5 ms·

Seems pretty accurate in hindsight: So, there was this enormous distraction that the Islamists created that absorbed our attention, our resources, and it turns

Seems pretty accurate in hindsight: So, there was this enormous distraction that the Islamists created that absorbed our attention, our resources, and it turns out that it was really -- it was a detour. The big issue was the rise of China.

wahern 5y ago
Both North Korea and Iran deftly took advantage of the U.S. being preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan. Frankly, I'm surprised China didn't make more significant moves the past 20 years. Though, I suppose China's economy has changed significantly over the past 20 years, and the U.S. was less preoccupied the second decade than the first, which is when Iran and North Korea made their major nuclear moves. But it's not news that China posed the greater strategic issue. One of Obama's first foreign policy initiatives in 2009 was the "Pivot to Asia". And the need for that pivot had been the consensus opinion of foreign policy analysts for years prior. The U.S. got stuck in the Middle East because it couldn't separate itself from the rhetoric. The Bush Administration (specifically Cheney, et al) did too good a job selling the Iraq War to both the public and the defense industry. Conservatives continually carping over Iran has never helped, either. The irony that Iran would never have pursued nuclear weapons but-for the Iraq invasion--because of the threat the U.S. posed, because it distracted the U.S.--makes the dynamic starkly clear.
- randomopining 5y ago
  The US must've tappped the CCP communications in the 90s... they must've known this was their endgame. I'm surprised that only in the past few years has the China thing really come to the forefront. This should've been in like 1996 wit the taiwan straight incident.
  - nine_k 5y ago
    Maybe they have. But a sliver of truth, even warning about imminent great danger, is too small to overcome the inertia of the political machine. As an example, several weeks before Germany attacked USSR in 1941, multiple Soviet spies warned Moscow about the plans to attack, and approximate dates. But Germany and USSR have officially been friendlies ever since they collectively invaded and divided Poland in 1939, were actively exchanging military technology, food, and various strategic materials. Stalin rejected these reports as provocations. Then Germans nearly won over USSR in like 6 months, but it's a different story, of course, for a different political discourse.
  - wahern 5y ago
    I studied International Affairs in the late 1990s in DC, but I was putting myself through college as a programmer. I once interviewed a Taiwanese lobbyist (IIRC she worked at or at least in concert with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) at the National Press Club as I was researching a paper regarding the futility of using export controls to prevent the transfer of supercomputing technology to China. At the time there was alot of talk about the Cox Report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Report), which was a report written by a Congressional committee that detailed the use of espionage by China to acquire technology in furtherance of their nuclear and other strategic programs. The Cox Report recommended strengthening export controls to stymie the development of super computing technology in China. As a Linux geek who knew all about Beowulf Clusters and the crypto wars, I thought export controls on hardware and software technology were futile and stupid. I had wanted to do the interview to see what the other perspective was, including whether they even appreciated the ongoing revolution in technology, which through open source would be impossible to prevent leaking outside the U.S., not to mention that software would increasingly originate outside the U.S. I don't remember precisely what we discussed, but after sitting down for lunch at the National Press Club with someone either directly or indirectly part of the Taiwanese diplomatic mission, I quickly came to realize that the export controls weren't really about preventing the transfer of technology to China. I was being hopelessly naive and dumb. I mean, yes, I was probably underestimating the friction the controls would cause--it took China many more years than I ever thought it would take to become as proficient as they are now with Western technology systems, though the controls were probably only ever a small part of that. But the push for tightened export controls (a push that succeeded, at least nominally) was fundamentally about orienting national strategic policy. That was particularly true from Taiwan's perspective--it didn't matter if the U.S. could successfully stymie technology transfer to China, but rather that maintaining an ongoing effort to do so was part of the political and social processes for maintaining an alignment of interests between the U.S. and Taiwan. Anyhow, to make a long story short, the U.S. was never oblivious to China's game. But 9/11 and other domestic political dynamics (e.g. 30 years of increasingly partisan politics wherein strategic interests would eventually be turned into "wedge" issues, despite neither side actually having different strategic policies) prevented the U.S. from keeping its eye on the ball. That's not an excuse, just the way it turned out. Every president since Clinton, at the latest, has been keenly aware of the specter of China. In fact, part of bringing China into the WTO was the hope that deeper economic ties would prevent or at least mitigate open hostilities. Alot of people think that was stupid in hindsight, but I think the jury is still out on that one.
potatoman22 5y ago
It seems sort of weird to consider a country improving itself as an issue.
mc32 5y ago
There were a few people who raised alarms --from IP theft, unfair trade (we can impose barriers for you, but you grant us free access), voluntary hollowing out our industry, theft of military secrets, etc. But... most people were dollar eyed like a doe on a dark night with the blinding light from the semi coming at them freezes them in place. We could not extricate ourselves from the "promise billion-man market". And, so here we are now, a great thanks to Nixon, Kissinger and the coup de grace from Clinton with the MFN to WTO.
daqhris 5y ago
From an American perspective, it is understandable that a group of religious fanatics grabed all attention by acts of extreme violence. But, from a non-American perspective, I think that too much resources were needlessly invested by the US to chase a faraway bunch of lunatics. Our attention was purposefully oriented by the USA towards the Middle East for what was unclear and uncertain at the time of invasion. Why not simply take out the top leaders or commanders? Why not stage a coup d'état? Why not put in a place an embargo? Why not sanction the financiers of radicals? The issue with China is they are deadbeat serious about economic growth. Masquerading as communists, speaking out as socialists but deep down thinking like mere capitalists. The historian makes comparison between Soviet Union and PRC that I think are erroneous. Crimea and Taiwan could be compared on the basis of territory size or cultural affinities. But unfortunately, China decided to focus on the Xinjiang region. From there, it borders more than 5 huge countries and the region is the basis for implementing their next decade growth engine i.e. belt and road project. They have more official manpower over there than on the Taiwan borders. They are effectively able to colonize the Uyghur region more than the overpopulated Taiwan island. Why bother making scenarios that China might invade a wealthy nation instead of a lawless region? The terrorists for America were in Middle East; the terrorists for China are not far from that location. Really, China and SE Asia will continue their rise as it's evident that Americans are self-obsessed and lack commitment to long term goals. Interagency fights lead to zero sum games in the federal administration which will then destroy any valuable foreign policy strategy. Let's learn the lesson for goodness' sake. Truly speaking, the US has always been an immigrant country, so growth will certainly come from the new-comers. The issue is that for the last five years, the USA has portrayed itself as the most anti-immigrant land. It's been losing its appeal for talented professionals. Then it's hard for me to agree with a historian who is predicting the future out of thin air with plenty of bias. Most probably, Xi's administration will move to Taiwan... to poach its tech talent pool. Until now, the Chinese media has not yet started beating drums for their army to go hunt ennemies in the South East Asia. Their focus and attention is really elsewhere.

wahern 5y ago

Both North Korea and Iran deftly took advantage of the U.S. being preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan. Frankly, I'm surprised China didn't make more significant moves the past 20 years. Though, I suppose China's economy has changed significantly over the past 20 years, and the U.S. was less preoccupied the second decade than the first, which is when Iran and North Korea made their major nuclear moves. But it's not news that China posed the greater strategic issue. One of Obama's first foreign policy initiatives in 2009 was the "Pivot to Asia". And the need for that pivot had been the consensus opinion of foreign policy analysts for years prior. The U.S. got stuck in the Middle East because it couldn't separate itself from the rhetoric. The Bush Administration (specifically Cheney, et al) did too good a job selling the Iraq War to both the public and the defense industry. Conservatives continually carping over Iran has never helped, either. The irony that Iran would never have pursued nuclear weapons but-for the Iraq invasion--because of the threat the U.S. posed, because it distracted the U.S.--makes the dynamic starkly clear.

randomopining 5y ago
The US must've tappped the CCP communications in the 90s... they must've known this was their endgame. I'm surprised that only in the past few years has the China thing really come to the forefront. This should've been in like 1996 wit the taiwan straight incident.
- nine_k 5y ago
  Maybe they have. But a sliver of truth, even warning about imminent great danger, is too small to overcome the inertia of the political machine. As an example, several weeks before Germany attacked USSR in 1941, multiple Soviet spies warned Moscow about the plans to attack, and approximate dates. But Germany and USSR have officially been friendlies ever since they collectively invaded and divided Poland in 1939, were actively exchanging military technology, food, and various strategic materials. Stalin rejected these reports as provocations. Then Germans nearly won over USSR in like 6 months, but it's a different story, of course, for a different political discourse.
- wahern 5y ago
  I studied International Affairs in the late 1990s in DC, but I was putting myself through college as a programmer. I once interviewed a Taiwanese lobbyist (IIRC she worked at or at least in concert with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office) at the National Press Club as I was researching a paper regarding the futility of using export controls to prevent the transfer of supercomputing technology to China. At the time there was alot of talk about the Cox Report (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cox_Report), which was a report written by a Congressional committee that detailed the use of espionage by China to acquire technology in furtherance of their nuclear and other strategic programs. The Cox Report recommended strengthening export controls to stymie the development of super computing technology in China. As a Linux geek who knew all about Beowulf Clusters and the crypto wars, I thought export controls on hardware and software technology were futile and stupid. I had wanted to do the interview to see what the other perspective was, including whether they even appreciated the ongoing revolution in technology, which through open source would be impossible to prevent leaking outside the U.S., not to mention that software would increasingly originate outside the U.S. I don't remember precisely what we discussed, but after sitting down for lunch at the National Press Club with someone either directly or indirectly part of the Taiwanese diplomatic mission, I quickly came to realize that the export controls weren't really about preventing the transfer of technology to China. I was being hopelessly naive and dumb. I mean, yes, I was probably underestimating the friction the controls would cause--it took China many more years than I ever thought it would take to become as proficient as they are now with Western technology systems, though the controls were probably only ever a small part of that. But the push for tightened export controls (a push that succeeded, at least nominally) was fundamentally about orienting national strategic policy. That was particularly true from Taiwan's perspective--it didn't matter if the U.S. could successfully stymie technology transfer to China, but rather that maintaining an ongoing effort to do so was part of the political and social processes for maintaining an alignment of interests between the U.S. and Taiwan. Anyhow, to make a long story short, the U.S. was never oblivious to China's game. But 9/11 and other domestic political dynamics (e.g. 30 years of increasingly partisan politics wherein strategic interests would eventually be turned into "wedge" issues, despite neither side actually having different strategic policies) prevented the U.S. from keeping its eye on the ball. That's not an excuse, just the way it turned out. Every president since Clinton, at the latest, has been keenly aware of the specter of China. In fact, part of bringing China into the WTO was the hope that deeper economic ties would prevent or at least mitigate open hostilities. Alot of people think that was stupid in hindsight, but I think the jury is still out on that one.

potatoman22 5y ago

It seems sort of weird to consider a country improving itself as an issue.

mc32 5y ago

There were a few people who raised alarms --from IP theft, unfair trade (we can impose barriers for you, but you grant us free access), voluntary hollowing out our industry, theft of military secrets, etc. But... most people were dollar eyed like a doe on a dark night with the blinding light from the semi coming at them freezes them in place. We could not extricate ourselves from the "promise billion-man market". And, so here we are now, a great thanks to Nixon, Kissinger and the coup de grace from Clinton with the MFN to WTO.

daqhris 5y ago

From an American perspective, it is understandable that a group of religious fanatics grabed all attention by acts of extreme violence. But, from a non-American perspective, I think that too much resources were needlessly invested by the US to chase a faraway bunch of lunatics. Our attention was purposefully oriented by the USA towards the Middle East for what was unclear and uncertain at the time of invasion. Why not simply take out the top leaders or commanders? Why not stage a coup d'état? Why not put in a place an embargo? Why not sanction the financiers of radicals? The issue with China is they are deadbeat serious about economic growth. Masquerading as communists, speaking out as socialists but deep down thinking like mere capitalists. The historian makes comparison between Soviet Union and PRC that I think are erroneous. Crimea and Taiwan could be compared on the basis of territory size or cultural affinities. But unfortunately, China decided to focus on the Xinjiang region. From there, it borders more than 5 huge countries and the region is the basis for implementing their next decade growth engine i.e. belt and road project. They have more official manpower over there than on the Taiwan borders. They are effectively able to colonize the Uyghur region more than the overpopulated Taiwan island. Why bother making scenarios that China might invade a wealthy nation instead of a lawless region? The terrorists for America were in Middle East; the terrorists for China are not far from that location. Really, China and SE Asia will continue their rise as it's evident that Americans are self-obsessed and lack commitment to long term goals. Interagency fights lead to zero sum games in the federal administration which will then destroy any valuable foreign policy strategy. Let's learn the lesson for goodness' sake. Truly speaking, the US has always been an immigrant country, so growth will certainly come from the new-comers. The issue is that for the last five years, the USA has portrayed itself as the most anti-immigrant land. It's been losing its appeal for talented professionals. Then it's hard for me to agree with a historian who is predicting the future out of thin air with plenty of bias. Most probably, Xi's administration will move to Taiwan... to poach its tech talent pool. Until now, the Chinese media has not yet started beating drums for their army to go hunt ennemies in the South East Asia. Their focus and attention is really elsewhere.