Wash Times piece on Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen's counterpart in China (Chen Bingde) saying that US naval ex's in regional waters with local friends (Vietnam, Philippines, etc.) are "inappropriate." Mullen replies that they're not directed at China, which, of course, is the whitest of lies. The US sells beaucoup arms to all the same players and exercises with them to give them confidence vis-a-vis "rising China." Fair enough . . .
Read the entire post at Time's Battleland.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011 at 11:38AM 
Reader Comments (8)
So if US primary influence is military and the desire is to get the Chinese to understand the trade between their financial strength and our Leviathan, doesn't that lead to a strategy where the US would win/do better by manufacturing more conflicts requiring a military option, if not a full military solution? Now I'm not suggesting that's a strategy the US should adopt, but in the spirit of the WikiStrat strategy competition, it's something others might want to discuss.
Neocon logic in a nutshell, starting with the opening assumption.
The attractiveness of getting China involved in excercises goes beyond just transparency and understanding at the inter-governmental level, it also builds transparency and understanding at the interpersonal level between the each country's officer corps.
While it is unlikely to occur, if some future political confontation between the US and China were to threaten to turn into a military one, then some degree of trust and understanding between officers may be critical in avoiding things spiraling out of control. Stupid mistakes are less likely to happen when captains have met and sailed alongside the captains oposite them.
As a Senior Military College cadet and recipient of the NSEP/Boren Scholarship studying (and a former NROTC MIDN) studying in Harbin, China, as we speak, it really disturbs me to see how backwards the US Military establishment is when it comes to China. The Chinese have a lot more problems to worry about than invading Taiwan anytime soon (besides they have SO much to lose if they were to do it) or challenging US military hegemony in the region. The increasing friendly relations between the Mainland and Taiwan (I have many friends in the Taiwanese military who would admit this) certainly make the idea of the PRC taking Taiwan by force less likely day by day.
The Chinese won't respond well to more military conflicts/pressure from the US. The PLA's inherited distrust of the US military would only give them more reason distrust our actions. Though the Chinese preach a peaceful rise, time and time again they shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to relations with neighbors.
Mr. Barnett, as someone who will soon join the DoD or DoS, what is the true likely hood of US-PRC conflict? And what can I do to convince my peers (future officers) that its not very high?
What a simple, wonderful win-win idea.
Bryce,
I continue to see it as low prob/high impact, so worthy of worry for the latter. My concern is that, either you fill the void with something else or you risk a small event cascading into something truly horrific. Even the right crisis, I would hope, would generate better relations, but I don't like relying on that level of optimism. I also don't like the US bankrupting itself in the meantime while China free-rides. Longer that goes on, harder it gets to move onto something better.
In the end, though, I think it takes the generation shift away from political leadership on both sides that is still too rooted in the past. Also, China's rise also heals many fears.
So I continue to argue this is all passe by the mid-late 20s/early 30s, but that those of us who worry about stupidity ruling and ruining all between now and then need to remain vigilant.
There are still too many on both sides who see war with the other as the path of greatness, when, in truth, it would turn us both into second-rate powers - permanently. Best example is Germany and Brits.
Tom:
In the interest of full disclosure, and as you may recall from your time in Johnstown, being that my wife is originally from Vietnam and my in-laws live in Saigon, I hold a much less positive view of the Chinese government, PLA and PLAN than do you or some of the other folks in this discussion.
With that being said, where is the evidence for "beaucoup" arms sales to Vietnam? (Which I would support, by the way, working within the confines of ITAR and export controls, of course). Joint naval exercises, yes, with some exercises scheduled to start the day after tomorrow, along with some discussions of starting non-lethal arms sales.
Don't get me wrong, I wholeheartedly understand and support the Golden Rule approach, and I understand that peacemakers are blessed, but there is also a need to stand up to injustice.
It is China that is pushing around its neighbors (many of whom have asked for U.S. help, some of whom we are treaty bound to help), and is shooting at its neighbors' fishermen (Vietnam and Philippines), and damaging its neighbor's ships within that neighbor's Exclusive Economic Zone and only 75 miles or so off that neighbor’s coast (Vietnam) and harassing its neighbors' ships (Vietnam and Philippines).
Neither Vietnam nor the Philippines started this current situation but rather China did. Neither Vietnam nor the Philippines has recently been shooting at any of their neighbors. You can't even say that for Thailand nor Cambodia.
Ross
Neocon logic in a nutshell, starting with the opening assumption. So is that meant as a criticism/insult? I don't buy the implied proposition that anything neocon is necessarily wrong or invalid. But I would at least accept discredited, which means that accepting the proposal requires more selling than things that haven't been a-priori discredited.