It does have weaknesses, however. The author saw it as a muliti-state axis, on a level with those we knew in WWII. So did EVERYBODY else. That's what we were used to, and what we all expected. And because those alliances were so weak, so unstructured, our own intelligence failed to comprehend that fighting a war with "terrorism" as the primary weapon, the 21st century method of warfare, the nation-states involved DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE UNITED in the 20th century sense. No one really anticipated that "terrorism" had potentially evolved into an extremely practical method of war against a nation-state like the powerful USA. I think that part is all pretty clear, in retrospect.
All that's needed is a united ideology, and significant numbers of individuals with either money or lives to put up. Hence we have countries like Saudi Arabia, not really united in a New Axis in the 20th century sense, our allies on the political and economic front, but with numbers of very wealthy radicals spreading a poisnonous "faith" through methods not unlike that of the Marxist. In fact it's from the Marxists they learned "Psycho-Politics". This is why it's not at all surprising to see the Chinese moving about in all this, sniffing for a weakness that they can exploit in their "Western Enemy".
So we've seen the first assault, a pretty good effort to economically, psychologically, and even politico-militarily hamstring the United States.
And of course, the author exagerates the notion that the role of the US military has been "promoting socialism" ever since the end of WWII. It's an extension of the Bircher thesis. Still, it's not without logic. Thinking of the carrier as a tool for the expansion of socialism is not unreasonable, if only an unwitting result of providing military support for -- as the author notes -- "welfare systems" that couldn't have afforded to build up on the socialist scheme if we hadn't been providing prop-ups to their military. Whether true or not, it is a logical idea.
Retrospectively, in even greater detail, most people don't realize we fought the Chinese TWICE in the 20th century, but by PROXY. Once to a standstill, and once to what's popularly perceived as a "loss". Both Korea and Viet Nam would not have survived if the Chinese hadn't supplied them with economic, military, and man power.
Down deep, I realize that the reason the US is hated is because we're perceived as the "top dog". And like any dominant animal in the competitive world of nature, being perceived as THE super power carries with it a significant price. Unfortunately, if we faile to be vigilant, the jackals are always there, and today in significant secretive numbers, ready to bring us down. And as we're now learning, with almost rabid fanaticism and dedication.
For these reasons, I thougt this old article had someting to teach us. Even though the author still saw the "axis" in the 20th century sense, he DID comprehend the overall bond these countries share. That bond is the common hatred of the US. And while we were busy with the Clinton administration, these loose psycho-political alliances described by the author as the New Axis HAVE indeed been built up, even if not overtly by the heads of the respective states, but covertly and surriptitiously. The Chinese, after all, was the culture that originated "The Art of War". The rest of us are still trying to shake off our old way of viewing the world, and really comprehend what Tsun Tsu was saying.
