they had before, and those states who are already members of that club don't like how that forces them to change their security/influence calculus. More importantly, what I believe is still overly ignored, is that in the modern era large powerful states must take into account how POPULACES feel about the impact of their policies. Populaces are hard to deter. Populaces are hard to target. Populaces create a massive problem for large powerful states. Observe the past 10 years of "War on Terror" by the US as exhibit "A."
This is not an impossible situation to deal with, but it is a very new situation requiring very new priorities and approaches than those employed for the past several centuries, or perhaps forever. It's a bold new world. We have departed an American Century and entered a Millennium that belongs to the average person everywhere. States are in denial and lashing out currently, but states are evolving slowly as well.
While much of what you say is true, I would like to believe that the US of the Cold War era is no longer the same and instead are much more sensitive to other nations' aspirations and that is why more and more nations of the world, which were antagonists earlier, are more amenable to the US policies and US aims.
I would like to believe that the fact that the US has influenced the various 'awakenings' and have found popular resonance in the Middle East is indicative that the US is more acceptable than before.So, yes, the US has suffered a decline in the Middle East as populaces there have grown increasingly resistant to a family of US foreign policies designed for a Cold War threat that no longer exists, and policies that have been far too slow to adjust to the changing times. Equally, the US is enjoying a growth of influence in the Asia-Pacific region as populaces and governments there grow increasingly wary of (while at the same time enjoying the benefits of) the growing economic power of Regional powers such as India and China.
The US is right to shift focus to the Asia-Pacific region, but not to rekindle old programs built around designs to contain the Sino-Soviet conglomerate of old, but rather to re-balance to the world we live in today. A world where Taiwan and Korea are no longer critical terrain necessary to keep China on the mainland, but rather are economic giants in their own right and quite capable of funding their own security requirements. A world where the US shares as many security interests with China as it has in opposition, and should seek partnerships to maximize the economies of working those interests together. Trust but verify. it won't be the first time that navies worked together to secure their shared interests while at the same time trained to fight each other on the day conflicting interests came to the fore.
It is true that Korea and Taiwan are economic giants yet because of being small in size that offers them no strategic space, require the benign presence of the US to ensure that they are not swamped by the sheer might of their giant neighbour.
The growing influence of the US in the Pacific region is because of shared security goals. The smaller nations too have to survive and be economically viable and so they too have the right to the resources of the sea. And the same is permitted to them by international conventions. Likewise, it is in the interest of the US that the world order is not too badly stacked against her.
It is to the interest of all that the economies are mutually supporting, be it that of the US or China or any other nation. Each country works towards this end, but it, in no way wants security of its national and strategic interests sold at the altar of commerce alone!
It is true that the world order as desired by the US is at the expense of the US taxpayer, but then no American can deny the pride that they have because the US still 'rules the waves'. The Chinese too take pride in the fact that they are a economic giant and on the way to be a military giant, not because of some malicious intent, but because they too feel that given their new found might, they too want to 'rule the waves' and, as it appears, extract their pound of flesh.The US may well someday be viewed as am odd historic anomaly of powerful nations an "Empire who paid retail" for what it took and that subsidized the costs of security for other nations on the backs of the American taxpayers. This is all going to balance out over the next few decades, but hopefully without the need for some major cataclysmic event to force that change.
As it looks so far, the nations find it more comforting to be with the US rather than with others. It is just that they know where the US stands in the world order, while the others are unknown and appear to be brash and crude like the noveau riche.We live in a era of transition. How well the US fares in that transition will be based upon how well we envision and adjust to the world that is emerging, not how loyally and doggedly we cling to and attempt to sustain the one that has faded into history. Meanwhile small states have options. They need not join one team or an other, but wisely spread their bets across many partners. This is not a bad thing, nor is it a new thing. It is just something that has been on hold during the odd, ideologically divided era of Cold War that has so defined that American Century.
On the issue of the US going to war with China, one cannot predict its certainty. One can only hope that it never has to happen.
Trade with likely adversaries can always assist them and of that their is no doubt. Therefore, the trade has to be monitored and balanced. Assets like high technology and defence innovations should not be shared by the nation that is better off in these fields than the adversary.
However, trade with economic payoffs should always be engaged in.
Nuclear deterrence has its spinoff. However, nuclear deterrence alone is no failsafe answer. One has to have strategic depth and without that, nuclear deterrence is meaningless if the adversary has strategic depth.
Well said, Ray. But you're wrong, war is inevitable within the next ten years and any nation conducting trade with an unspeakably evil force like China is a a direct party to that evil.
Can you clarify what you mean by "strategic depth"?
Obtuse is I think an excellent word for it... but I'm curious, where exactly has anyone said that "that US is the 'villain of the piece' and China pure as driven snow"?
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
All have withdrawn from the disputed area.
That there has been no confrontation before is because there was no clamorous demand by any party that the seas are there. It is only when China used military might as against Vietnam that the littoral nations realised that unless one took action, by default the Seas would be usurped by China in the similar fashion as they did to the 100 Yues territory.
The ships sent by the Chinese are said to be reconnaissance vessels. Are they civilian? Are they like the Russian trawlers which too were said to be civilian? Isn’t it a typical Communist way to cloak military activities under a civilian garb? You can fool people once, but you cannot fool them all the time!
Many countries do fish illegally in other’s waters. Call it poaching if you will. There is nothing new about that. However, when a nation, as did China against Vietnam, use military might, it does ring alarm bells. It is no longer poaching. It is asserting rights, even if those rights are most dubiously claimed.
There is no doubt that China wants to ‘show up’ the US as a nation that it is what they call ‘paper tiger’, or in other words, all gas and no go!
It is true that the US taxpayers’ money goes to ensure that other nations are not swamped, but then the US also gains from the spinoff. It proves to the smaller nations that are about to be swamped that the real McCoy still remains the US. True, it appears that these nations do not swoon over the US, but in many forums, they go the US way and indirectly indicate that the US is Mohammed Ali, the greatest that moves like a butterfly!
What makes it that the US perception that China and Iran are not a threat?
If the US is unduly getting hypersensitive, what is the threat to China, if one is to ask that question, with the manner in which she is militarising in such a hell fired hurry and aggressively planting their flag all over their neighbourhood? China is a large country and its neighbours are in no position to threaten China’s existence. So, where is the threat?
While countries may not agree with the US foreign policy, there is no nation that believes that the US military is out of proportion. The world, grudgingly if you will, accept the concept that the US is the ‘global policeman’ and none are in a position to challenge it and, if indeed if that be the case, they are nowhere close to have a military ‘out of proportion’ and in fact is woefully short.
It is true that the US is not keeping the sea lanes open. She is keeping the sea lanes open as per her strategic perspective. It could be, as per some, immoral, but then who is there to challenge her strategic aims, more so, when the same converges with most of the littoral nations. China has shot her bolt by her meaningless aggressiveness and the littoral nations are not impressed!
Indeed if many nations see that the US is being merely Don Quixote tilting against windmills, how come they are siding with the US? Indeed the US goes by her own strategic objectives, but is it US’ fault that their objectives converge with those of the littoral states?
The Chinese are entitled to pursue her strategic objective, but if that does not converge with theirs and instead with the US, are the littoral states wrong to side with the US?
If China is faced with ‘insecurity’ and wants to ‘come out’ and it does not converge with the security of the littoral state, then it is China’s problem and if the littoral states find some other country with which they find convergence, then so be it. No reason for China to cry foul since she, as it is , is fouling the waters!
It is a canard that India has a substantial navy and the British has a Navy beyond her requirement. India is developing her Navy and is still years behind. The British Navy has been withered so badly that one wonders if they have a Navy at all. They do not even have an operational aircraft carrier to safeguard her overseas territories. So, what exactly brought you to your inference unless it was to alarm and display that you are knowledgeable?
It is another bogus claim that China can be cut off from her maritime interest in Africa and the Middle East. What is Gwadar port in Pakistan and the port in Myanmar all about that China has built and the railways and road connecting them (or planned to be connected) to China? Cosmetic or that act is of an enduring and loveable soul like Mother Teresa? Let us not fool ourselves to prove a point that is bogus and contrived!
7th Fleet was parked in Manila? I thought it was being said by those who claim to be in Philippines that the Philippines was dead against any US presence in their country? How come Philippines has a change of heart? Very off and very convenient to sometimes say that the Philippines are dead against US presence and when convenient say that the US is swarming all over!!!!!!!
The US policy has changed. It is now peer to peer and not subordinate.
That is why we all love the US.
Last edited by Ray; 04-14-2012 at 08:46 AM.
Check your posts.
Let me not explain the obvious!
Last edited by Ray; 04-14-2012 at 08:46 AM.
As a Chinese, if that is your reading, then we must gear up. You would know better what the CCP thinks.
It will be a sad thing if you, as Chinese, force it on the world.
Coexistence is not a four letter word as yet!
I have said trade is a must.
I have said no selling of high technology and that is all!
Maybe this may help
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/...egic-depth-910\
That apart, bareboned maybe this is it:
Strategic depth is a term in military literature that broadly refers to the distances between the front lines or battle sectors and the combatants’ industrial core areas, capital cities, heartlands, and other key centers of population or military production.
The day they started flexing their muscles.
What would you say about the claims to the South China Sea?The sub story is a bit overstated; I can't see it inflaming any tensions with China. There will be a ritual denunciation and business will go on as usual.
The idea that China intends to "grab all" seems a bit over the top, as is the belief, widespread in much of the world, that the US intends to "grab all".
Chinese birthright?
And that converted the US from one thing into another?
Complete nonsense of course; if old maps and artifacts were a reasonable basis for a territorial claim, Italy would be claiming sovereignty over England and Spain over Mexico, among many others. Of course the nature of nations is to not back down, so there will likely be a lot of talk and pushing and shoving for many years to come.
Classic bit of diplomat-talk, from the statement of the Philippine foreign minister...
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...gh-shoal-issue
Conjures up the vision of the sailors growing old out there while the diplomats argue over who's going to leave first...Somewhat later, the second white Chinese civilian ship had decided to leave the area so that only one white Chinese ship remained.
The meeting with Ambassador Ma last night resulted in a stalemate as we had demanded of one another that the other nation’s ship be first to leave the area.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”
H.L. Mencken
Try and focus for a second, Ray, there's a good chap. This is from the post by Carl. I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him:
Does this mean Carl is a Chinese?I read the first article on the link you provided and got so depressed I couldn't read anymore. American intel on China is a combination of incompetence, arrogance, ignorance, failure and ideologically driven willful blindness. It is depressing to think that in less than 10 years, Red Chinese J-20s will be flying around picking off American jets (not the F-35, that will still be in development) at will; and right up to the time the first jets go down the American intel community will still be saying they don't have the capability or they won't actually do so because deep down inside, they are our buddies. And then, the intel community will still deny it is happening and recommend we ask Pakistan to help us clear up the misunderstanding.
The idea that I, as some internet nobody, even a half-Chinese one, am going to force war upon the world is intriguing.
At long last, Ray, have you no shame?
Dayuhan,
I heard a similiar comment on MSNBC from one of their many comical spokespersons when they tried, as you, to dismis this event as mere poaching. They, like you, simply embrace the anti-government, everyone is right, but our competitors and foes. If you want to simply be provocative, feel free to do so, but there is an ocean of difference between a rogue fishing ship poaching, and state sponsored intrusions that are supported by their Navy. Fortunately, people who have to consider what this means to their security interests can't afford the luxury of burying their head in the sand.
LOL... I take it you don't agree with Gertz then.
May I use this response to blow off whenever you post something in future?
Last edited by JMA; 04-14-2012 at 11:28 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks