Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Don’t Call It a 'Defense' Budget
This isn't "defense."
The new budget from the White House will push U.S. military spending well above $2 billion a day.
Foreclosing the future of our country should not be confused with defending it.
"Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors," the New York Times reports this morning (February 2).
It isn't defense to preclude new domestic initiatives for a country that desperately needs them: for healthcare, jobs, green technologies, carbon reduction, housing, education, nutrition, mass transit . . .
"When a nation becomes obsessed with the guns of war, social programs must inevitably suffer," Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out. "We can talk about guns and butter all we want to, but when the guns are there with all of its emphasis you don't even get good oleo. These are facts of life."
At least Lyndon Johnson had a "war on poverty." For a while anyway, till his war on Vietnam destroyed it.
Since then, waving the white flag at widespread poverty -- usually by leaving it unmentioned -- has been a political fact of life in Washington.
Oratory can be nice, but budget numbers tell us where an administration is headed. In 2010, this one is marching up a steep military escalator, under the banner of "defense."
Legitimate defense would cost a mere fraction of this budget.
By autumn, the Pentagon is scheduled to have a total of 100,000 uniformed U.S. troops -- and a comparable number of private contract employees -- in Afghanistan, where the main beneficiaries are the recruiters for Afghan insurgent forces and the profiteers growing even richer under the wing of Karzai-government corruption.
After three decades of frequent carnage and extreme poverty in Afghanistan, a new influx of lethal violence is arriving via the Defense Department. That's the cosmetically named agency in charge of sending U.S. soldiers to endure and inflict unspeakable horrors.
New waves of veterans will return home to struggle with grievous physical and emotional injuries. Without a fundamental change in the nation's direction, they'll be trying to resume their lives in a society ravaged by budget priorities that treat huge military spending as sacrosanct.
"At $744 billion, the military budget -- including military programs outside the Pentagon, such as the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons management -- is a budget of add-ons rather than choices," says Miriam Pemberton at the Institute for Policy Studies. "And it makes the imbalance between spending on military vs. non-military security tools worse."
Of course the corporate profits for military contractors are humongous.
The executive director of the National Priorities Project, Jo Comerford, offers this context: "The Obama administration has handed us the largest Pentagon budget since World War II, not including the $160 billion in war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan."
The word "defense" is inherently self-justifying. But it begs the question: Just what is being defended?
For the United States, an epitaph on the horizon says: "We had to destroy our country in order to defend it."
As new sequences of political horrors unfold, maybe it's a bit too easy for writers and readers of the progressive blogosphere to remain within the politics of online denunciation. Cogent analysis and articulated outrage are necessary but insufficient. The unmet challenge is to organize widely, consistently and effectively -- against the warfare state -- on behalf of humanistic priorities.
In the process, let's be clear. This is not a defense budget. This is a death budget.
- Posted in
154 Comments so far
Show AllAccording to what used to be called 'the morning papers,' the latest line is, "Sorry folks, there is no more money for anything that might better your lives. Check back with us in ten years or so."
"This is not a defense budget."
Correct. This is a budget for imperial dominance.
There's nothing new here. For millennia ruling oligarchies have plundered their nation's resources to establish hegemony on neighboring states. The beneficiaries are the reining plutocrats. The losers are everybody else.
What is new is that this is being done by us...in myth and fable the land of the free, the home of the brave. I'm reminded of the cartoon that appeared the day after JFK was murdered...Lincoln sitting on his monument chair, his elbows on his knees, his face buried in his hands...
"This is a budget for imperial dominance."
Now how do we get those to be dominated to give us the money to finance their destruction?
We have a WAR DEPARTMENT and not a Department of Defense. It was only in the 1950's that we changed the title from it's real puspose which is to make WAR, to the Frank Luntz type ephamisam of "defence". Just goes to show how words can kill.
During the lead-up to the Iraq war I sent an e-mail to the DoD asking when they planned on renaming themselves the Department of Offense.
The response I got was a curt, "There are no plans at this time..." bla-bla-bla. It was kinna humorous.
Mr. Solomon makes a good point, but misses the full impact. The U.S. militarization and its negative effects are global. We need to stop being parochial in our focus. The toxicity of the U.S. militant/consumptive/self-righteous arrogance is clearly the greatest threat to the lives of people worldwide.
When people around the world are asked, "What countries do you fear the most," the majority says the US and China. (David Swanson, in his new book, "Daybreak")
China?
The isolationist Middle Kingdom hasn't invaded anyone in it's multi-thousand year history!
Measuring fear is different than measuring facts. Fear can be fomented out of thin air. I assumed people would answer #1 Us and #2 Iran
Here's a correction:
Question #19: List in order the two nations that Europeans said they considered the most dangerous in a 2006 and 2007 Financial Times survey.
answer: #1 US; #2 China (the awakening dragon?)
Another interesting fact in the same quiz: As measured by "Reporters Without Borders," where does the US rank in terms of press freedom, compared to all other nations in the world?
answer: 41st place!
The answers to the rest of the quiz removes any residual pride in being an American.
in fact. the reason that CHina is ONLY today "emerging" from its "dragon's sleep" - including its communist take-over as a response to western imperialism since the 19the century - is because AFTER the decline of the Tang Dynasty around the 9th century - up to which time china WAS open to the world and was the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth (having both the Land and Maritime versions of the "sild road" to persia and the mediterranean -- plenty of evidence that trade was FURIOUS and very diverse among cultures and regions) -
CHINA's next dynasty chose to "go back to strict confucianism" AND closed china to the world, INTENTIONALLY, for the next 500 hundred years...UNINTERESTED in expanding or even involving itself with the affairs of other nations...china TODAY maintains its allegiance to that thousands years old principle that holds above all "CHINA AS A SOVEREIGN nation" ...or - as the president or premiere said last year:
"WE are not, and never have been interested in global empire...it is not to our interest...what we want is for China to REMAIN china...we will NEVER be a western nation...but Always China".
what they HAVE learned however is: as a chinese general said last year about their military upgrading and buildup:
"WE were defeated by japan and other imperial powers of the west long ago...we will NEVER again permit ourselves to be so easily defeated".
that happened because China, 500 hundred years ago, abandoned its "global trade" openness, and where it actually had the world's LARGEST maritime fleet - actually BURNED that fleet down.
so - in many ways - china is merely picking up from where it left off - 500 hundred years ago - when it was in fact the world's biggest and most powerful economy ...while not having had to go to war with its "rivals" - but instead made TRADE with them - such as Persia, the Arab lands, India, Central Asia, and its own closer neighbors.
I know this because as a filipino, chinese culture is very deep in our culture also , where trade , commerce, cultural mixtures were already centuries old - quite peacefully so - long before western colonists arrived in asia.
i was recently surprised by a close friend of mine..she is thoroughly Chinese...but she was BORN in the philippines, her mother being more "filipina" ..who has a cousin who is thoroughly "filipino"....
this kind of thing is very common throughout asia. so - the "influence" of the "middle kingdom" for all the flaws it certainly can carry - is simply taken for granted in asia as a whole. so long as territorial confines are respected by the chinese. that is why chinese are "everywhere" in asia - as often as not, in enclaves of their own...but THOROUGHLY "domesticated" whereever they live...if in indonesia - they are "indonesian"...if in the philippines, they are "filipino"...etc...and the different cultures have cross influences, back and forth.
that is part of the diversity and complexity of asia - as well - as its clear differences ....but under a magnetic influence that everyone calls "china".
and THIS is what the USA empire and western colonialists NEVER understood or accepted.thinking they could replace it with "the WESTERN way"...never realizing that the Chinese WAY or "asian way" -- is to be able to BEND and ABSORB the strong winds like a bamboo -- or grass...and after all the trees are broken -- spring right back - weathering the storm...and REMAIN
ASIAN.
in the case of China - "remain ALWAYS china".
and CHINA -- in a sense - also MEANS ASIA.
I know we are off-topic but: Tibet? Wars with India?
Korea, too, plus the expansion into what is clearly an empire and not just a country with a common language and culture. Didn't China also attack Vietnam? It is amazing how ignorant some people can be.
It isn't that they are ignorant.
It is that to some people, the US is EVIL, thus any possible rival to, antagonist of, the US MUST be SAINTS.
Thus the willful blindness, the repeated attempts to portray China as a nation that has never been an aggressor, and imperialist.
The Vietnam spent CENTURIES trying to kick the Chinese out. The idea that China has never invaded anyone, is outright propaganda.
It is instructive to compare the relationship of weapons-maker Krupp with the Prussian government of the 19th century with the relationship of our weapons-makers and our government. When Krupp wanted to develop, say, a new cannon he did not get funding from the Prussian government for that development nor was he guaranteed the purchase of even a single cannon by the Prussian government. As a result Krupp had to try to sell his cannon not only to his own government but also to foreign governments some of whom eventually became enemies of Prussia.
Our weapons-makers not only get development funding up-front, they are more or less guaranteed a minimum purchase by our government. That is the essence of a corporate state. If that relationship is not broken our country will go broke eventually.
"Unless miraculous growth, or miraculous political compromises, creates some unforeseen change over the next decade, there is virtually no room for new domestic initiatives for Mr. Obama or his successors,"....
-------------
How does it feel to be drowned in Grover Norquist's filthy bathtub courtesy of the liberal Senator from Lincoln land?
I wonder if we will all be leaving a bathtub ring on Norquist's metaphor?
The only people accusing Obama of being a liberal are "conservatives" who don't believe in conserving anything but the existing power structure.
Chalmers Johnson and others have been writing about this for years. But the truth does not always win out, especially not when it is drowned out by the flood speech of the corporatist malefactors.
Game Changer: China to Open Military Bases Worldwide
"...It has been speculated upon in open-source intelligence circles for years. So, there is little surprise for the rest of the world when it hears of China’s first major foray in its new role as a Superpower.
Although Americans might be surprised. That is, if they even hear about it before the Juarez, Mexico base goes live."...
Full and unedited:
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49797
Cyngus: game-changer in what way? Maybe we'd like to think that China's entry into the Superpower Bowl competition would give us pause in fielding our own "team" that cannot exercise the Pentagon's "full spectrum dominance" if there's another team of the field. However, I can see the real and frightening possibility that China's new imperial aggressivness will put us back on the "Cold War" mentality when, for example, JFK parlayed his election to the presidency on a (questionable) charge that Nixon had allowed a "missile gap" to open between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union. As China is seeking more influence in Latin American and African countries, is this going to fuel the fire of U.S. militarism on these continents a la AFRI-COMM and the Southern Command as if we were (and we are) "commanding" military operation in countries like Colombia and Yemen?
-"As China is seeking more influence in Latin American and African countries, is this going to fuel the fire of U.S. militarism on these continents"
Yup, correct. But China is still spending a TINY fraction of what you you guys spend on defence. And their economy is on the way up. And they have only begun to industrialize/modernize. I see American generals, trying to implement "full spectrum dominance" becoming increasingly desperate.
jlocke...you HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!
the "full spectrum dominance" obsession and acceleration and hurrying up by the USA is a DESPERATE action...to try to "protect" its "unquestioned" superiority "forever"...
but in many ways -- it is already too late.
it is like the shuffling of feet, hurriedly, to escape a FIRE of one's own making that has been burning in ALL corners of the house...that's what the US "full spectrum dominance" empire has begotten.,
the USA Ignited FIRES all over the world...and now it shuffles its feet hurriedly to escape its own burning...but is TRAPPED in it...
eventually - as all empires , its military presence will be kicked out "of those lands".
the world simply will NOT permit the Hegemon to keep going around lighting fires everywhere.
I remember, just a few short years ago, when a 250 billion dollar war (for that is what it is) budget was considered by progressives as insanely inflated. But $745 billion is past insane. Add in the $160 billion for the two MAJOR wars (the little ones will probably require another supplementary spending request) and we are going to spent nearly a TRILLION dollars on "defense" (read "murdering the innocent").
Imagine having another $905 billion to spend on jobs, healthcare, housing relief, infrastructure, education, alternative energy, and fighting pollution.
Instead of smart bombs (which aren't so smart) and drones that kill civilians.
Please, somebody, WAKE ME UP FROM THIS HORRID NIGHTMARE!
Gary
"In time of war the loudest patriots are the greatest profiteers."
-- August Bebel
"Please, somebody, WAKE ME UP FROM THIS HORRID NIGHTMARE!" -- gdgoodman
If only this was a genuine nightmare -- and not reality!
"Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world" -- John Lennon
Why do you writers keep calling it a defense budget? Start calling it what it is, it is an offense budget. There are not any Americans in Afghanistan or Iraq that need to be defended. Do you really believe that Americans are shaking in their boots, because of some poor kid who could not even put his underpants on right? That is pure garbage. However, it is good propaganda to keep the offensive welfare war wagons rolling, rolling, rolling. Keep them welfare wagons rolling.
How can Unka 'Bomb applaud civil rights here while despicably depriving middle-easterners of their INALIENABLE RIGHTS in their OWN LANDS? He and his dupes ARE THE REDCOATS!
"As new sequences of political horrors unfold, maybe it's a bit too easy for writers and readers of the progressive blogosphere to remain within the politics of online denunciation. Cogent analysis and articulated outrage are necessary but insufficient. The unmet challenge is to organize widely, consistently and effectively -- against the warfare state -- on behalf of humanistic priorities."
Yet, if progressives are represented at all, it is usually within the framework of attacking Republicans-not holding Obama accountable. Places like the "Nation" and the elitist, ivory-tower, politically correct intellectual Liberals who are financially secure--who are benefitting from policies favoring wealth, do not connect or rally or even associate with the class that struggles and suffers. It is this elitist class that is enamored with and relates to Obama--and is loathe to organize against him.
Obama betrayed his mandate, so his base is demoralized while the Right assumes the populist momentum.
Until the Left unites against Obama like they opposed Bush, we aren't capable of mobilizing.
"Places like the "Nation" and the elitist, ivory-tower, politically correct intellectual Liberals who are financially secure--who are benefiting from policies favoring wealth, do not connect or rally or even associate with the class that struggles and suffers. It is this elitist class that is enamored with and relates to Obama--and is loathe to organize against him." -- Vern
I agree with you, and I believe that you raise very important issues in your post!
Last week, on Bill Moyers Journal, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a Princeton professor, stated in the interview, "He's [Obama] not going to lose the college professors any time soon. But what I will say is, I think that we are underestimating how much of a battle it is to simply stand still being Barack Obama at this particular moment."
Even on CD, writers continue to apologize for Obama and to make excuses for him, instead of holding him accountable for his policies.
appointments with destiny? who will have the gumption to declare his or her candidacy against obama in the 2012 new hampshire primary? we on the left can complain all we want, but until we can push someone forward and make this man feel pressure from the left, then he's going to persist in his demican/republicrat ways. who'll do it?
Dear Mr. Soloman,
You are one of the delegates who supported Mr. Obama for president, aren't you?
Why all the hand ringing now?
If you have written a mea culpa article on your choice for president, I have not seen it.
You have no credibility with me.
DCH: to err is human, to forgive is divine.
Thank you, but my true point is that Mr. Soloman is part of the ruling elite. His interests and desires are little different from Mr. Obama's.
He is making some noise about the "change we can believe in" candidate, Mr. Obama; but what he is saying is really a camouflage and distraction. Indeed, Mr. Soloman is a liar like the Democratic and Republican parties.
You raise a good point, but we don't live in a democracy. Voting does nothing (although I do vote regularly for symbolic reasons). History has shown time and again that grass-roots civil disobedience is what brings about social change, not voting for corrupt, big-money corporate candidates in a rigged system.
It's a war and death budget Up until 1947 this country had a war department. That's the correct name for it, not defense department. The term "defense department" is Orwellian. We need to start calling things by their right names. This abuse of the language goes a long way to help with the brainwashing people.
Time was when we called things what they really were. War is war, and throwing in the word "defense" doesn't change a thing.
AD
sorry, it just hit me. the bush/cheney military industrial complex so desired war and hatred that they would not ask the american people for any sacrifice after 9/11, other than to spend more money at their malls. it just hit me that they said such a thing because they did not want people to feel any common power, that united we were stronger than the sum of our individual selves. the masses' feeling their own power would set a dangerous precedent for these warmongers. that's explains why they don't want the american people to combine into the single biggest and richest bargaining unit vis a vis the healthcare industry, where united under a single payer plan, we could negotiate downward the prices of every medical service, prescription, or piece of equipment imnaginable. name the major issue, and you can probably think of any number of ways they'd like to divide us. just a few thoughts here that need further irrigation, but i think i'm on to something.
You are definitely on to something. Go with it!
You are definitely on to something!
They have tried to maintain the facade of two opposing parties, one for the people the other for business, both for the American Way of life. In reality, We the People have very little power and the power elite aim to keep it that way. Can't give 'em an inch or they'll get cocky and try to actually have a real democracy!
We need to unite, somehow, with those Republicans on the margins, not the elite but the ones who are as confused as Obama's cheerleaders. When that happens, look out! because, according to poll after poll, most Americans are rather progressive in their beliefs about what government should provide. It's just that the MSM refuses to focus on that. They want us to hate one another!
Remember the anti-health care protesters who screamed: Get your hands off my Medicare!
They were right. The Obama administration is planning on making cuts in Social Security and Medicare. His job is to blow it, a Republican will win and then the Democrats won't be able to stop it - even if they actually wanted to.
They teach this stuff at war college. But when the object of war is profit, there is no such thing as a strategic retreat:
Strategic retreat represents a partial solution to the bitter-end problem. When confronted with a losing situation, the losing party accepts defeat in a way which allows them to preserve as much of their resources, (both moral and physical) as possible. They then set about the task of building their power base so that they can raise the issue more successfully in the future. This may involve the development of efforts to expand their coalition of supporters, define the moral justifications underlying their goals, build enthusiasm among their current supporters, and strengthen their resource base.
Classically, this term refers to military retreats and the regrouping of forces. Since military confrontations are commonly thought of as consisting of a series of battles, it is generally considered to be good planning to retreat before one is completely defeated. The concept applies equally well, however, to political and economic struggles as well as nonviolent direct action. But in these cases people tend not to think in terms of short term battles within long term struggles, so they may be more reluctant to accept one defeat in an effort to win more in the future.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/retreat.htm
-"private contract employees "
The use of this pentagonese term for "mercenary", almost goes unnoticed here.
The war seems endless, but it is just a matter of time when "defense budget" will be called "bankruptcy".
The defense budget needs to be called by its proper name: THE OFFENSIVE WAR BUDGET!
China's defense budget is $12 Billion and they have 2.4 million members in their military.
The US defense budget is $700 billion and we have 1.2 million members in the military.
China is the number one holder of US debt, at $798 Billion.
Why isn't this picture reversed?
add the ratio:
china's 2.2 million soldiers out of 1.3 billion people.
USA's 1.2 million soldiers out of 3 MILLION people.
the budgets are of course skewered towards america's "equal to the rest of the world" budget.
that alone tells you -- which country IS the Militaristic , WAR DRIVEN country. and that 1.2 million is only the STANDING "army" sanctioned by the government...that does NOT include the growing PRIVATE MERCENARY army in the presumable tens upon tens of thousands (in iraq alone, EQUAL in size to the regular army)...
it is NOT china, not russia, not iran.
it is the USA. it also shows...that if a country can RELY in part , a large part, through its economic system, on a BIG army of PRIVATE mercenaries...it IS CULTURAL. it IS an american trait, regardless of what else the "peaceniks" or :"antiwar" folks , even here, in commondreams, say.
AMERICA IS a WAR CULTURE, PERIOD> it is NOT a peace-loving country.
america LOVES war. that's all that will count to the REST of the world. it is not what americans THINK about themselves, it is what america DOES in the world that matters TO the rest of the world.
and if america, being what it is, MAKES WAR...upon others,
to the rest of the world -- IT is the ROGUE NATION par excellence.
it's like a person who fills up his house and every room with guns and ammunition, to "defend" his lone self or his family...and in doing so - harms his neighbors.
over-the-top paranoid "defense"..which is really OFFENSE.
and it is the definition of LUNACY and INSANITY.
The U.S. population is a little over 300 million.
Thank you for the correction -- i was about to correct and edit.,...but the page said "there is an access problem with this page"...with that big yellow Smiley.
i think you get the point. the RATIO of such a large army , plus such a large and growing privatized mercenary army spread all over the world, both in overt and covert wars, supported by the world's largest "defense" budget aimed for OFFENSE all over the globe - out of 300 million people?
what the hell kind of culture and society is that anyway?
were CHINA to INCREASE its defense to ensure its sovereignty - which is and has always been china's TOP priority - to DOUBLE its physical size and its budget - it STILL would be a ratio against 1.3 billion people == DWARFED by the USA's highly unbalanced "defense" . which is nothing of the sort.
as demonstrated by its 700 military installations globally, and REFUSING to leave regions where countries and the majority of populations DON'T want and DON'T NEED the american "protection racket"!
this tells you - recently PROVEN by Obama's "deficit reduction" of domestic spending CUTS - but preserving and even increasing its MILITARISM...that the USA --
IS and has always been a WAR CULTURE.
only in a WAR CULTURE - regardless of what SOME individual americans or groups say otherwise in protest -- can such a MILITARISTIC EMPIRE exist and actually THRIVE.
if that were NOT s0 -- in american history - the american people...so-called "peaceloving" would LONG AGO -- NEVER have allowed such things to grow , or even be planted.
it IS an american TRAIT.
-"were CHINA to INCREASE its defense to ensure its sovereignty "
I think what is worrying the US is China's efforts to neutralize American control of major energy producing areas. For that China only has to spend a fraction of what the US spends, ex: the weapons to sink a multibillion dollar aircraft carrier doesn't cost many billions of dollars. China only needs to get past a certain threshold in military power projection. something recent US adversaries...Iraq,Afghanistan, haven't come close to. China doesn't need to defeat the US, they only need to prevent the US from "dominating" the critical areas.
you are correct of course, since for over a century - the USA 's ENTIRE foreign policy "has always been geared towards gathering as much of the world's resources unto ourselves AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHERS"....General Smedley Butler.
the Chinese have a LONG way to go , in the scheme of nations in history - to be "above and beyond" criticism.
BUT they are LEARNING fast in the modern world in what to AVOID if they are to be perceived and accepted AND maintain their new-found prosperity by basing it on THAT learning -- to at least make the concerted effort to respect the CONCERNS of other nations they do business with.
it is for this reason that , despite many problems of course (including too many chinese citizens trying to take advantage in africa, or dislocation of africans in business..)
china has shown it is WILLING and ready to change course and behavior to seriously sit down with africans to ensure that it is not "just taking" but also leaving behind an Africa that is "self-sustaining and growing in security and prosperity"...if only to show that it is an ALTERNATIVE to the western way of colonizing merely to extract and leave NOTHING to the natives.
THAT is what people everywhere RESENT and rightly so.
recently - the African Forum of nations declared that China, in contrast to "the former colonials of the west and the USA....offers africa CONCRETE sustainable arrangements"....
of COURSE china is looking after ITS own interests...but it has shown it is SENSITIVE to the perception of just being "like the western exploiters"...
and wherever the chinese government can control its private contractors - brings down steep punishments on those that give china a "bad face".
this is similar to what high ministers in argentina and brazil said last year:
"WITH CHINA -- we could REALLY sit down and talk about our concerns in a serious way....which is something that was NEVER POSSIBLE with the americans..who always wanted to dictate to us".
incidentally , it appears that as of this year - China's investments IN the USA have surpassed the USA's investments IN china....
however - because the chinese also are aware of the "suspiciousness" or hostility of the US congress and polity to chinese "designs" and "intents" (exemplified by how the US congress "outlawed" china's having a stake in UNOCAL last year..and china backed away -- which itself is a contradiction of the USA's OWN "free market" dogma -- which as Henry CK LIU of asiatimesonline would define as : "THE USA is really a protectionist nation PRETENDING to be free market")
the chinese are of course busy DIVERSIFYING their portfolios.
in other words -- IF the USA will not accept chinese investments in an already faltering US economy that NEEDS money...while it bleeds itself with its wars....
THEN CHINA simply will go elsewhere.
WHO LOSES? it's the USA.
CHINA still manages to park its money and investments somewhere - especially in emerging markets and countries who would be HAPPY to have it...plus have better relations and contracts -- and leaves the USA out of the loop, by ITS own recalcitrance.
can you just imagine -- if china really threw "caution" to the wind - and due to the USA's provocation of arming Taiwan which IS a breakaway province run by Rightwing Nationalists -- Kuomintang -- that were defeated by the Communist Party decades ago (both of them originating IN the mainland) ..to run out the western imperialists , including the USA...
imagine if china simply unloaded even half of its dollar holdings, scratching it as "cost of doing business"......?
OVERNIGHT - the US MILITARY MACHINE woudl grind to a HALT from the chaos of finance.
this is NOT a "war" the USA will win. neither that, diplomatic war, economic war, OR military war.
i have read reports and blogs - including from many americans who became expatriates in china - to open business, pursue new careers, etc...
that summarize, in a sense:
US investments in china are "diversified IN THE EXTREME" compared to Chinese Investments IN the USA that have to run up against constant obstacles and requirements...
i have heard from people that it is very easy to open up businesses in china - with very little capital...and is a reason many young americans are flocking to china because china needs and wants "western managerial talents"...and offers many incentives .
according to some young americans - fresh out of college:
"IN the USA - i would be working in an office carrying coffee to my superiors...in china -- they are happy to have me and let me shape my business the way I would like...and that's like jumping several tiers up compared to being in New York".
The concerns I have with China, Unfortunately I also have with America...Torture, executions, massive spying, massive corruption at many government levels, propaganda, wage disparity, etc.
I believe in many places, the US has had the sentimental historical edge when it came to how they were seen by the rest of the world. That is changing. Obama gives America a "blip" on the pr radar momentarily, but in the long run, in the race between brutal regimes, USA and China are neck and neck, ...and people, and nations, will go where the money is.