Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Tom, Tom, Tom, What can I say….. I wanna join the Tom Tom club :O)

Ever since I saw a c-span presentation, I have been hooked to this blog.

Having just finished BFA I just want to comment what a wonderful world vision your thoughts encompass. It’s a bold and vibrant view for sure, yet one so easily attainable.

One of my fave parts in BFA ( one of many) was when you discussed how the addition of Vonnie Mei ling, slowed down the activities of her siblings and the counterpoint with developing countries. It is exactly this type of human observation that really distinguishes as something unique only to your work. It broadly, but deftly, understands the human psyche and how positive improvements are attained.

I give thanks in your giving this Vision to all readers…

Let's hope our strength of will is reflected in our political leaders. Political leaders elected by American citizens capable of understanding this process called globalization and the fact that American cannot just take its ball and go home.
During this time we should give thanks for living in a country capable of incorporating a vastly diverse citizenry. A citizenry that is able to generate vast amounts of genorosity, compassion, and ingenuity. Hopefully we embrace these better qualities of our society and invite all mankind into a life of oppurtinity and optomism.
The old cliche "To those that much has been given, much is expected" seems appropriate today.

Why aren't Babbin and Timperlake getting the message? Is it their age? Their gene pool? Their nationality (Too American?)

Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States
by Jed Babbin; Edward Timperlake

Will the U.S. go to war with China? Yes, say Ed Timperlake and Jed Babbin. Timperlake (a veteran defense analyst) and Babbin (former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense) show in their new book Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States that the Chinese want that war, and think they can win it -- and will keep pushing the United States until it begins. It's shaping up to be a huge struggle for democracy and freedom: between America's commitment to defend Taiwan at any cost and China's increasingly bellicose attempts to expand its commercial and military reach at American expense, war between the U.S. and China is now virtually inevitable. But in Showdown, Babbin and Timperlake offer indispensable strategies and tactics for how the U.S. can and must respond to the Chinese military threat.

http://www.wndbookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6926

That's good, but too late for Iraq -- we could have used them this week.

To the poster of comment #3 above, time to hang around more w/ Tom, and get clearer about the visions and hopes of the Chinese. Old time Pentagon thinking won't do it anymore. Thinkers from all quarters, from Newt Gingrich to Tom are "getting" the Chinese.

For any political party to win an election, the party speaks loudly that China is the enemy will win. If you want to be closer to one another, you create mutual hate or mutual insecurity, just like the Middle East's religious leaders: preach hate. If you do not share someone's hate/negative with another, you will be a boring person to talk with. If everything is beautiful or positive, the conversation not only ended there, but lose your friendship.

dlchan@aol.com (retired psychologist)

Mary, I think you read gringoman wrong. He gets it, but he wonders why Jed Babbin and Edward Timperlake don't get it.

Consider that media reports are correct and China now holds some 1 trillion dollars in US Debt. Let’s assume China seeks to deal a blow to the United States. They don’t make any threats or even fire a shot

They might merely establish a network of different accounts in different banks in many different countries. Large derivative positions are established. These positions are levered to the decline of the dollar. After the positions are established, the selling the trillion dollar debt begins, as does very limited purchases of new debt.

US debt begins to falter. No one knows what’s really happening, but caution rules, and the maturity dates become shorter and shorter. Like NYC in the 1970’s the US becomes unable to issue new debt. The dollar crumbles and the US has no way to pay for imports. The China’s levered derivative positions kick in and China a makes a windfall.

Checkmate China.

So the idea of fighting a war with China with China holding all that US debt is absurd.

The military is the last place to look when dealing with China. MacArthur advised Kennedy four decade’s ago to never get involved in an Asian land war. He said this without knowing that the US could no longer field an armed service of 8 million and now can only field 150,000 people. Imagine the advice that MacArthur might now give Bush.

Tom Barnett knows what to do. Engage China as a long term trusted partner. It’s in both country’s interest. Don’t even hint at any provocation, they have to many people and too much money.

J Canepa.

Checkmate China.

So the idea of fighting a war with China with China holding all that US debt is absurd.

Logic looks sound to me, especially if you mean that the war would be mutually absurd, instead of absurd only for the US.

So let's assume that you mean it would be equally absurd for China to fight a war with US. Now, there is Free Taiwan, known in China as "the renegade province." (Not sure how Pyongyang labels free South Korea.) U.S. vows to defend Taiwan, even from China. What does China do if the U.S. does not take Tom's advice, i.e. does not back off and throw Taiwan to Beijing?

What happens to the logic: 'It's absurd for China to fight the U.S.'?

Or does it really mean something else? 'It's absurd to think that China would have to fight the U.S., since the U.S. would not be absurd enough to force China's hand by protecting Taiwan'

I think you make my point indirectly. Taiwan is the pebble in the Chinese shoe. But China need not fire a shot to get it back. If it sits still, the US is pouring its treasurer into China. It can use the money to buy or develop ordinance and still grow its economy. Over the year then China might just exceed the US in military capability. If and when this happens then can force the return of Taiwan. Or it can stop buying and holding US debt and have huge leverage over the US and get it back in a deal to restore the status quo.

But there is no reason for a military or economic confrontation. We should begin a Hong Kong approach to Taiwan. After decades Taiwan goes back to China. Who then would be hurt enough to warrant a shooting war between two major powers? To their credit, the Brits kept their word with Chinese and honored the lease of Hong Kong. The US can do the same with Taiwan. The Chinese need only to have patience and not screw it up by repressive measures in Hong Kong. They need to sell the Taiwanese that a return to China is in their interest.

To start this negotiation, however, might indicate a weak power position. But his need not be so, if part of a worldwide peace initiative.

This initiative should include Israel, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, with the more sticky Afghanistan and North Korea on the backburner. Peaceful solutions on all of these fronts will be win-win for all involved. The logical point to start this would be the Presidents’ State of the Union speech.

I would love to help write that speech, but, of course, nobody will ask.

Joe Canepa

BTW to add to my prior comment that China has too much money and too many people to fight, the Woodward book, State of Denial, relates a conversation between, David Kay and President Bush. VP Cheney, C. Rice, and Andy Card. Card asks Kay which country has the best intelligence service. Kay replies China. So China may be too smart, too populated and too rich to be a military opponent.

J Canepa.

You make sound globalist points. It's all very rational. The future may even look something like that. I'll just add that one can never write off the unexpected or unpredictable, i.e. the prospect of the Meistergrinch. I seem to recall, for example, that WW I was not supposed to happen. Nobody really wanted it. It didn't make sense for anyone, not on that scale. And yet, one little thing led to another---and that was long before the era when a button can unleash holocaust, not to mention the fact that sooner, rather than later, as part of our new rapidly expanding globalism, even religious fanatics and other despots will have access to buttons.