If politics were a TV show, consider this season of “Pacific Antics”. The United States government has consistently sent “dual messages” to China.
On the one hand, diplomatic, military, and other foreign-related policy indicates aggressive defense posture and retaliation preparedness should a Pacific conflict break out. A new military base is under way in the northern most parts of Australia. US military forces are continually rearranged with “China” as the recurring, vague reason. Trade and visa agreements with Pacific nations, including America’s former enemy, Vietnam, won’t exactly make China feel like the biggest tiger in the jungle. And Taiwan President Ma’s recent and unusual visit to the Pope’s inauguration doesn’t resound with the same “go along with China to get along with China” rhetoric of Ma’s first term. In case you didn’t know, Chinese Communists don’t like the Vatican.
On the other hand, US domestic policies seem to invite invasion from China. Domestic police authorities appear to be incompetent—checkpoints on roads in the face of the Federal government suing Arizona for enforcing their own laws, expensive inspection at civilian airports coupled with multiple weapons getting past security despite those security increases, and the hiring of criminals by the TSA, just to to name a few. US fiscal policy—and more recently, lack thereof—demonstrates immature priorities while posing a financial threat to China’s investment in the US government. Mass seizure of firearms while cutting corners of due process is resulting in the disarmament of US coastlines.
Remember, the armed civilians of America have been one of the long-standing reasons why many nations have considered the United States nearly impossible to invade. Taking away civilian guns—for any reason—takes away the “impossibility” of a US invasion. If gun confiscation escalates, we certainly won’t have to worry about school and theater shootings—we’ll too busy fighting the Chinese in our own homes with golf clubs and baseball bats.
“Assault weapons” (whatever THOSE are) scare the Chinese much more than they scare Dianne Feinstein.
A slew of US domestic policies have certainly invited Chinese military action. The onslaught of US military and diplomacy maneuvers in the Pacific have deterred it. What gives? Why the dual message?
If I didn’t know better, I’d say that somewhere, deep within the machinations of the mythical US government “war machine”, ostensibly lurking behind the curtain of Oz and kookery and conspiracy nuts… there may be a complex plan to confuse and anger the Chinese, thus provoking Beijing to strike too soon. It could make sense, from a “strategery” (a George W. Bush word) perspective. If China gets angry they may strike early. If they strike early, we can retaliate early. And then we can win earlier and cancel the debt owed to America’s invaders.
Is such a plan really in effect? Probably not, but it certainly looks as if it is.
What would my advice to China be? Well, we’re not allowed to give any advice to China. We who made good decisions and succeeded through free economics have nothing beneficial to offer a nation that pollutes its natural resources, alienates its neighbors, and can’t keep its own working class satisfied. So, I won’t offer advice…
…but if I were China, I’d leave well enough alone and back off on the military buildup since buildup only justifies conflict. No one would even discuss conflict with China otherwise. Not always, but perhaps in this case, the best solution to peace is peace itself.