Re: Upgrading the Yellow Peril for another Cold War

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The founder of Time magazine, Henry Luce, saw America's historic duty
as the Christianization of China. This sort of thing would necessarily
entail a lot of bloodshed. He'd be very proud of the Bushwa
administration.

The "get China" policy is ridiculous. Historically, China has almost
never been expansionist. The Chinese invasion of Japan several
centuries ago ended in failure. Genghis Khan invasions was of course
Mongol. As for the recent "invasion" of Tibet, I see that as more of a
replacement of one form of tyranny (theocracy) with another (Chinese
Communism). A Chinese invasion of Taiwan is a dangerous prospect, but
would probably not lead to empire building.

Strategically, the administration may be attempting a repeat of the the
Reagan arms build-up's perceived effect on the USSR. It is widely
believed that the USSR couldn't match the US military build-up, its
economy thus failed, requiring the USSR to split up. The administration
apparently believes that the same can be accomplished against China.
The difference is that China's military presence is naturally far less
far-flung than the USSR's. I'm not aware of Chinese troops stationed in
any other country. China does not wish to be a superpower.

Nothing would please me more than to see the current, evil Chinese
regime peacefully separated from power, and replaced with some type of
(small r) republican government. A foreign military threat will only
serve to galvanize the people of China into supporting the regime,
however. The better policy was Clinton's, which promoted commerce and
communications between China and the US. During the period of this
policy's implementation, the Chinese government lost a significant
amount of legitimacy, both in the eyes of the world and in the eyes of
the Chinese. A systemic critique was beginning to be voiced against the
regime. Should the Bushwa administration implement the "get China"
plan, however, the regime would almost have a new lease on life because
they can identify themselves with Chinese nationalism. Their hold on
power may be prolonged for perhaps a decade in this way.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 13:33:18 -0800, Lisa & Ian Murray wrote:

>[You knew this was coming...]
>
>
><http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,462322,00.html>
>US told to make China its No 1 enemy
>
>US told to target China
>
>Special report: George Bush's America
>
>Martin Kettle in Washington
>Saturday March 24, 2001
>The Guardian
>
>A historic shift of emphasis in United States military deployment from Europe to
>Asia, with China supplanting Russia as America's principal foe, is at the heart
>of the Bush administration's long awaited defence strategy review, according to
>reports in Washington.
>Outlines of the potentially epochal rethink of the US's global strategic
>priorities were given to President George Bush by his defence secretary Donald
>Rumsfeld at a private meeting at the White House on Wednesday, the Washington
>Post reported yesterday.
>
>"The president was complimentary, he appreciated the policy discussion, and gave
>the indication that the topics were indeed what he had in mind," a Pentagon
>official told the paper.
>
>More than 50 years after the struggle to deter the Soviet Union in Europe became
>the centrepiece of US military strategy in the aftermath of the second world
>war, the Rumsfeld review has concluded that the Pacific Ocean should now become
>the most important focus of US military deployments, with China now perceived as
>the principal threat to American global dominance.
>
>The review says, in effect, that Washington should abandon the long-standing
>doctrine that the US military must always be prepared to fight two major world
>conflicts simultaneously, the reports quote officials as saying.
>
>By elevating China to the status of global enemy number one, the review clearly
>foreshadows an American turn away from Europe, or at least from the levels of US
>engagement and attention which have existed for the lifetime of most Europeans.
>
>Mr Bush ordered the strategy review immediately on taking office. It is the most
>important of three complementary reviews intended to shape US military
>priorities in the 21st century. The other two are on nuclear weapons and missile
>defence options, and on service pay and conditions.
>
>The huge distances involved in the Pacific mean that the Pentagon must give
>additional priority to "long-range power projection", the report says.
>
>This means putting fresh resources into airlift capacity to enable the US to
>move troops, vehicles and weapons many thousands of miles from bases in America
>to the frontline in Asia at short notice.
>
>The report says the threat from hostile missiles is likely to become so serious
>that the US can no longer afford to risk its largest and most expensive ships,
>the Nimitz class aircraft carriers, in forward positions. As a result, the navy
>will be told to stop building big ships and to concentrate on speed and
>manoeuvrability, including a new generation of smaller carriers, to avoid them
>becoming targets.
>
>The threat from weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical and
>biological weapons, against American military targets means that US allies may
>begin to question the advisability of allowing Washington to have bases in their
>countries, the Pentagon suggests. The report says this is another reason why
>long-range supply capacity needs to be increased.
>
>The review does not make recommendations about particular weapons systems, but
>there is no doubt in Washington that missile defence shields will form a central
>part of the new strategy.
>
>Other key elements of what would be, in effect, a rearming of the US military
>are likely to include a greater role for long-range bombers and for unmanned
>aircraft. The F-22 fighter programme is likely to face cutbacks, though there is
>speculation that it will not be scrapped.
>
>The sweep of the review is so comprehensive and its conclusions so radical that
>the publication of the final report later this year is likely to set off a whole
>series of turf wars within the US military, as the armed services scrabble for
>influence and funding in the new era.
>
>Washington's decision to turn more of its guns and missiles towards China came
>as it was confirmed that a senior colonel in the Chinese people's liberation
>army has defected to the US while visiting as part of a military delegation. The
>defection, which apparently took place at the end of last year or in January,
>involved an unnamed officer in the foreign affairs department of the army
>general staff.
>
>
>
>