Hi CB, a hint for the Foreign Affairs crowd ... in the Chinese mindscape and most old world schema, <<Enemies>> must be destroyed, full stop. Words have different meanings in different places, except when they do not.
Message 17861345
<<I do perceive that China perceives itself to be the enemy of the United States. Also, as you brought up, the enemy of Japan and of India>>
If you dig through the public case history over the past 60 years and even in recent times, you will see that this state of perception had invariably been first instigated by the officialdom in each of the three countries you mentioned, amazingly, and without very much exception. Long topic and fairly fruitless one as well. Best to skip, except to say that history is a connected story, and chapters can only be changed by thoughtful people who manage the bother of becoming in charge, else we are doomed.
<<Terrorism>>, to continue our semantics discussion, is simply and just a way of fighting for a cause, any cause, justified or not, popular or not. Using other words, such as urbanized unconventional warfare or global asymmetric combat lack PR punch. Now, concepts such as carpet-bombing, collateral damage, defoliation, ‘only good … is a dead one’, scorched earth, hamlets, and concentration camps are again ways of fighting, no more, and no less terrible.
So, the issue is war, which is a fundamental and irreconcilable life-death conflict, and not terrorism, which is simply and just a style of fighting, lengthening life and delaying death.
If the US is thinking just another ‘police action’, the war is already lost.
Now we move onward to a discussion of war in general. Willy-nilly wars, aka police actions, without clear and defined objectives and without planned and implement-able end games are invariably resolved through exhaustion, in all of history, and never in victory.
Now we move to the specifics of you-know-what. There is no end game in WAT-WOT-and-whatnot, just as there is no end game in Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, …, not just because the supposed end is just the beginning for the next round, but because the wars, in my view, are intricately and inevitably linked, as in the issues are ultimately connected, in space, covering most of the hot conflict spots (Philippines, Indonesia, Chechnya, India, Kashmir, Israel, Palestine, Xinkiang, Columbia, Peru, Argentina, Brazil …), in time, ranging the last 1000 years or so, and in conflict premise, that of wealth control and self-rule. The infrastructure of religion, as it was 1000 years ago, is just one of many convenient channels of mobilization and control, no different than CNN. All of the above are UN issues, but the UN is dying.
Lately, for the past 50 years or so, the US now has had the luxury of power to act without careful thought, but that power does not obviate the need for thought and does not pre-empt ever more nasty interim outcomes due to the lack of fore-thought. Time will and is telling on this observation.
Jumping to the issue of China. The current perception, by China, and in fact by most of the rest of the world, is that the US is treating China as an enemy, because supposedly clever people who are in charge waffle as much, right on TV. Remember, the world sees the US through CNN as well.
The waffling shows through most clearly on the issue of the Uighurs.
The CSM claim of China selling weapons to Uighur separatist and then getting them to move across the border is unbelievable on the surface, and not sensible underneath, and pre-supposes that the Chinese officialdom has power equal to the US such that there is no need for fore-thought.
It reminds one just a bit about supposedly good intelligence from 'friends' that results in dead brides and grooms.
As to the inconsequential issues of weapons, there are lots of weapons floating about in complicated regions, of all makes and vintages. Now, at the root of it all, Taliban and the Al Q are both instigated in part, and one time supported in full by ... oh, you know the answer to that one, and I suspect they have plenty of new US made weapons, given that the US has flooded the world with most weapons.
On the issue of destruction: Anything can be destroyed, as USSR was just, not so long ago; Chile so very long ago; Vietnam just so long ago, and Venezuela nearly. The destruction, as was usually the case, invariably starts from within, even in the case of Rome, and as a result of weakness, sometimes aided by a shove from without, as in the recent case of betrayal of Argentina, an ex-friend.
The US, as a large country, has had a blemished record of intervention for the ostensible good of the locals. The track record for freedom and democracy has not been good, because at the fundamental level, the people in the officialdom know preciously little about the outside world.
Here is a hint. Genuine reform must be from within. The US has either altruistically but naively mess up in a string of interventions, or cynically pursues its own interest at the greater expense of many locals. The list of casualties went on and on, and now, by the US officialdom’s own hand, the rights and freedoms in country. This, together with the gradual killing of free trade and whatnot, is spreading the dawning suspicion that the US is simply and just pursuing self-interest, at the expense of the interest of others, full stop.
Well, this is game that all understand and can play, without needing to hide behind concepts such as human rights champion or self-determination defender. The glow of idealism has been tarnished and is starting to rust.
The US, the fortunate country, will have another chance at transformation come 2004, in accordance with the will of the people.
Finally, in geo-politics, there are only interests, no friends nor enemies. Anyone characterizing the nature of the game as anything else will be disappointed.
Chugs, Jay |
