When it comes to frolicking in negativity, undoubtedly the most prized jewel in the crown of fear mongering is the much heralded inevitable clash between a declining America and rising China.
If this sounds dramatic, that's because it is: the crescendo of fear has been thundering across the pacific for decades now, almost to the point of shutting out all other noise, save for the fiscal escapades of the EU. China holds dollar reserves, China is testing a stealth fighter, China shot down a satellite, America's empire of bases are threatened by Chinese missiles, America will not have enough submariness to fight the Chinese navy (sub gap, SUB GAP!!!), America's East Asian allies are not spending enough on their militaries, oxygen problems have put the F-22 out of commission and threatened America's air supremacy, etc.
If this sounds absurd, that's because it is: "oxygen problems" have clearly compromised the rationality of defence and security experts and put them out of commission. Let's consider this further: what exactly is the fucking point to spending all this time and resources on military hardware that get's limited use to begin with, discounting even how often said hardware suffers 'technical' problems? Furthermore, what is the fucking point to imagining said hardware to defend against imagined threats to security? Lastly, what is the fucking point to having hordes of experts (paid or unpaid) crank out article after article about the constant need to do even MORE against these imagined threats, while the physical deterrents currently in the inventory of most massive military arsenal on Earth collect dust?
Does any of this sound rational?
What's worse, said 'experts' routinely hoodwink the public over the nature of 'threats' for generally one shameless purpose: the general public can scarcely tell a drone apart from a stealth fighter, so how the hell will they understand the need to keep shunting precious financial resources into the construction of more hardware? If they don't really understand the difference between weapon systems underpinning an overall defensive or offensive strategy, then how will know the important difference between building super duper nuclear aircraft carriers vs. diesel submarines?
To be a little more blunt: they won't cut a defence budget if they're unsure of a threat, yet are at least lead to believe that there is at least a threat there to begin with. Just don't ask about the juicy details.
This was recently identified by one of the said 'experts,' correctly pointing out that another 'expect' was engaging in the defence of defence: no more cuts to the defence budget that is. However, the former 'expert' predictably went off on the rails and bemoaned that Asian allies don't do enough for their own defence and will continue to 'free ride' on American power and all the juicy benefits in terms of global security this provides.
I often wonder what colour the sky is in these people's worlds.
The 'expert' claims that the other 'expert' wasn't fearmongering at all and was instead laying out a very rational argument for the continued buttressing of American military dominance in the Asia-Pacific.
Bullshit. As soon as one writes the words 'increasing Chinese military power' or 'Chinese expansionism,' one is engaging in fearmongering. As soon as one writes an overly biased polemic about past 'Chinese military provocations,' one is engaging in fearmongering. As soon as one dares to imagine a potential situation where the P.R.C. and U.S.A. are engaged in warfare, while stressing how unlikely this might be yet still urging that we must still 'hedge' against this possibility by maintaining 'power projection capabilities,' one is engaged in fearmongering.
When one claims that 'long range strike systems, robust battle networks, attack submarines and a sizeable nuclear arsenal' are all essential to American predominance and therefore global security, one is engaged in fearmongering and far worse, justifying the continued need for hierarchical militarized global dominance.
And that is really what this is all about in the end: the inability to imagine a world without some form of hierarchical militarized dominance underpinning everything.
So instead of imaging peace, we get war. Instead of building schools, we get stealth fighters. Instead of cooperation, we get a zero-sum competition with all the major powers caught up in a mad Red Queen arms race to stay top dog. Instead of equality, we get entrenched elitism.
I can stress some good news: the past two decades have unarguably demonstrated that no single power can effectively dominate the world via militarized forms of power without overstretching resources and incurring the wrath of weaker powers, in a curious reversal of the Melian dialogue. However, elites and experts alike do not have appeared to have lost their appetite for negative zero-sum calculus and wanton destruction. It is up to the rest of us to continue to identify and challenge just how absurd some of these ideas are, lest the world as a whole be made to suffer from this 'oxygen problem.'
In other words, there's going to be no drama if we point out just how utterly insane and fucking stupid this whole idea of 'American Primacy vs. Chinese Threat' really is. It's not enough just to be optimistic, we all have to begin imaging alternatives to these silly ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment