4 ms·
Hanania's assessment is dangerously misguided. Why? Because there is no universe in which China's actions the past 10 years cannot be viewed as serious threat t
by howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Hanania's assessment is dangerously misguided. Why? Because there is no universe in which China's actions the past 10 years cannot be viewed as serious threat to the sovereignty of its neighbors and US interests abroad and at home. Not that China's rise should (or can be) stopped, rather that a counterbalance is a must - and only a US led alliance can achieve this. Similarly, the objectives of the radical Islamists had to be opposed, and should've been addressed prior to 9/11. Several state actors were/are using sponsorship of terrorism as a means of advancing their agendas, and the US had to act (though Iraq I view as an epic failure).
But MOST importantly, is what the world would have looked like if the US had done nothing instead of engaging in the 'war on terror', the 'cold war', the Korean War, the war in Vietnam, Greneda, Panama, WWII, or WWI; and what the world would look like if the US disengaged from opposing Russia's ambitions in Europe & the Artic, or China's ambitions in the SCS.
US foreign policy is often poorly executed, totally subject to prevailing political winds, and is compromised by US business. I agree with all three of those points by Hanania. The problem is our expectations are too high given the limitations of a liberal democracy, short election cycles & the inescapable fact that the 'enemy' always gets a vote.
- civilized 5y agoI don't understand your point. What do you think the US should be doing about China? How do you even know Hanania disagrees with you on China, or on the need to respond to Islamist terrorism? Why are you in such a rush to label Hanania "dangerously misguided" when it's not even clear you disagree? Is your position that we have to choose between complete non-interventionism and the hyperactive, incoherent, and sometimes incredibly harmful and unjust policy the US has actually pursued?
- mercy_dude 5y ago> Because there is no universe in which China's actions the past 10 years cannot be viewed as serious threat to the sovereignty of its neighbors and US interests abroad and at home. Not that China's rise should (or can be) stopped, rather that a counterbalance is a must - and only a US led alliance can achieve this. And who helped create the China that it is today? NAFTA and entry to WTO set the stage while endless pandering to CCP to cater to cheap Chinese sweat labor and market by US companies to maximize the shareholders return in return of endless IP theft on the back of US working class was ubiquitous. Hell even when the former president was trying a trade tarriff with China, many politicians across the board opposed not because it was wrong but because the corporations that wrote them cheques were not happy. Oh but we are told China will soon turn into democracy by policy day dreamers, except it hasn’t happened in 30yrs and in all likelihood won’t happen. You could argue the same thing with war on terror - rise of Bin Laden, rise of ISIS out of vacuums from Iraq war and Libya. It was US foreign policy that helped create these monsters. You give wrong guys weapons and training expecting them to not to turn their back on? How many times do we have to learn this? Here is one question: name one US foreign policy that has served us well in last 20yrs. Answer is none.
- antattack 5y agoIf China was such a big threat why would USA made itself so dependent on it? Normally we don't trade with countries we consider our enemies. Fear of China's growing influence is a new construct.
- civilized 5y agoWatching Hillary Clinton, the "most qualified presidential candidate in history", belatedly turn hawk on China has been one of the dark humor events of the past decade (and there's been no shortage of competitors). She has the remarkable ability to continue being wrong no matter how often she changes her mind.