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.
No you were focusing on the use of the term orbit -- a trivial issue, but it served to change the subject and avoid the issue of improved reliability of Chinese ICBM's.
Just as now you are attempting to change the subject to Israel or Russia etc.. from improved reliablity of Chinese missiles and delivery ability that occurred in the 1990's.
He was very much hippiefied and total a 1960s anti war person.
While I am not 100% sure of his exact role, this professor set the tone of the Clinton Admin.
He saw China in all kinds of interesting ways. Among them: China is the next big thing. They have the best economy, they are going to surpass the the US, he used the idiotic vision of 'purchase power parity' to an extent it should never be used...
He also totally took on the victim mentality of China to some extent. Sympathizer wouldn't be a strong enough term.
Of course he thought all this to be morally correct and that the US should atone for its sins in harming China. Seriously. That includes our stance on Taiwan.
Hence we ended up with people like Admiral Pruher, as well as a gas station attendant being named to the AIT in Taiwan.
China was instutionally viewed as a benign place with no bad intentions (on top of supposedly being OUR economic savior). Its all rediculous.
If though you challenged any of their basic assumptions though you would PAY. Yes you would.
The Chinese saw this and took advantage. They knew he wasn't being realistic. Certain events though shook the table regarding the Clinton's. When the 'benign' Beijing starting shooting missiles over Taiwan they probably had a meeting "I thought you said they were harmless???!!!"
The answer to that was probably "its the US's fault...we must have done something....let me go talk to them...."
Clinton's China policy from tip to tail was incoherent and full of problems. BIG problems. The framework which he believed in was flawed from the start.
The thing is the table shaking events didn't take place until relatively later in his Admin. Even after that though they still didn't change anything.
When our businesses started looking at the laws like 'look at this outdated piece of crap... I am NOT going to follow that...' Clintion actually agreed.
He approved so many technology transfers without so much as a security review.
The Clintonites were bound by a non reality based ideology.
On a related note, I found out today that the Independent American Party saw and published my recent article that O posted here on FR:
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.