Views: 3733|Replies: 22

Is China US' real or imaginary enemy ?   [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2016-1-23 12:03:07 |Display all floors
Today I read one story written by CD's US commentator saying US targeted China wrongly for their imaginary enemy. In my opinon US made this mistake on purpose due to the interests of specific military weapon makers and the tug-of-war between parties.  
Here is the body part of that article with byline of Chen Weihua, a veteran journalist residing in Washington D.C.

The Asia-Pacific Rebalance 2025 report unveiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on Wednesday reads like a call to prepare for a war with China.

The report, commissioned by the US Congress under the National Defense Authorization Act, calls for strengthening the US' capabilities, presence and partnerships in the Asia-Pacific, as if it wasn't the case, as Obama acknowledged in his State of the Union address on Jan 12, that the US is the most powerful nation on Earth, spending more on its military than the next eight nations combined.

Every suggestion the report makes is aimed mainly at China.

For example, China is the target when it calls for strengthening the capability, capacity, resilience and interoperability of the US' alliances and partnerships, forming a standing US joint task force for the Western Pacific, and encouraging Japan to establish a joint operations command. And China is the target when it calls for increasing the US' surface fleet presence, improving its undersea capabilities, continuing the diversifying of its air operating locations, bolstering regional missile defense, stockpiling critical precision munitions, developing advanced long-range missiles and augmenting its space, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities ... the list goes on.

China's growing anti-access/area denial capability, which is defensive in nature, is cited by the report as a major argument for the US to advance these capabilities. To justify its argument, China is described as a nation of "coercion" and a "potential adversary" despite the fact that China has not engaged in any military conflict for decades, except for a brief border conflict with Vietnam in 1979. The US on the other hand, has not only been constantly engaged in threat and coercion but also engaged in incessant wars.

The unpublished classified part of the report is probably even more heinous in its warmongering.

The report's short section on expanding confidence building and crisis management with China looks like an attempt at providing cover for a spokesperson for the Pentagon and the US military industry complex, given the CSIS has close ties with both.

The US' rebalancing to Asia-Pacific strategy, especially the military component, has been perceived negatively in China largely because it is believed to be aimed at China. Over the years, it has worsened the fragile strategic trust between the two nations.

If the next US Congress and administration adopt the CSIS report, it will only mean deeper distrust and more likelihood of a miscalculation, not to mention the report is likely to fuel an arms race in the region. And if fully implemented, it will make the Asia-Pacific region the most militarized in the world, with US weaponry.

One Chinese journalist who was at the release of the report on Wednesday said bluntly: "It should be called a China containment report."

It is just one of several reports by the US in recent years calling for a tougher stance on China.

Jeffrey Bader, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Obama administration official for Asia, refuted such thinking last June in his article "Changing China Policy: Are we in search of enemies?" He hoped the next president will not discard the play book used by the American statesmen who built and nurtured the US-China relationship and built a generation of peace in Asia.

On Wednesday at the Council on Foreign Relations, former US defense secretary Robert Gates also called for a careful management of the relationship and said the US should acknowledge China's influence and role in the world.

But, unless they are doing marketing for the US military complex, it is the idea that the US should dominate the world that is clearly behind the CSIS report.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 3Rank: 3

Post time 2016-1-23 13:32:08 |Display all floors
The US and China are competitors, but not enemies.  If you run a large company and you have a large and powerful competitor, you model your business strategy to counter your strongest competitor.  In the past the US has had the strongest military in the world.  In the last decade that military has been degraded.  During the planning process of upgrading the quality and capability of the military, US strategic design must include countering it's strongest competitor in the sphere of military power.  In the past this has been Russia.  Now it is China.

However, this does not imply aggressive intent against China.  It is simply a common sense approach to designing a globally active military.  Are you suggesting that this is unique the US?  China has no action plans that account for US military strength?  Or Japan?  Is the PLA just a benign police force?

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2016-1-23 14:35:56 |Display all floors
This post was edited by sfphoto at 2016-1-23 14:38

The U.S.A. Empire is bankrupt and its military strategy is obsolete. By relying on "forward deployment", the U.S.A. Empire has committed itself to maintaining and supporting 900 military bases (MBs) all over the world as well as 11 Carrier Battle Groups (CBGs). But those military assets are highly vulnerable to missile and drone attacks as part of the A2/AD strategies being deployed by coastal nations all over the world. The only reason why the Pentagon wants to continue with this obsolete "forward deployment" strategy is to keep the profits flowing to the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex using China as their bogeyman.

MBs and CBGs are remnants of the old industrial era that is fast becoming obsolete due to the rise of smart warfare in the new internet age. It is far more cost-effective for coastal nations to deploy drones, missiles, satellites, subs, etc. to neutralize "forward deployed" assets such as MBs and CBGs which are fixed and slow-moving targets respectively. Even former U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hegel believes so which is why he was fired for recommending "coastal defense" for the U.S. Military which would have meant downsizing the cash-cow of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex that is the U.S. Navy.


Only problem is: their milking cow which is the U.S.A. Empire is bankrupt.





Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2016-1-23 15:22:48 |Display all floors

Is USA China's Real or Imaginary Enemy?

This post was edited by cestmoi at 2016-1-23 15:26

I have a hypothetical question for you and the PLA: if China were as strong back in 7-7-1937 as it is now, would Japan have invaded China?

The ancient Romans had a saying, "if you want peace, prepare for war". They recognised this truism almost 2000 years ago.

The Royal Navy has adopted it as its motto, "si vis pacem, para bellum", and this believe has served the UK well through two world wars.

By the way, I too believe it is about containing China, it is about forcing China to play by the USAnian rulebook.
Let the dice fly high

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

CD top contributor in April

Post time 2016-1-23 15:57:08 |Display all floors
There is something different in ideology between China and America, such as the idea about political system, which causes lots of conflicts. We can see that both have different ways to deal with the international affairs. So it is easy to get impacted, for example, the issue about Diao Yu Island. The conflicts will not end when both keep something different in ideology. The point is that how to control the conflicts between the two countries.  

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

CD top contributor in April

Post time 2016-1-23 16:00:15 |Display all floors
sfphoto Post time: 2016-1-23 14:35
The U.S.A. Empire is bankrupt and its military strategy is obsolete. By relying on "forward deployme ...

When China becomes a big exporter in military facility, it absolutely has a great effect on the USA.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 6Rank: 6

Post time 2016-1-23 16:25:46 |Display all floors
This post was edited by sfphoto at 2016-1-23 16:26
samlam Post time: 2016-1-23 16:00
When China becomes a big exporter in military facility, it absolutely has a great effect on the US ...

China should not compete with the U.S.A. Empire in the military realm because weapons spending could easily bankrupt countries. That's what happened to the former Soviet Union which the CIA knew was already having lots of economic problems way back in the late 70s. Despite this, the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex wanted to paint the USSR as their bogeyman so they put Ronald Reagan as their puppet in the White House to increase U.S. defense spending against the bankrupt USSR. More than two decades after the Soviet Union collapsed, U.S.A. Empire is still spending money like crazy.

It's not a matter of IF but WHEN the U.S.A. Empire too will collapse just like the Soviet Union.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.