Sam-
No, I'm not suggesting the current leadership in China is equivalent to Pol Pot. Why, it's been at least a generation since the government of China was that bad. My reference to the Khmer Rouge was to point to the difficulty many people have in evaluating the potential for evil on the part of governments. Gentleman on the left- and I'm not suggesting you are one- tend to believe "pas d'ennemies a guache": there are no enemies on the left. So they choose not see evil that exists in governments of the left.
<<At least in the mid and late 80s, they were not terribly concerned about a Chinese invasion. They were more concerned about Deng's health at that time, and what might happen in China after he died.>>
I find this line of thinking vaguely unsettling, at least insofar as you try to draw any conclusions from it. True, in the 80's or even the 90's, the prospect of Beijing launching a war against Taiwan is not an immediate one. It is only human nature that people will be more concerned about near-term prospects- like the Deng succession- than about prospects that are more remote. But that in no way establishes the absurdity of DMA's scenario, nor have any other of your statements, IMO.
I don't think it's at all far-fetched that at some time in the next 50 years, Beijing could launch a military attack against Taiwan. It would, IMO, simply take a cast of players who exist in Beijing today- albeit not at the highest levels of government- coupled with some appropriate trigger (increased Chinese military capabilities plus a declaration of independence on the part of Taiwan??). Prudent leaders in the Taipai and Washington will act in a manner to minimize the probability of that happening. The Clinton administration has not acted in that manner.
Regards,
Larry
P.S. Only slightly off the subject is the following observation. Notra Trulock, a DOE security officer, testified before Congress that when he warned the administration about Chinese spying in 1995, his concerns were shrugged off as those of "a Cold War warrior". Well Trulock's concerns have been shown to be well founded, and that those who dismissed Trulock's concerns were irresponsible and wrong. My sense is there are those on this thread whose reaction parallels that of the Clinton administration. |
