Somewhere in the catacombs of the Pentagon, a staff of military planners is working on a scheme to perpetuate the military primacy of the United States. The richest country on earth, the leader in military technology, with 900 military bases in 140 countries, has no military rival. The competition has faded, or been defeated in battle, or lacks the resources to compete.
The military supremacy of United States is unprecedented. The unexpended energy encompasses the entire globe seeking more worlds to conquer and militarize. Popular support is overwhelming and the money is available for virtually any weapon or adventure. American Exceptionalism, once based on the religion of the Pilgrim Fathers, is now assigned to American military forces.
We do not always win our small wars against “the barbarians” but we crush the serious competititors for world-wide hegemony making them allies or vassals. Our force of nuclear weapons is the largest (with Russia), certainly the most accurate and reliable. While nine nations have nukes, we are the only nation that has used them in battle and on human beings. All nations factor Hiroshima and Nagasaki in their attitudes about us.
For more than a decade, the United States has been negotiating with North Korea and Iran to persuade or bribe them to eliminate their programs to make nuclear weapons. With all our military power, with all of our financial assets, with all of our allies, we have not been able to persuade by blandishment or threat. Are we trying hard enough? Do their nukes somehow fit into our strategy to minimize potential competition from the only nations capable of challenging the United States?
The US is building an advanced system of missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter Iran’s possible nuclear weapons. The Russians say that the system is operative against their missiles and would give the US an important advantage in a crisis or a war. Basing them so close to the Russian border, would save flight time and perhaps furnish the capacity to strike first.
The US has positioned nukes in South Korea close to the Chinese border and always has nuclear-armed ships in the South China Sea. That deployment gives the US an advantage in a nuclear war where a first strike is an overwhelming advantage.
US policy in North Korea and Iran have failed in their stated objectives to prevent nuclear deployment. But these failures leave American bases on the actual borders of China and Russia that could threaten their security. Does this situation remind the world community of the 1963 Cuban missile crisis when Soviet missiles were placed 20 miles from the US but were forced out under threat of nuclear war ?
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Friday, February 24, 2012
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Soft Power vs. US Military Budget
President Obama has proposed a freeze on 17% of the discretionary items in the federal budget over the next three years. These cuts affect domestic social expenditures that improve conditions of living in the United States. They are regrettable because they diminish US standard of living and reduce part of the government stimulus to our faltering economy.
At the same time, the President increased the US military budget significantly. His budget request for defense is 708 billion dollars but this number does not include spending for nuclear weapons and other military expenses tucked neatly into the budgets of other departments. In addition, every year the Congress makes supplemental appropriations to pay for current wars. The grand total for the year will be at least $1 trillion, spending more on the US military than all other nations on earth combined.
Since September 11, 2001, the Pentagon's budget has more than doubled in just nine years and a significant portion is spent outside the US to finance two unpopular wars and 761 American military bases in 147 countries. The size of America’s armed forces is about one and one-half million (1,500,000) and about five hundred thousand (500,000) are stationed overseas The people of every nation dislike military occupation by foreign soldiers. But American soldiers in foreign countries can give the rulers of these countries, dictators or democrats, a sense of security in the implied promise of US military support in crises. Is this an involuntary commitment to intervention? Does the American military presence inhibit those seeking change?
.
With President Obama's 2011 budget, 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends will have to be borrowed. Foreign investors are lending us about half of our national debt and China and Japan provide half of that sum. China’s share is growing faster.
Some at the Pentagon are worrying that America's destiny, financial and political, may be in the control of a potential rival - and all without a shot being fired. Can we afford to be the policeman of the world? Are we overextending ourselves financially and militarily? Or do we believe that we can take unnecessary risks because we are too big to fail?
From the dawn of recorded history, no nation has surrendered its preeminence – and the United States shouldn’t and wouldn’t. Is there an alternative to our current outrageous waste of lives, money and resources? Joseph S. Nye Jr, Professor at Harvard University with hands-on experience in statecraft, advocates Smart Power, combining hard and soft power. "The United States can become a Smart Power by once again investing in global public goods - providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain on their own. Achieving economic development, securing public health, coping with climate change… all require leadership from the United States. By complementing its military and economic might with greater investments in its soft power, the United States can....... tackle tough global challenges.”
At the same time, the President increased the US military budget significantly. His budget request for defense is 708 billion dollars but this number does not include spending for nuclear weapons and other military expenses tucked neatly into the budgets of other departments. In addition, every year the Congress makes supplemental appropriations to pay for current wars. The grand total for the year will be at least $1 trillion, spending more on the US military than all other nations on earth combined.
Since September 11, 2001, the Pentagon's budget has more than doubled in just nine years and a significant portion is spent outside the US to finance two unpopular wars and 761 American military bases in 147 countries. The size of America’s armed forces is about one and one-half million (1,500,000) and about five hundred thousand (500,000) are stationed overseas The people of every nation dislike military occupation by foreign soldiers. But American soldiers in foreign countries can give the rulers of these countries, dictators or democrats, a sense of security in the implied promise of US military support in crises. Is this an involuntary commitment to intervention? Does the American military presence inhibit those seeking change?
.
With President Obama's 2011 budget, 42 cents of every dollar the federal government spends will have to be borrowed. Foreign investors are lending us about half of our national debt and China and Japan provide half of that sum. China’s share is growing faster.
Some at the Pentagon are worrying that America's destiny, financial and political, may be in the control of a potential rival - and all without a shot being fired. Can we afford to be the policeman of the world? Are we overextending ourselves financially and militarily? Or do we believe that we can take unnecessary risks because we are too big to fail?
From the dawn of recorded history, no nation has surrendered its preeminence – and the United States shouldn’t and wouldn’t. Is there an alternative to our current outrageous waste of lives, money and resources? Joseph S. Nye Jr, Professor at Harvard University with hands-on experience in statecraft, advocates Smart Power, combining hard and soft power. "The United States can become a Smart Power by once again investing in global public goods - providing things that people and governments in all quarters of the world want but cannot attain on their own. Achieving economic development, securing public health, coping with climate change… all require leadership from the United States. By complementing its military and economic might with greater investments in its soft power, the United States can....... tackle tough global challenges.”
Friday, November 20, 2009
New Questions on Afghanistan
New Questions on Afghanistan
By Jerome Grossman
When President Obama tells the nation his revised policy on Afghanistan, he will surely indicate that America's mission in that country is not open-ended in duration, that we will leave when our objectives have been accomplished, and that the objectives are worth the sacrifices.
The president should address the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.
Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency in government operations but it hasn't told us about the U.S. Army providing security that will enable China to exploit in Afghanistan one of the world's largest deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its insatiable appetite for valuable raw materials.
This U.S. troop deployment protects the Chinese investment-the largest in Afghanistan's history-from the Taliban and the impoverished locals. It saves the Chinese from having to send their own troops abroad to defend their economic interests. We seem to have no problem doing just that-even keeping our troops there-under fire-for a decade. Remarkably, we are doing this favor for the Chinese in spite of the fact that a qualified American corporation bid but lost the contract. When Chinese President Hu Jintao recently had dinner with President Obama, did they discuss the quid pro quo for this remarkable cooperation? Should we know the deal?
Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240,000,000 tons of copper accessible through surface mining alone. Taliban-led insurgents are likely to harass the Chinese project for nationalistic reasons to preserve this valuable Afghan asset from the foreigners. It is estimated that this project development will take decades. Is this another indication that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely?
By Jerome Grossman
When President Obama tells the nation his revised policy on Afghanistan, he will surely indicate that America's mission in that country is not open-ended in duration, that we will leave when our objectives have been accomplished, and that the objectives are worth the sacrifices.
The president should address the problem of corruption within the government of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai and explain why the C.I.A. had his brother on its payroll. Did the C.I.A. foster the widespread Afghan corruption that we are now criticizing? The same brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is widely believed to be involved in the highly profitable drug trade. When this was called to the attention of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, she said, "Every country makes compromises, and it behooves you to be humble about pointing fingers." This was hardly a denial, and it fits neatly with her comfort with the Karzai regime despite evidence of widespread fraud in the recent presidential election.
Another front requires a presidential explanation. The Obama administration prides itself on transparency in government operations but it hasn't told us about the U.S. Army providing security that will enable China to exploit in Afghanistan one of the world's largest deposits of copper, earn tens of billions of dollars and feed its insatiable appetite for valuable raw materials.
This U.S. troop deployment protects the Chinese investment-the largest in Afghanistan's history-from the Taliban and the impoverished locals. It saves the Chinese from having to send their own troops abroad to defend their economic interests. We seem to have no problem doing just that-even keeping our troops there-under fire-for a decade. Remarkably, we are doing this favor for the Chinese in spite of the fact that a qualified American corporation bid but lost the contract. When Chinese President Hu Jintao recently had dinner with President Obama, did they discuss the quid pro quo for this remarkable cooperation? Should we know the deal?
Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240,000,000 tons of copper accessible through surface mining alone. Taliban-led insurgents are likely to harass the Chinese project for nationalistic reasons to preserve this valuable Afghan asset from the foreigners. It is estimated that this project development will take decades. Is this another indication that U.S. forces will remain in Afghanistan indefinitely?
Monday, August 18, 2008
The Chinese Olympic and Humiliation
The Chinese Olympic and Humiliation
By Jerome Grossman
For China the Olympics are a demonstration of the ascendancy of the host nation -from historic international humiliation “to the gate of greatness.” The Chinese investment was enormous, $40 billion, 10 times the amount spent by any country in previous Olympics. Large sections of Beijing were refitted; enormous efforts tried to control and minimize pollution; the city was beautified in its buildings and public art; every effort was made to make housing and accommodations and entertainment pleasant for foreign guests. The organization and precision of the opening ceremonies stunned the entire world.
The Chinese were out to prove that their system of capitalist authoritarianism is a success, with national goals that their Gross Domestic Product will surpass the United States by 2025 and that they will dominate the 21st century as America dominated the 20th.
But the Chinese are careful not to threaten the US, their best customer. Their emphasis is on economic primacy, not military, not interventionist. While they have modernized the military establishment, they have not built their capacity to a threatening level. For example, their nuclear arsenal has only about 200 capable of reaching the US while the US has 10,000 capable of reaching China and an armed American fleet regularly prowls the Western Pacific.
The Chinese have serious problems that may prevent realization of national goals: too many people to be adequately supported, especially the elderly beneficiaries of the health system, who must be supported in retirement; unrest among the workers as inequality of income grows; an overrated economy not yet capable of using all modern technology; environmental problems that affect the health of all Chinese; rejection of the state ideology by some members of the intellectual and underprivileged classes.
However, all Chinese are united in hosting the Olympics as a demonstration that the humiliating legacy of the domination by foreigners has ended. The humiliation began with China's defeat in the Opium Wars in the 19th century; continued when the 1919 Treaty of Versailles allotted port concessions to European governments to profit from goods entering and exiting China; the treatment of Chinese laborers in the US; the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and China proper; the British seizure of Hong Kong; the Portuguese control Macao; the separation of Taiwan, etc. etc..
The Chinese want the world to know that those days are over. In 2001, the National People's Congress passed a law establishing a National Humiliation Day. The leaders, past and present, of all parties and factions scorned the humiliating insults to the Chinese people, the yoke, the suffering, uniting such diverse political figures and Sun Yatsen, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Ze Dong.
So the Chinese Olympics are much more than a series of pageants and athletic contests. They are an emotional, national, prideful statement: we have arrived; there will be no more humiliation.
By Jerome Grossman
For China the Olympics are a demonstration of the ascendancy of the host nation -from historic international humiliation “to the gate of greatness.” The Chinese investment was enormous, $40 billion, 10 times the amount spent by any country in previous Olympics. Large sections of Beijing were refitted; enormous efforts tried to control and minimize pollution; the city was beautified in its buildings and public art; every effort was made to make housing and accommodations and entertainment pleasant for foreign guests. The organization and precision of the opening ceremonies stunned the entire world.
The Chinese were out to prove that their system of capitalist authoritarianism is a success, with national goals that their Gross Domestic Product will surpass the United States by 2025 and that they will dominate the 21st century as America dominated the 20th.
But the Chinese are careful not to threaten the US, their best customer. Their emphasis is on economic primacy, not military, not interventionist. While they have modernized the military establishment, they have not built their capacity to a threatening level. For example, their nuclear arsenal has only about 200 capable of reaching the US while the US has 10,000 capable of reaching China and an armed American fleet regularly prowls the Western Pacific.
The Chinese have serious problems that may prevent realization of national goals: too many people to be adequately supported, especially the elderly beneficiaries of the health system, who must be supported in retirement; unrest among the workers as inequality of income grows; an overrated economy not yet capable of using all modern technology; environmental problems that affect the health of all Chinese; rejection of the state ideology by some members of the intellectual and underprivileged classes.
However, all Chinese are united in hosting the Olympics as a demonstration that the humiliating legacy of the domination by foreigners has ended. The humiliation began with China's defeat in the Opium Wars in the 19th century; continued when the 1919 Treaty of Versailles allotted port concessions to European governments to profit from goods entering and exiting China; the treatment of Chinese laborers in the US; the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and China proper; the British seizure of Hong Kong; the Portuguese control Macao; the separation of Taiwan, etc. etc..
The Chinese want the world to know that those days are over. In 2001, the National People's Congress passed a law establishing a National Humiliation Day. The leaders, past and present, of all parties and factions scorned the humiliating insults to the Chinese people, the yoke, the suffering, uniting such diverse political figures and Sun Yatsen, Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Ze Dong.
So the Chinese Olympics are much more than a series of pageants and athletic contests. They are an emotional, national, prideful statement: we have arrived; there will be no more humiliation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
