Would America Really Go to War Over the South China Sea? | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


Would America Really Go to War Over the South China Sea?

So then the hard question must be answered. We can imagine the scene in the Situation Room. The diplomatic and strategic advisers remind the President that this is not about someone else’s islands or waters: America’s credibility and the future of its leadership in Asia is on the line. Stepping back and allowing China to defy Washington’s warnings would fatally undermine the entire U.S. position in Asia, and reinforce China’s. The stakes are therefore enormous, and argument for military action is correspondingly clear.

But the military advice is equally clear: a decision for war would be immensely risky and very costly. There is little chance of a quick, cheap, clean victory. On the contrary, prospects are for stalemate, or escalation, or both. America would lose significant numbers of ships and aircraft. Allies like Australia and even Japan would be reluctant to be drawn in. This would be by far the most serious U.S. military engagement at least since Vietnam. No one can say how it would end. And no one can be completely sure that it would end before escalating to the nuclear threshold.

Then the economic advisers chime in, bluntly warning that global economic consequences of even a brief disruption of the US- China economic relationship would be literally incalculable, but plainly far, far worse than the Global Financial Crisis. And the political advisers wonder how all this could possibly be sold to the American electorate.

Then, and only then, with these harsh facts on the table, does the President really confront the choice which will do more than anything else to define America’s place in the world over coming decades. After the Cold War it was easy to assume that America could remain indefinitely the primary strategic power in key regions like Asia, Europe and the Middle East at little cost and with little risk. On that assumption it has been easy for almost everyone to agree that preserving U.S. primacy in these regions was the non-negotiable goal of US policy.

Webmaster's Commentary: 

"...preserving U.S. primacy in these regions was the non-negotiable goal of US policy." ?!?!?

The cost, to the US government, in terms of blood and money already spent to enforce its alleged "U.S. supremacy", through such polices and conceptual codswallop, has been staggering.

The cost to the American people, who have lost family, and friends, or seen them maimed for life, in wars for global conquest of resources, has been staggering.

Every bit of military spending dead-ends the economy, as the US infrastructure is absolutely crumbling.

The country has a war-weary, war-skeptical electorate which understands, painfully clearly, the depths to which the US government lied about "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction" in order to "sell" them a war which was ultimately about the corporate control of Iraq's oil, and in what currency that oil will be sold.

The scenario with China isn't terribly different; although having witnessed some bumps in the road economically, and experiencing difficulty with financial reporting issues, China does seem to be on the ascent, economically.

It now offers a gold-backed yuan, which is not at all convertible to US dollar currency.

The US government wants to see China's economic ascendancy broken, and by any means necessary; one of those means, obviously, would be a war against it.

I am certain that some of their thinktankers (like the Rand corporation) have already laid out numerous possibilities for "selling" the American people on the necessity for this war, and the logistical issues which must be addressed to potentially create a successful war.

Of course, it's never "their kids" who get killed and maimed in war; it's always "other people's children", which makes them simply irrelevant, and their collateral damage simply the "cost of doing the business of war."

However, in looking at the "miredness" of the US government and our military, in these current wars, overt and covert, in places like Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, and Somalia, I would like to hope that these chronic, EPIC military fails might give politicians and the corporate heads of the military/industrial complex, who drive American foreign policy, just a little moment to pause here.

Because if the US-enabled Saudi military is unable to "win" against the people of Yemen, can someone please tell me how the Sam Hill the US government believes it can win a shooting war against China?!?

China conscripts, and has a huge edge in terms of troop strength.

China's recent advances in weaponry and warfare electronics is nothing short of amazing (of course, President Clinton aided and abetted this "great leap forward" by authorizing that transfer technology, courtesy of Loral, which has come to be known as "Chinagate").

Simply put, this time in its history, the American Military does not have the money, the troop strength, the weaponry, or the manufacturing to insure a successful conventional war with China.

Therefore, I would strongly caution our President, our Pentagon, and the corporate heads of the military/industrial complex that now would be a lousy time to pick a military fight with China, because the US government may well lose, because of those facts I have articulated above.

The results of such a war could be both catastrophic...and irreversible.

Comments

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA