How We Would Fight China
Posted by TFG on May 8th, 2005
This is unheard-of for me, that I actually finished last month’s Atlantic before this one showed up in the mail. But such did happen, so I got to settle in with this month’s cover story, and it’s a humdinger. I strongly suggest that you out there who fancy yourselves foreign policy / military wonks hasten out to pick one up at the bookstore, if you don’t already subscribe. The title is How We Would Fight China
The Middle East is just a blip. The American military contest with China in the Pacific will define the twenty-first century. And China will be a more formidable adversary than Russia ever was
There is a ton of information and material in there to chew on, and it’s worth every nickel. If I can ever find the time, I’d like to discuss some of the stuff in the article here. We’ll see.
It also pleases me that I beat Craig to the punch for once about an Atlantic article.
May 9th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
China during the Cold War was poor and preindustrial and, idealistic under Mao. Now, they are much richer and very territorialistic ( is that a word?).
The powder keg most assuredly is Taiwan, or an attempt on Japan.
The biggest chalk mark in the US column is the tendancy of the Chinese people to revolutionary actions, thus causing internal havoc within the Chinese government before any major confrontation gets off the ground. And, even in today’s climate of anti-americanism, China does not have the backing of many allies.
It is frightening to understand that the potential for heavy loss of human life would not be cause for concern to the Chinese. They have never confused military success with controlling casualties. Vietnam was ample proof.
I need to read the article, but like any self-respecting peace-nik, I am afraid it would scare the beejeebers out of me.
May 9th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
I highly recommend grabbing it and reading it. It’s not doom-and-gloom at all, and to my mind, deflated a lot of the conventional wisdom. And unlike most articles about this kind of subject, it’s not just hand-wringing, but lots of practical talk.
May 9th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Great post. I think a lot of people are ignoring the possibility of this situation. Thanks for bringing it to everyone’s attention. Nice job.
May 9th, 2005 at 9:15 pm
Razz, do you know about Thomas Barnett? He wrote ‘The Pentagon’s New Map’ and I’d say he’s an extremely smart guy. He puts out a weekly newsletter. He thinks the Robert Kaplan story is a load of crap. He says that he’ll explain his position next week. Just thought I’d let you know…
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/
“I read a lot of the coverage of the papal selection issue from the day it became clear that John Paul was going to die, and I know that much of the excitement over the notion of a New Core (Brazil) or Gap (Africa) pope was simply media-generate fluff (much like Robert Kaplan’s fear-mongering piece on China in the Atlantic Monthly this month—but hey, he’s got to write his “space alien baby” story every year just like he was writing for the National Inquirer, so PLEASE! don’t read anything into his latest example of dark visioneering, something I will address in next week’s digest)”
May 9th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
[sigh] I haven’t read that book yet, but it’s on my list of things to read. I’ll start checking out his blog, though.
I can say, though, that the characterization of Kaplan’s article as “dark visioneering” is off-key. At least to me. The only thing “dark” is the assumption from the get-go that we will be required to fight the Chinese. I bought into that because I don’t see a nation that large and that glory-seeking playing second fiddle to anyone. Hell, the population numbers practically decree it, but that could be an anchor in and of itself.
PS Who are you calling Razz? Makes me suspect you, if you can’t even get my name right.
May 10th, 2005 at 9:07 am
That article about China is by far the worst piece of shit I´ve read in a while.
tata
May 10th, 2005 at 9:08 am
Well, there ya go…never mind, everybody. How could I be so stupid?
May 11th, 2005 at 10:23 am
Raz on the Braz–>Scott–>Razz
May 11th, 2005 at 10:26 am
Heh…Raz is my partner. Razz is a poker game, too. Very confusing…sorry.
May 16th, 2006 at 3:01 am
I wonder about the info from those who disagree with the overall article - as indicated above…
do communicate, if this is still being looked at…
normaha@pacbell.net