Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed optimism about our military relations with Beijing at the recently concluded Shangri-La Dialogue, the preeminent security conference in Asia. American efforts could be complimentary to, not competitive with, those of China, he said at the Singapore conclave. Gates listed the areas where China and America share security interests, such as terrorism, proliferation, and energy security. But he left one major issue off the list—the construction of large warships.
This is particularly disturbing in light of the remarks made by Admiral Timothy Keating in Beijing last month. Keating, the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said he found his host country’s ambition to build an aircraft carrier “understandable.” After talks with China’s navy chief, Admiral Wu Shengli, Keating offered to help the Chinese build a carrier “to the degree that they seek and the degree that we’re capable.”
Will the Chinese seek to build a carrier? Without a doubt. They have been contemplating the prospect for decades, going so far as to purchase the hulks of one Australian and three Soviet carriers for purposes of reverse-engineering. Recently, Chinese military representatives have been touring international air shows to find strike planes that can be launched at sea. And the U.S. is, of course, capable of helping them build carriers. The only thing that prevents Keating from handing over the plans to the Nimitz is American legislation: a Tiananmen-era ban on military exports to China, as well as a strict limit, enacted later, on military exchanges.
But why would the U.S. Navy offer to help the Chinese build a carrier? Keating put it very simply: the construction of warships is “not an area where we would want any tension to arise unnecessarily.” The prevailing theory at the highest levels of the Navy, apparently, is that America can avoid problems in the future by placating the Chinese today.
In the course of these discussions, Keating made no mention of the fact that the U.S. Navy has spent much of this decade ignoring a pattern of hostile Chinese conduct. In 2001, the United States reacted to China’s reckless downing of an EP-3 reconnaissance plane and its unjustifiable detention of the crew by apologizing to China—but even that did not satisfy Beijing. In 2002, a Chinese vessel attempted to ram the unarmed USNS Bowditch in international waters. Last October, a Chinese sub surfaced in the middle of the Kitty Hawk carrier group—an unambiguously threatening gesture. Keating, with his latest offers of assistance to Beijing, was merely continuing a failed policy of engagement—and, in doing so, was doubtless taking his cue from those higher up the chain of command.
“As we gain experience in dealing with each other,” Gates said of China in his Singapore speech, “relationships can be forged that will build trust over time.” Unfortunately, our defense secretary has got it all wrong. Our experience in dealing with China over the past decade indicates we should be forging a relationship built on less trust—and on a greater awareness of unavoidable military competition.
Orwell observed a lifetime ago that many pacifist intellectuals have a sneaking sympathy for barbarians, who – if I may borrow from Chris Matthews – send a tingle down their legs. Jews, on the other hand, excite only rage by their attempt to ratify civilized norms that the chatterers deem inauthentic and hypocritical. Were the Jews to actually don swastikas and commence exterminating civilian populations many of the world’s beagle loggers would doubtless discover the charms of natural Zionism and secretly rejoice that the Jews had at last rejoined the Animal Kingdom.
I agree with your point that Israel has always shown remarkable restraint in dealing with terrorists but I would point out that America is doing something very similar along our southern border. We’re being invaded by illegal immigrants, drug dealers, murderers, rapists, child molesters, and worse, and we don’t even protest although we know the Mexican government is complicit in much of the criminal activity.
Exactly right, Frank.
It’s not just Israel that is inficted with the cancer of political correctness; it is the entire West.
And an unspoken premise here is that Third Worlders can never do wrong and the civilized West can never do right — unless it is when the useful idiots in the West formulate shabby pretexts to excuse Third World barbarism.
And why? Because, too many in the West are embarassed with the gap between themselves and the under-devloped (or is it the undevelopable?) and feel guily about the situation. This is like a healthy person thinking that he/she is well only because someone else is sick. Yes, it is absurd & illogical, but it is just such irrationality that is driving the self-hate within the West.
Israel has indeed shown remarkable restraint over the years in the face of serial rocket attacks. Israel deserves scorn for this, not praise. Unprovoked aggression deserves and immediate and overwhelming response. Hamas stabs Israel with a knife? Israel should blast Hamas with a gun. Nothing else will stop the stabbing.
Israel has to protect itself. But let’s face facts that land for peace and democracy do not seem to be working in Gaza. No settlements, autonomy and what do the Israelis get in return, missiles lobbed on Beer Sheeva.
whose sole concern seems to be to force Israel into passivity and toleration of its own citizens’ murder and its own sovereignty’s violation
I don’t care what they do. I just don’t want the U.S. to be paying for it, or arming it, or so be “allied” with it.
Melanie is always right on the nail. Whereas John Hartland can only think of America’s money, even though the same enemies that Israel has are America’s enemies, and I’m sure, even now plotting some devastation on America.
“The evil Satan” includes you Mr Hartland. They won’t save you, if heaven forbid, their “time comes” in spite of you cheering them on.
#4, Right on, sort of.
Poor leadership in Israel since and including Rabin.
Of course, they all cave to American interests, sooner or later, and go along with the American reset of the game board after every stilted, partial vicotry.
America’s Israel policy, handed out to all new State Dept employees, on a a laminated, wallet sized card:
‘We need you to bleed, and, more importantly, to be seen to bleed, by the Arab world. We will shrink you down, over time, and in return for Arab acquiescence to our needs and machinations in the wider middle east, to the smallest size sustainable by the best military technology and diplomatic invention. When the technology improves, we can and will shrink you down further. This will continue until our needs in the middle east are fulfilled. You cannot refuse. By refusing, you will lose the American veto in the UN Security Council. This will subject you crippling sanctions. You will also lose access to critical military spare parts you must have, and you will lose assurance of resupply in the event of war with your neighbors. ‘
I belive even maintenance and grounds maintenace employees get the card.
Citing to Melanie Phillips is the political equivalent of filing a petition for bankuptcy.
Seth Halpern,
Do you have a quote from Orwell? Not that I doubt you, I just would like to read his words on the subject.
Whereas John Hartland can only think of America’s money, even though the same enemies that Israel has are America’s enemies
Israel’s enemies are not our enemies. I have nothing against Iran.
There is nothing virtuous in Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
The longer Israel pursues a course of conciliation, the longer they adhere to this assinine idiocy of a “two state solution,” the longer Israel puts off the only approach that will finally work, the longer the carnage will continue.
For 50 years it has gone on, and for another 50 shall it run.
Pray tell where is the virtue in this?
It is time for the Palestinians to return to the greater Arab fold from which they came.
Think of it as the proper and ironic conclusion to the endless Palestinian push for a right to return.
And so they shall return, return to the very bosum of mohammadenism, return to the point of origination.
Send the Palestinians to the Hejaz, and so have done with it, with them, with the whole drama.
And let the real disputants step forward.
For the Palestinians have for far too long been allowed to function as proxy participants. Whereas the real party in interest are the Arabs, for whom mohammedinism has always been a platform for racial supremacism.
“Israel’s enemies are not our enemies. I have nothing against Iran.”
Yes, but they have something against you because of what you hold dear.
So, what will it be John? Do you fight, run or abandon what makes you, you?
“Listen, and understand. That Terminator (Islamic fanatics) is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. .” Kyle Reese, John Connor’s father, from the first Terminator movie.
Yes, but they have something against you because of what you hold dear. So, what will it be John? Do you fight, run or abandon what makes you, you?
The U.S. has no beef with the Iranians. That’s Israel’s problem. Fact is, Israel has never gotten along with anyone.
“The moral inversion in the west is so egregious, so monstrous, that the better Israel is shown to behave the worse the vilification that rains down upon it.” [EMPHASIS MINE]
“Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.” Newton’s First Law of Motion
Thus the west’s moral inversion will not be corrected until a large enough ‘external force’ is applied to the societies of the west. Nuclear or biological attacks of sufficient severity are obviously the most likely correctives…in fact, nothing less will do and the present policies of the west are perfectly correlated to produce just such an eventuality.
It’s depressingly predictable, exactly like a traditional Japanese Kabuki play.
Thus the west’s moral inversion will not be corrected until a large enough ‘external force’ is applied to the societies of the west. Nuclear or biological attacks of sufficient severity are obviously the most likely correctives…in fact, nothing less will do and the present policies of the west are perfectly correlated to produce just such an eventuality.
Uh-oh, sounds like a new mission for the Israeli art students of Urban Moving Systems.
“The U.S. has no beef with the Iranians. That’s Israel’s problem. Fact is, Israel has never gotten along with anyone.”
For discussions sake John, I’ll be happy to grant you the highly questionable assertion that the Israeli’s have never gotten along with anyone. I’ll even grant you that the US has no beef with the Iranians.
I’ll do that because its irrelevant.
The Iranians have a beef with you. Solely because of what you value…
You are part of the Great Satan and ONLY ONE thing will convince them otherwise…
Sell your soul, abandon ALL that you hold to be of value (not just monetary, but ALL that makes you a citizen of the US) and then, after your acceptance of second-class, non-citizen status, (In Islam, the state known as dhimmitude) and they MAY allow you to live, or they may not. For killing you is their right, God says so.
But of course, you’ll already be dead, whether you realize it or not.
“Uh-oh, sounds like a new mission for the Israeli art students of Urban Moving Systems.”
Not quite. It’s the Jihad of the “Islamic Students for the elimination of the West and ALL unbelievers”. And that includes you John and, everyone you hold dear.
Your disbelief is eerily reminiscent of Europe’s Jews in the 1930′s. And that disbelief makes you the natural prey of those wolves that conceal themselves within the disguise of the human form.
Good luck with that.