The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu (
The rising cost in blood and treasure of US President George W. Bush's four year incursion into Iraq has generated among Americans a question rooted in Sun Tzu: Is the cost worth it? Increasing numbers of Americans, including scores of military leaders, seem to think not.
This billowing skepticism suggests a more profound question: Beyond Iraq, have Americans wearied of the burden of worldwide security commitments and deployment of forces that are more extensive than any since the Roman Empire? Are Americans ready to retract them?
In a word, are the Yankees on the verge of going home?
If so, the consequences for Asia alone can hardly be imagined. Would China revive the Middle Kingdom that once dominated East Asia? Would Japan return to the militarism of the 1940s? Would India seek to control South Asia? How would the middle powers -- South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan -- ward off the big boys?
The number of US soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen deployed around the world is imposing.
Fully one-third of the 1.4 million men and women in the armed forces are posted outside the country, either ashore or afloat, in 136 countries.
Their operations range from several sergeants on training missions in Latin America or Africa to 169,000 troops in Iraq and 19,000 in Afghanistan. Some are in Central Asia, which is literally halfway around the world. Moreover, this military empire dates back six decades to the end of World War II.
Today, 69,000 troops are in Germany, 35,000 in Japan, 12,000 in Italy and 11,000 in Britain. In South Korea are 33,000 troops still there 53 years after the Korean War.
The cost in blood has been intense. In South Korea, Vietnam and the smaller skirmishes such as that in Panama since 1945, more than 82,000 US warriors have suffered battle death. More than three times that number have been wounded. The number killed in Iraq has passed 2,050 and continues to climb.
Added to this is the cost in treasure. US taxpayers have been asked for US$450 billion for next year's defense budget, which is more than the combined military spending of China, Japan, France and 10 other nations, according to the CIA.
Against that backdrop, Americans appear to have become impatient with Bush's inability to go beyond platitudes to articulate a visible course with attainable objectives in Iraq.
Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, pointed in a speech to the "growing incantations among Americans that there is no end in sight."
The senator, who lost the Republican presidential nomination to Bush in 2000, asserted: "If we can't retain the support of the American people, we will have lost this war as soundly as if our forces were defeated on the battlefield."
It may be too late to rekindle public support. Not only have political activists such as Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, become more vocal, but defense stalwarts such as Representative John Murtha, a Democrat who was wounded and decorated in Vietnam, have turned against the war.
Murtha, who has been influential on military matters for many years, said in a speech: "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
Among active and retired military officers runs an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the way the war in Iraq has been fought.
While abiding by the tradition of staying out of politics, they say privately they are displeased with the absence of strategy, the lack of sufficient troops, and the failure to mobilize the American people for an all-out struggle.
A new study by the non-partisan Pew Research Center, which is respected for accuracy and balance, suggests the Iraq war has "led to a revival of isolationist sentiment among the general public."
Pew researchers reported that 42 percent of Americans, the highest percentage in 45 years, say the US should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can."
Among those most critical was a curious combination of religious leaders and scientists.
It's not likely than many US clergymen or scientists have read Sun Tzu. If they did, they might agree with another one of his pithy observations: "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS