16-Oct-15 World View -- China and US poised for South China Sea military confrontation/President Obama reverses himself

[John]

16-Oct-15 World View -- China and US poised for South China Sea military confrontation


President Obama reverses himself on Afghanistan troop withdrawal

** 16-Oct-15 World View -- China and US poised for South China Sea military confrontation
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e151016



Contents:
President Obama reverses himself on Afghanistan troop withdrawal
The 'surge' strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan
China and US poised for South China Sea military confrontation


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, Taliban, Kunduz, Tajikistan,
Harry Truman, Truman Doctrine, John Kennedy, George Bush,
Barack Obama, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda in Iraq,
China, South China Sea, Ash Carter

[shoshin]

John, as soon as I saw the news about troops remaining in Afghanistan, I knew that I would be reading another screed from you about our waffling, weak-kneed, incompetent President. But I’m confused. Isn’t this just what GD says will happen? Doesn’t Obama represent the zeitgeist, the spirit of the American people, tired of endless war? And I thought that leaders were not really important, that GD tells us that it’s the people, the underlying popular movements that make change happen, not politicians.

And I take issue with the Truman Doctrine and your definition of success. (First, I would add that Eisenhower did NOT embrace the view of America as the world’s policeman and knew the danger of the military/industrial complex). How can you know the counterfactual? – If there were no Truman Doctrine, there would have been disaster?

I would argue that constantly intervening (and frankly, mostly for our own national interests, not for creating a more peaceful world), makes for a more and more fragile environment, one that must, sooner or later, collapse. Better to let things collapse now and then, on a small scale, than prolong the process, producing a huge disaster (think of the financial system). This is the sort of thinking proposed by Taleb (antifragile vs. fragile).

[John]

From Wikipedia:

> Eisenhower entered the 1952 presidential race as a Republican to
> counter the non-interventionism of Senator Robert A. Taft,
> campaigning against "communism, Korea and corruption". He won in a
> landslide, defeating Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson and
> temporarily upending the New Deal Coalition.

> Eisenhower's main goals in office were to keep pressure on the
> Soviet Union and reduce federal deficits. In the first year of his
> presidency, he threatened the use of nuclear weapons in order to
> conclude the Korean War; his New Look policy of nuclear deterrence
> prioritized inexpensive nuclear weapons while reducing funding for
> conventional military forces. In 1954, Eisenhower rejected the use
> of military force to help the French retain their colony of
> Vietnam. Congress agreed to his request in 1955 for the Formosa
> Resolution, which obliged the U.S. to militarily support the
> pro-Western Republic of China in Taiwan and continue the ostracism
> of the People's Republic of China.

> After the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial
> satellite in 1957, Eisenhower authorized the establishment of
> NASA, which led to the space race. During the Suez Crisis of 1956,
> Eisenhower condemned the Israeli, British and French invasion of
> Egypt, and forced them to withdraw. He also condemned the Soviet
> invasion during the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 but took no
> action. In 1958, Eisenhower sent 15,000 U.S. troops to Lebanon to
> prevent the pro-Western government from falling to a
> Nasser-inspired revolution. Near the end of his term, his efforts
> to set up a summit meeting with the Soviets collapsed because of
> the U-2 incident.[4] In his January 17, 1961 farewell address to
> the nation, Eisenhower expressed his concerns about the dangers of
> corporate control of Congress and massive military spending,
> particularly deficit spending and government contracts to private
> military manufacturers, and coined the term "military-industrial
> complex".[5]

Ike was not a president afraid to act as the world's policeman. The
phrase "military-industrial complex" referred to domestic budget
issues.

So what do you think we should do? Adopt Japan's pacifist
constitution that permits military action only for self-defense
on American soil?

Do you think, like Jeremiah Wright, that America has no role in the
world that goes beyond pure, selfish self-interest?

[jmm1184]

John, you're article about China coincides with an interesting conversation I had with a friend. I posed concerns about China's activity in the south China sea, calling it risky and dangerous. He countered that China is positioning itself to be a benevolent power in the world, citing its economic aid to Africa and it's bailouts of us and European companies, and he stressed that China has no interest in territorial expansion. I countered that China in fact has a history of territorial expansion, and thus that they may well be interested in territorial expansion in the present. We eventually agreed that our differences boiled down to him having a more optimistic view of China, while I am more cautious.

I bring this up because during the conversation, he claimed that even if China should attack Taiwan, the US and Obama would do nothing, because it's not our territory and the American people don't want another war.

Whenever I bring up a potential war between China and the US to friends, this point is always cited as proof that a war would not occur over Taiwan, because the American people would have no desire for it, and the American people are indeed very war weary.

If Obama backs down from a confrontation with China, what do you think the consequences for him at home would be, and if he doesnt back down, would the American people pursue war? Judging from the sentiments of the people around me, I don't think the people would support the war.

[Guest]

How many people living in America are even American anymore? Try explaining geopolitics to an illiterate Mexican living off of welfare. How many people in Europe are European? Ask them what they think of ISIS, Iran, and Israel and see what they say.

Look at the countries they left. They are disasters. They are bringing these cultures with them in a mass migration. Multiculturalism means they aren't even expected to adopt western cultures. So they will drag down the west to their low level.

China should just sit back and wait 10 more years. Asia will then be easy pickings.