<I think the Chinese now understand that they can't take us for granted any longer and we've gained some respect.>
Hawk, I suspect it's partly because the USA has got something else to think about rather than causing trouble with China. I don't think respect for the USA by China has increased. I don't think they took the USA for granted. In what way do you mean they did?
Also, have you noticed that the USA isn't lecturing China about human rights these days? It would be hysterical if they did! I bet Hu Jintao is looking forwards to that.
Imagine, China has imprisoned people without trial or something. Well, blow me down if there aren't a few alien prisoners stewing in their own juices 2 years after being captured, with no trial, no lawyer, no habeas corpus etc. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather be a political prisoner in Guantanamo Bay than a prisoner of most other countries on Earth. The USA is no doubt treating them very well. Which is of course a good idea. Stockholm syndrome works better on people who are treated well than people treated badly. Some of those prisoners, if handled right, will even convert to the USA's side.
Also, the USA is perhaps starting to realize that China isn't actually a threat, continuous rumbling over Taiwan notwithstanding and ignoring the association with North Korea.
From what I see, the reduction to an all-time manpower low was a good move. The USA seems to me to have plenty of military for any job that seems likely to need doing. I don't want to fund more military than there is already. I'd actually cut it further, but pay more money to get even more talented people. Military services are a 'highest calling' occupation, which should not be left to low paid ignorant grunts who can only follow orders.
Wars are better fought with psychology and technology than guns. Surrender [by the enemy] without a fight is best of all. Then there are no victims of mistakes, no friendly fire and the answer is obtained by display and logistics battles rather than an actual test of strength. Which doesn't suit the vicious types who really want to kill somebody and enjoy the whole idea of physically dismembering people. Those maniacal types shouldn't be hired in the first place, as they'll create problems so they can indulge their preferences.
If an enemy supporting infrastructure, such as computer records, communications, trust, management hierarchy, transport etc etc etc can be disabled, that makes any actual fighting very much easier. The USA is very good at that side of things these days. Well, not that good really, but getting much better and certainly way ahead of others. The NSA has the enemy scared to pick up a phone or click around in cyberspace.
I disagree that the enemy is Militant Islam. I think it's any detached-from-reality concepts which people back with force. Jerry Falwell fits into that category too. If he got the power, he'd have repressive laws established. Same with Ashcroft and co. Islam both moderate and militant is hazardous to my health and both need to be kept in check, along with any other religions. Give them an inch and they'll take over. Look how they treat minority religions where they have the whip hand - it's brutal. Check out how they handled East Timor for example after Kissinger foolishly gave Indonesia the okay to annex it [he was busy thinking the commies were the bad guys].
Mqurice |
