China wary of U.S. military moves in Asia-Pacific –

“Why are you containing us?” Cai demanded, according to a U.S. official who was present and described the incident in return for anonymity.

Yes, why are we containing them? As the U.S. turns away from the Middle East and towards South America and ultimately the South Pacific, that phrase “… containing us” has little meaning.

The Chinese has an island-hopping strategy (build, replace, and hold) much like Japan’s during WWII. The difference is, and it’s a big difference, China is using its economy to build its way to Australia, while the Japanese used the force of its military and the resources of its economy to accomplish the same thing.

To contain Japan back to its mainland, the U.S. had to literally dig the Japanese out with bulldozers, after fighting for a foothold in each island beech.

China will not be moved so easily, mainly because they have the bulldozers this time instead of the U.S..

So containment is out of the question. What the U.S. is actually trying to accomplish is a balance of power in the area, and not contain anyone.

If it does come down to war, the U.S. will try to out maneuver China, with its ships and with the Marines aboard those ships.

Out-maneuvering is quite different than containment. In maneuvering, falling back (in this instance to Australia) is just as important as holding and advancing.

Maneuvering also means, and probably more important, moving economies strategically.

Much of the U.S. economy is following China’s form of capitalism. Companies and corporations are structuring themselves into a form of benevolent leadership that are structured authoritarian by nature. This structure is similar to the structure China has formed as maneuvers itself throughout the world.

But just like the U.S. has taken on Chinese form, I also believe that China is forming a Military Industrial Corporate Complex, much like the Military Industrial Congressional Complex of the U.S..

The real question, in all of this maneuvering, can there really be more than one complex in the world?

The Soviet Union could not, and still cannot, create a MICC. Is it mathematically possible for two MICC to exist, when all war is about economic considerations and fought by people with little economic considerations?

The U.S. is the number one economy of the world, while China is number 2, but both exist in the same world, and compete in the same economy.

via China wary of U.S. military moves in Asia-Pacific –

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s