Hugh White asks the relevant question. The Aussies are involved in a rich discussion of their strategic future--perhaps better than the discussion is here. If this is it, than it seems there has been some kind of national consensus that we ought to spend a good bit of our treasure on endless counterinsurgencies. But of course, that's not the case.
If you'd like a look into the Heart of Darkness that waits around the corner for us if we continue to think that ground commitments in questionably strategic situations remain in play, read this.
For a clear eyed view of where we ought to be thinking strategically, I recommend this. I am particularly drawn to the Kaplan brothers emphasis on the strength of our Asian alliances, and their importance as a check on Chinese ambitions. Ironically though, for all the strength the network of alliances represents, small signs of retreat from the US are likely to have amplified impact.
The aim of US policy in East Asia must be to always be strong enough to act as the organizing entity around which friends and allies plan, in order that the sum total of strength arrayed against the Chinese cause decision makers to wake up EACH AND EVERY MORNING and say, "today is not the day." For once a conflict starts, its resolution will not be pretty for anyone.
Bryan McGrath
No comments:
Post a Comment