Posted on 01/19/2004 6:19:22 AM PST by Dr. Marten
James Henry
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 19 January 2004
The Chinese military is extremely nationalistic in the worst possible way. There seems to be little doubt that China sees Asia and the Pacific region as its own special sphere of influence, an interest threatened by a powerful American presence.
This is common knowledge in the intelligence community. For example, Al Santoli, an analyst at the American Foreign Policy Council, went public with it several years ago. Clinton was even briefed on the Chinese military's ambitions and nationalistic fervor — and a fat lot of good it did.
As one insider sighed: "He doesn't seem to care." And this is why he allowed so much advanced technology with powerful military applications to casually pass into Chinese hands. Imagine the tragic consequences for Britain if Chamberlain* had allowed its radar technology to be sold to Nazi Germany so he could fatten his political war-chest. And yet, that is exactly what Clinton did.
Despite China's aggressive behavior, Clinton ordered the Pentagon to strengthen contacts with the PLA. This was one helluva a one-way street and was guaranteed to significantly improve the PLA's battlefield tactics and refine its use of technology. And what did Americans get out of it? Don't even think about it. But this has all happened before.
The Treaty of Versailles forced Germany to dismantle its armaments factories. It also limited its army to 100,000 men and stripped it of all heavy weapons, especially tanks. What had been the Imperial German Army was to be transformed by General Hans von Seeckt into the Reichswehr, a lightly armed militia.
However, Seeckt schemed to evade the treaty's conditions and Lenin's Russia was the main means by which he did it. Trotsky was keen on a military deal with Germany that would allow German tank crews, pilots, etc., to train in Russia and German officers to train Russian troops. The Germans would also send in specialists to rebuild Russia's factories for the production of tanks, planes and other military hardware.** These activities were unofficially affirmed by the 1922 Rapallo treaty that culminated in the infamous 1939 Nazi-Soviet pact.
How did they get away with it? Well, in a sense, they did not. Not only did the French know that secret aspects of the treaty were intended to violate the Treaty of Versailles but British intelligence informed the British government of what was going on. Moreover, shortly after the war, Brigadier-General J. H. Morgan warned London that German militarism was as strong as ever. But only the French were prepared to heed the warning, so deep was their fear of a resurgent and unrepentant Germany.
Despite intelligence warnings and palpably false statements by the German government, the British government treated the French as paranoid. Amazing as it will seem to most readers, Germany and Russia's cozy military relationship continued, with the odd squabble, right up to the Nazi attack on Russia. No wonder Stalin was stunned by Hitler's surprise attack.
Strip this sorry story to the bare bones and we find a similar tale unfolded under the Clinton administration. The administration's attitude toward Beijing is strikingly similar to that of Moscow's toward Berlin up to June 22, 1941. It too was a one-way street, with the ironic exception of tank design.
The Germans learnt all they needed to know about the Red Army and its capability. That knowledge almost lost Europe to Nazi barbarism. But the Clinton kindergarten rabble, stuck in its '60s time warp, was unable to comprehend any of this. To their mentality, there is no history, there is only the moment — nothing else counts. This is why it found nothing wrong with selling out to the Chinese military, of making arrangements that endangered national security.
What is there to fear? they asked. Everything, is the answer. Only those ignorant of history, completely untouched by war and severed from all moral moorings could say of powerful tyrants: What is there to fear?
About 2,500 years ago, SunTzu wrote what is probably the world's oldest military manual. Every Chinese officer has studied it. He began with the statement: "The art of war is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin." This is what the likes of Bismarck and Seeckt thought and it is what the Chinese military think for no militaristic state can think otherwise. This is what he said of leaders: "The general (commander in chief) is the bulwark of the state. If the bulwark is complete at all points, the state will be strong. If the bulwark is defective, the state will be weak."
Just try comparing Clinton, or any of the current crop of presidential wannabes, with Truman or Eisenhower. The next quote was definitely written for Democrats: "By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army, he causes restlessness among the troops."
This quote also sums up those 'feminist' fanatics whose idea of sexual equality in the military is to have men and women share the same body bags. Wondering why the Chinese military are keen on cooperation with the Pentagon? Sun Tzu has the answer: "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a 100 battles."
Sun Tzu had some insightful things to say about espionage. "What enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men is foreknowledge." Well, Clinton certainly gave Beijing plenty of that. Though Sun Tzu divided agents into five classes we need only concern ourselves with what he called "inward spies".
These were the officials of an enemy state. Spies were so important to Sun Tzu that he considered no one should be better rewarded. I am not suggesting that Clinton and his kindergarten pals were Chinese agents just because they were liberally rewarded, far from it: only that they have behaved in a way that would classify their actions as those of "inward spies" because their indifference to national security had the same consequences.
*Chamberlain was a naive man and certainly blinded himself to Hitler's nature and real intentions. But despite his errors of judgement, he was always the patriot who genuinely cared about his country.
**The Germans also set up holding companies in a number of countries to manufacture weapons.
We seem to forget that Clinton "loathed the military" and was not interested in maintaining the sovereignty of the United States.
He and those in his administration said as much on many occasions.
They would much rather just continue down the road they are currently on to the point where economically they bring us to a point and we are either unwilling, or not in a position to counter or oppose their dominance in Asia. With our current economic policies, IMHO, we are playing directly into their long-term hands.
Also, you're looking at the possibility of being intercepted, sold out by an underling, or in some way compromised. Being caught sneaking nuclear weapons into the U.S. is a nightmare scenario for anyone contemplating the act. That's a long time to leave those arms on the open seas, knowing that you could be found out at any time.
If you're a terrorist, of course, you wouldn't care, but a national leader has a lot more to lose than his cave complex.
I don't think I would go quite so far as to say he's the greatest traitor in American history, but he certainly deserves a spot in the high pantheon of traitors. I'd say that Tokyo Rose was worse.
Yes.
China doesn't follow treaties, but this was not the issue. It was a nice way on your part to try and change the subject to focus on minutiae and away from the point made concerning reliability of Chinese ICBMs.
I was focusing on lies and exaggeration, not minutae.
The US had had perhaps only slightly more to do with the technological development of the Chinese military than the US had to do with the "arming of Iraq," a favored shibboleth of crazed Leftists.
Of course, one looks at the Iraqi military in 1991 or last year, sees a vast sea of Russian and French equipment, and then asks why that is so if the United States supposedly "armed Iraq."
When you look at the Chinese military you see a vast sea of equipment purchased from Russia or based on Russian designs, with a smattering of electronics and avionics from the Israelis and French.
And I, personally, scratch my head at the various fevered claims about US technology transfer to the Chinese.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.