How We Would Fight China
(E-mail me if you want a copy of the entire article. Otherwise seek The Atlantic out at your local library.)
An interesting article in a recent issue of The Atlantic Monthly. The power playing techniques presented, a US hub spanning to many smaller regional countries and in turn even smaller countries, are quite intriguing. I also found of interest a section, later in the article, about how Europe, if it woke up in time, would fit in to the scenario. For instance, passing mention of Sweden’s neutrality built on a strong navy may be worth looking at in more detail.
The article also discusses NATO’s role, which requires an uptick in it’s abilities in light of incorporating unprepared eastern-bloc states. In general, the article is pretty down on NATO’s current position. It even references a European Union military force, which could result in the NATO being rendered useless, especially if the EU chose to side with China in order to counterbalance American power.
And to temper this a little, see How China Is Changing Global Democracy (search for “How China Is Changing Global Democracy”).
I admit the author takes some jabs at the current administration. However, this article strangely makes me think of the point I believe Michael Moore (don’t laugh) tried to make in “Bowling for Columbine” before he got side-tracked smearing Charlton Heston. It seems that the media’s role in our country has become scaring the populace into submission. You can talk of bias, but here you have the Washington Times and a “left-leaning” monthly magazine both scaring the bejesus out of its readers when in reality a war, even a cold war, with China is far from a foregone conclusion.
For instance, the recent 24-hour news network responses to London were all about how we should be scared shitless because it could happen here. And this happened on all the networks. Really the most (I want to say only, but that’s too strong of a word) left liberal bias response was the BBC’s online published reports, which were nuanced and massaged not to offend lefties.
And to go back to Moore. He’s not defensible. He always taints things he works on, even if they often have noble goals. Yet the media is supposed to challenge the establishment; hold them accountable. The media’s role in our society should be as and advocate for the masses. It should root out lies, deceit and incompetency in the government and big-business. Moore represents that in a poorly executed way, and it used to be prevalent throughout media. To me, journalists provide no value as cheerleaders amplifying a government that has a loud enough voice on its own while completely ignoring those that need someone to speak on their behalf.
An example - ABC was to air a report on the link between mercury (thimerosal) in vaccines and the increase of autism cases from 1 in 2500 to 1 in 168 over the last decade-ish. They yanked the report just before airing with no explanation. It isn’t hard to draw some conclusions.
This autism thing is being reported nearly exclusively by bloggers (I found out at conservative Craig Westover’s blog). It has gotten into print over the years, but it isn’t widely reported in the visual media. This seems like a pretty clear issue that all parties could get behind, but it’s not that way. There was clearly something going on as pharmaceuticals and government regulatory organizations tried to cover it up. But where are the journalists now to finger the abusers of power?