Who's Paying for our Patriotism?

[Raiders Army]

Very good read:

Who's Paying For Our Patriotism?

President Bush assures us that the ongoing twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are worth the sacrifices they entail. Editorialists around the nation agree and say that a steadfast American public was willing to stay the course.

Should anyone be surprised by this national resolve, given that these wars visit no sacrifice of any sort -- neither blood nor angst nor taxes -- on well over 95 percent of the American people?

At most, 500,000 American troops are at risk of being deployed to these war theaters at some time. Assume that for each of them some 20 members of the wider family sweat with fear when they hear that a helicopter crashed in Afghanistan or that X number of soldiers or Marines were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq. It implies that no more than 10 million Americans have any real emotional connection to these wars.

The administration and Congress have gone to extraordinary lengths to insulate voters from the money cost of the wars -- to the point even of excluding outlays for them from the regular budget process. Furthermore, they have financed the wars not with taxes but by borrowing abroad.

The strategic shielding of most voters from any emotional or financial sacrifice for these wars cannot but trigger the analogue of what is called "moral hazard" in the context of health insurance, a field in which I've done a lot of scholarly work. There, moral hazard refers to the tendency of well-insured patients to use health care with complete indifference to the cost they visit on others. It has prompted President Bush to advocate health insurance with very high deductibles. But if all but a handful of Americans are completely insulated against the emotional -- and financial -- cost of war, is it not natural to suspect moral hazard will be at work in that context as well?

A policymaking elite whose families and purses are shielded from the sacrifices war entails may rush into it hastily and ill prepared, as surely was the case of the Iraq war. Moral hazard in this context can explain why a nation that once built a Liberty Ship every two weeks and thousands of newly designed airplanes in the span of a few years now takes years merely to properly arm and armor its troops with conventional equipment. Moral hazard can explain why, in wartime, the TV anchors on the morning and evening shows barely make time to report on the wars, lest the reports displace the silly banter with which they seek to humor their viewers. Do they ever wonder how military families with loved ones in the fray might feel after hearing ever so briefly of mayhem in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Moral hazard also can explain why the general public is so noticeably indifferent to the plight of our troops and their families. To be sure, we paste cheap magnetic ribbons on our cars to proclaim our support for the troops. But at the same time, we allow families of reservists and National Guard members to slide into deep financial distress as their loved ones stand tall for us on lethal battlefields and the family is deprived of these troops' typically higher civilian salaries. We offer a pittance in disability pay to seriously wounded soldiers who have not served the full 20 years that entitles them to a regular pension. And our legislative representatives make a disgraceful spectacle of themselves bickering over a mere $1 billion or so in added health care spending by the Department of Veterans Affairs -- in a nation with a $13 trillion economy!

Last year kind-hearted folks in New Jersey collected $12,000 at a pancake feed to help stock pantries for financially hard-pressed families of the National Guard. Food pantries for American military families? The state of Illinois now allows taxpayers to donate their tax refunds to such families. For the entire year 2004, slightly more than $400,000 was collected in this way, or 3 cents per capita. It is the equivalent of about 100,000 cups of Starbucks coffee. With a similar program Rhode Island collected about 1 cent per capita. Is this what we mean by "supporting our troops"?

When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: "Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.

Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?

The writer is James Madison professor of political economy at Princeton University.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=hcmodule

[Anthony]

i agree with this.

one thing i hate is when people speak on my behalf. i hate it when the president or any high official is like "the Americans are firm in their resolve and we're prepared to stay the course, blah blah blah". what? i don't want to stay the course - i think we should leave those ungreatful people to their own devices. they want to be ruled. i don't want people with their entire lives ahead of them dying on their behalf.

so i totally agree with the write when he says "At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?" - exactly...if the Bush Twins aren't fighting in Iraq then what sacrifice if the president making? it's very easy to make big proclmations and such when others will fight in your stead.

[flere-imsaho]

Similar thoughts occurred to me the other night when Matt Clement was hit in the head by a baseball while pitching for the Boston Red Sox.

A horrific accident, to be sure, and I know we're all glad he recovered consciousness. However, even if it ends his career, Matt will be well taken care of, with the millions of dollars he's earned playing a game.

Meanwhile, of course, thousands upon thousands of young Americans are returning from Iraq & Afghanistan with even worse physical injuries, to say nothing of the emotional and mental costs. Unlike Clement, the vast majority of these veterans will have to continue to work for a living, once they overcome their injuries. And they'll only overcome their injuries with the help of the Veterans Administration, an organization so ridiculously mismanaged that its director had to come before Congress last month to plead for at least $1 billion for the current fiscal year to make up a shortfall in its budget.

And those are the lucky ones. If you aren't "Active" troops, i.e. Reservists or Guard soldiers, you'll have to fight to keep your "Active" status which entitles you to care from the VA. You'll have to fight delays and bureaucratic red tape that makes your average HMO look like a walk in the park.

But we aren't told these stories. Instead we want to hear about what happened in Aruba or the latest with Tom and Katie. The populace of this country does not know of nor understand the cost of these wars, and that trivializes the sacrifice of our brave men & women who are serving this very country.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

so i totally agree with the write when he says "At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?" - exactly...if the Bush Twins aren't fighting in Iraq then what sacrifice if the president making? it's very easy to make big proclmations and such when others will fight in your stead.

Every time I hear almost any member of this administration talk about "sacrifice" or that "serving your country is the most honorable thing you can do", I remember that virtually none of them did so, and sometimes went to great lengths to avoid doing so. Cowards, the lot of them.

[cartman]

That $1.5 billion slipped in at the last minute for the energy bill would have gone a long way towards helping the VA.

[Anthony]

i agree - great comparison to the Clement incident, flere.

i don't see why anyone would want to serve in the army. rather than dangle the "threat" of possibly needing the draft to stock our forces, why don't they make it beneficial for those serving? what sacrifice is TO making by playing football? what sacrifice does Sean Penn make when he bashes the country that allows him to make millions?

people in the armed forces get the short end of the sick, i'm all for any president that addresses this country's shortcomings when it comes to properly compensating our troops.

[Klinglerware]

I find this interesting from the economic angle: the administration is hell bent on paying for the war via borrowing. Considering that much of the debt incurred is now being bought up and held by the Chinese, who may wind up being our most significant rival in the coming century--this may or may not be a sound fiscal or strategic policy on our part...

[Anthony]

there will be a massive war with China within the next 3 decades, if not significantly sooner.

all the little bits and pieces are slowly being aligned so that war is going to be unavoidable. the first warning shot was fired by the US voting to shoot down China's bid to have a state backed Chinese business purchase a California oil company. China's bid was significantly higher than what competing american companies could offer, and i watched on CSPAN (while i was in Vegas, no less) Congressman after Congressman (save for one or two) say how even though we operate in a free market we can't allow foreign governments to buy such valuable commodities.

anyway, we're gonna go to war with China, the writing is on the wall.

[Anthony]

here ya go, all moving into place. this is gonna get messy. this is how it starts:

http://www.washtimes.com/business/20...4538-1761r.htm

[Anthony]

here's one last thing, from another source, in case you're interested:

China National Offshore Oil Corporation presumably chose the codename "Operation Bao Chuan" for its Unocal offer to conjure up national pride in its bid to buy America's ninth largest oil company. For bao chuan were the huge treasure ships that traveled across the Indian Ocean to Africa in the early 1400s, and played a crucial role in spreading Chinese influence overseas.

Now the Chinese government-owned company is trying to perform a similar feat by purchasing a vital strategic asset -- unless the U.S. Treasury-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (Cfius) wakes up to the threat this poses to American national security and blocks Cnooc's bid.

That's certainly what Beijing would do if the tables were turned. China has always treated energy matters as issues of national security and would never dream of allowing foreigners to control a Chinese offshore oil company. While Cnooc and Beijing's two other oil giants list minority stakes on international bourses, foreign investors are not allowed any significant say in corporate governance and majority control remains firmly in Chinese government hands.

Western oil companies are kept on a short leash when they operate in China. While reporting on South China's economy for the U.S. Consulate in Guangzhou 15 years ago, I witnessed how Cnooc exercised tight control over joint ventures with foreign oil companies to develop China's offshore fields. The foreign partners generally assumed all the risk and responsibility in return for a minority stake that ensured Cnooc maintained a controlling interest in every venture. All the foreign companies involved had to put up with Chinese participation in every aspect of exploration, surveying, mapping and drilling. Half the production crews were Chinese "in training," and a party commissar oversaw operations.

At that time, Beijing posed no military threat. In the early 1990s, China's navy was at least three decades behind the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Now the gap has shrunk to a decade -- perhaps even less. Last November, a nuclear-powered Chinese Han-class submarine was spotted carrying out a reconnaissance of the U.S. base in Guam -- a first for the noisy Chinese Han subs. As China's nuclear submarine fleet is augmented this year with quieter Type 093 and 094 class boats, the People's Liberation Navy will find it easier to probe American coastal defenses on extended underwater endurance missions.

In allowing a Chinese-government owned entity to purchase Unocal, the U.S. will be handing Beijing an asset of potentially strategic significance if it ever came to a military conflict. The California oil company operates 10 platforms in Alaska's Cook Inlet, the bay governing access to Anchorage -- and Elmendorf Air Force Base. Cook Inlet is also home to the Kodiak Island Launch Center, and both facilities are key to the National Ballistic Missile Defense system. In addition, Unocal's deep-sea exploration platforms in the Gulf of Mexico provide an ideal vantage point for observing activity in the submarine yards of Pascagoula, Mississippi, and the U.S. Navy's facilities of Galveston, Texas.

Cnooc insists that its bid is motivated solely by commercial considerations. But the reservations of its own nonexecutive directors, who blocked its earlier attempt to make a bid for Unocal in April, tell a different story. According to The Wall Street Journal, nonexecutive director Kenneth Courtis opposed as excessive the then proposed offer of $16.7 billion. That is substantially less than the $18.5 billion bid that Cnooc finally put forward last week (and which swells to $19.6 billion if other attendant costs are included, such as half-billion dollar fee that Cnooc is obliged to pay Unocal's existing suitor Chevron Texaco for its eleventh-hour interference).

In the end, it was not the nonexecutive directors who took last week's decision to go ahead (Indeed Mr. Courtis reportedly recused himself to avoid a conflict of interest with his employers at Goldman Sachs, who are advising Cnooc on the bid). Rather it was Cnooc's directors, representing the Chinese government's 71% ownership of the company, who chose to go ahead with a cash bid equivalent to 90% of the company's market capitalization. One which will require Cnooc to borrow $16 billion from its parent company, Chinese banks and through Cnooc bond sales, all of which would have to be guaranteed by the Chinese government. These men obviously have other than economic interests in mind. So one can sympathize with Chevron vice Chairman Peter Robertson when he complained last Friday, "clearly, this is not a commercial competition, we are competing with the Chinese government."

A Chinese takeover of Unocal's holdings in Thailand, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh would hasten the day when the entire region drifts into China's orbit. If the Bush administration quietly acquiesces, the unintended message to Southeast Asia will be that America is on the wane here. And Cnooc's acquisition of Unocal's Azerbaijan operations will give Beijing more influence in Central Asia.

Western democracies are ill-equipped to deal with long-term strategic and economic challenges from centrally-controlled but market-oriented dictatorships in the post-Soviet era. The only tool left in Washington is the Cfius, which must review Cnooc's "treasure ship" bid for Unocal to determine whether it threatens national security. It could simply require a Chinese-owned Unocal to divest itself of any assets in the U.S. But ideally Cfius's members will also consider the long-term strategic erosion of America's global position posed by "Operation Treasure Ship" -- and reject Cnooc's bid altogether.

messy, messy, this is gonna get.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4316

[WSUCougar]

Some U.S. officials have said they are uncomfortable with the notion of one of the nation's major energy suppliers falling under the [70% Chinese-government owned] company's control.

Gee, ya think?

[Klinglerware]

Leaving the CNOOC bid aside, China already is having an effect on the world economy because of oil. Much of the increase in the price of oil is driven by increased Chinese demand.

I read somewhere that if the Chinese consumed oil on the same level as America does, there would be no oil left in the world. Chinese consumption is rapidly growing--so don't expect the price of gas to go down anytime soon. Much of the CNOOC bid really is driven by economic, rather than overt strategic, imperatives (though they are obviously both intertwined)--they will go after other companies if the UNOCAL bid falls through.

Competition for oil will be a big issue in the coming decades: the United States has never faced a competitor before that could potentially consume more natural resources than the US. These resources are finite, so who knows what will happen as China continues to develop...

[Crapshoot]

Roffle. Americans have been investing and buying in China for quite some time now - that's capitalism. The people who object to this deal on national security paranoia or what not are selective interpreters of capitalism. The decision is one UNOCAL's shareholders should make - not some idiotic political trying to get in his daily Sino-bashing.

[Anthony]

if anyone is interested in this topic (China's growing prominence and what it means to the USA), i read this very interesting book called China, Inc.Things are changing in the world, and China is at the forefront. you'll see the Sino-American relationship in a different light after reading this.

i scrolled down that link and found the next book i'm gonna read, it sounds like it's about something that concerns me - the growing tension between China and America, the 800 lbs gorilla in the room neither side wants to admit is there. China - The Gathering Threat. according to the brief synopsis of that book we're roughly 4 years away from war w/ China. i don't necessarily believe *that*, but it's imminent, it's a little dot on the horizon.

[I. J. Reilly]

[QUOTE- The Gathering Threat[/url]. according to the brief synopsis of that book we're roughly 4 years away from war w/ China. i don't necessarily believe *that*, but it's imminent, it's a little dot on the horizon.[/quote]
That's absurd. There is no way that a shooting war starts with China over protectionism. I think it’s safe to say that both sides expect little else from each other, or from every other modern country in the world.

As for all those congressman prattling on about the evil Chinese trying to corner the world supply of oil, I’m sure Chinese officials laugh it off the same way that most of us do. It’s not exactly a secret that House virtually floats on populism heading into midterm elections.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Roffle. Americans have been investing and buying in China for quite some time now - that's capitalism. The people who object to this deal on national security paranoia or what not are selective interpreters of capitalism. The decision is one UNOCAL's shareholders should make - not some idiotic political trying to get in his daily Sino-bashing.

The congressional politicos' criticisms of the CNOOC bid certainly seems like Sino-bashing. But the potential for strategic competition (though not necessarily war) remains a very real possibility. China is starting to exert very real influence on the global economy and is beginning to expend political capital in the pacific. Also in the mix (virtually unreported here in the US but a big deal abroad): the Russians and Chinese signed a strategic cooperation pact last month aimed at establishing a counter-weight against American strategic influence, a significant development between two countries whose diplomatic relations have been traditionally frosty.

Nations will almost always act in their self interest--I am not bashing the Chinese, they will do what they will have to do, just like any other country. But in the context of the American interest, it is surprising that we do not talk about this or debate this more. I don't pretend to know what the nature of our relationship to the Chinese will be in 20 years, but I really do believe that our "war on terrorism" is a potentially draining sideshow that diverts our attention from other strategic concerns--several of which may eventually have more of an effect on our strategic and economic position than terrorism...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Roffle. Americans have been investing and buying in China for quite some time now - that's capitalism. The people who object to this deal on national security paranoia or what not are selective interpreters of capitalism. The decision is one UNOCAL's shareholders should make - not some idiotic political trying to get in his daily Sino-bashing.

There's an awfully big difference between Coke, Pepsi, or Microsoft doing business in China and a company owned by the Chinese government buying an American oil company.

[Huckleberry]

I think the word awfully understates the difference dramatically.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

There's an awfully big difference between Coke, Pepsi, or Microsoft doing business in China and a company owned by the Chinese government buying an American oil company.

I’m not sure I agree with that. The strategic value of UnoCal is hardly certain. How would the Chinese have used this asset against America? If they converted to producing just for their local markets, it would remove oil from the world market but also the second biggest buyer of oil would be removed, a zero net affect.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

And those are the lucky ones. If you aren't "Active" troops, i.e. Reservists or Guard soldiers, you'll have to fight to keep your "Active" status which entitles you to care from the VA. You'll have to fight delays and bureaucratic red tape that makes your average HMO look like a walk in the park.

While I agree with most of your post, this part isn't true. The military is obligated to release National Guard or Reservists from Active Duty after they are brought to the medical condition to which they came to Active Duty. Those soldiers are placed in a Medical Hold status. Currently, we have quite a few National Guard soldiers on Medical Hold status at West Point. Some of them have been here for over a year, getting the care they need while still drawing an Active Duty paycheck. What do they do while they're here? Glad you asked. They do admin duties or assist the rest of the installation, freeing up the rest of the soldiers to do other work. They also go through rehabilitation.

The argument could be made that NG soldiers who lose a limb cannot get it replaced. Those situations and ones where the soldiers have received "maximum therapeutic benefit" are ones that I have little knowledge of. I assume that the VA will take care of them, but they have an Inspector General for that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Roffle. Americans have been investing and buying in China for quite some time now - that's capitalism. The people who object to this deal on national security paranoia or what not are selective interpreters of capitalism. The decision is one UNOCAL's shareholders should make - not some idiotic political trying to get in his daily Sino-bashing.

Bingo. We say we uphold capitalism. Let's not pussy foot around the issue then. Let the Chinese buy out the company if the shareholders desire it so, or stop claiming our defender of free markets rhetoric.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Bingo. We say we uphold capitalism. Let's not pussy foot around the issue then. Let the Chinese buy out the company if the shareholders desire it so, or stop claiming our defender of free markets rhetoric.

you're incorrect though. this is not a chinese company many are worried about.

this is a chinese company, 70% of which is owned by the Chinese government. a free market isn't free when US companies have to compete with the bottomless pits of cash that entire governments can pony up.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

there will be a massive war with China within the next 3 decades, if not significantly sooner.

all the little bits and pieces are slowly being aligned so that war is going to be unavoidable. the first warning shot was fired by the US voting to shoot down China's bid to have a state backed Chinese business purchase a California oil company. China's bid was significantly higher than what competing american companies could offer, and i watched on CSPAN (while i was in Vegas, no less) Congressman after Congressman (save for one or two) say how even though we operate in a free market we can't allow foreign governments to buy such valuable commodities.

anyway, we're gonna go to war with China, the writing is on the wall.

I say before the decade is out. Its amazing how weve been sleeping with the enemy for years now and the govt. seems to let it happen. Ih well looks like its time to learn to speak Cantonese.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

While I agree with most of your post, this part isn't true. The military is obligated to release National Guard or Reservists from Active Duty after they are brought to the medical condition to which they came to Active Duty. Those soldiers are placed in a Medical Hold status. Currently, we have quite a few National Guard soldiers on Medical Hold status at West Point. Some of them have been here for over a year, getting the care they need while still drawing an Active Duty paycheck. What do they do while they're here? Glad you asked. They do admin duties or assist the rest of the installation, freeing up the rest of the soldiers to do other work. They also go through rehabilitation.

The argument could be made that NG soldiers who lose a limb cannot get it replaced. Those situations and ones where the soldiers have received "maximum therapeutic benefit" are ones that I have little knowledge of. I assume that the VA will take care of them, but they have an Inspector General for that.

I almost got a Med discharge today but decided against it because I dont know whether I cold re join in 6 mos - year. Its for a defective rt. eye.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

There's an awfully big difference between Coke, Pepsi, or Microsoft doing business in China and a company owned by the Chinese government buying an American oil company.

You think so Cam ? From the perspective of the Chinese government and much of the world, there isn't - America, reasonably so, uses its economy as a tool of power projection (and others recognize it as such - ever notice how often Boeing orders follow big conferences ? ). Moreover, what on earth is the US' protectionism (and everyone else's) if not a manifestation of this policy at some level ? For example, a "foreigner" can't own more than 25% of a US airline - that's hardly "capitalism" at its fairest.

Nonetheless, why on earth should the US government get involved, other than for anti-trust reasons ? The rules of the games have been set, and the owners of the assets are the ones who ought to determine this - not knee-jerk protectionist idiots, or politicians who blame China for the US trade deficit (one of most popular, and wrong, cliches of the day).

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

There's an awfully big difference between Coke, Pepsi, or Microsoft doing business in China and a company owned by the Chinese government buying an American oil company.

Dola- the company trades on the stock exchange, and is widely recognized as one of China's best. The Chinese government doesn't have the capital to outspend corporate America.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

The Chinese government doesn't have the capital to outspend corporate America.

Actually, they do. Their foreign reserve funds are estimated in the $700 billion range. And that is increasing by at least $8 billion to $12 billion each month just off of the US trade deficit. That is a positive cash flow. Imagine if they decided to go into deficit spending to get into a financial war with the US?

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by cartman

Actually, they do. Their foreign reserve funds are estimated in the $700 billion range. And that is increasing by at least $8 billion to $12 billion each month just off of the US trade deficit. That is a positive cash flow. Imagine if they decided to go into deficit spending to get into a financial war with the US?

Cartman, the $700 billion is the sum of their total foreign reserves- dollars, euros, yen, etc. Much of the cash flow into China is speculators buying yuan in the hopes of a revaluation - its backed by assets in China. As for the idea that the Chinese are going to get into a fiscal war- why do we assume that they are going to commit economic suicide like this ? The Chinese productivity is one of the main reasons the American consumer is enjoying low prices (low inflation, despite a housing market that acts like a bubble, and quacks like one), and low interest rates- their purchases of American debt for example, are allowing you to borrow freely. The world economic system is intertwined today - the Chinese are not going to destroy their economy to take on America

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Cartman, the $700 billion is the sum of their total foreign reserves- dollars, euros, yen, etc. Much of the cash flow into China is speculators buying yuan in the hopes of a revaluation - its backed by assets in China. As for the idea that the Chinese are going to get into a fiscal war- why do we assume that they are going to commit economic suicide like this ? The Chinese productivity is one of the main reasons the American consumer is enjoying low prices (low inflation, despite a housing market that acts like a bubble, and quacks like one), and low interest rates- their purchases of American debt for example, are allowing you to borrow freely. The world economic system is intertwined today - the Chinese are not going to destroy their economy to take on America

This thread unfortunately had turned into an economic discussion on US v. China, instead of the focus it should be on, the unequal social cost of the war being borne by the lower financial stradii of our country. I suggest we take the financial talk over to the other thread I have created.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by cartman

This thread unfortunately had turned into an economic discussion on US v. China, instead of the focus it should be on, the unequal social cost of the war being borne by the lower financial stradii of our country. I suggest we take the financial talk over to the other thread I have created.

Translation: Damnit this was supposed to be a thread about Class warfare, not economic warefare!

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by cartman

This thread unfortunately had turned into an economic discussion on US v. China, instead of the focus it should be on, the unequal social cost of the war being borne by the lower financial stradii of our country. I suggest we take the financial talk over to the other thread I have created.

Untrue that the article was talking about the unequal social cost of the war. The article was talking about the relative disinterest and disassociation to the war by many people.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Untrue that the article was talking about the unequal social cost of the war. The article was talking about the relative disinterest and disassociation to the war by many people.

That's because most people aren't directly affected, as the article states. A large number of the recruits come from a small slice of the demographic pie.

I think a reason for this is the recruiting angle that has been in use since the end of the draft and the Vietnam War. Instead of looking for soldiers, the marketing push has been to get a free education. The general thinking was that there wouldn't be anymore large scale military conflicts, if anything there would be limited theaters that would last a few months. Any thing big would probably end up in a nuclear conflict anyway. So people signed up expecting to serve a couple of years, then do their one weekend a month and two weeks per year. It was more of a college grant program than anything else.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

While I agree with most of your post, this part isn't true.

You are correct. I confused this with the trouble Guard troops & Reservists have in keeping their military medical benefits (for them & their family) when they're flipped between Active duty and otherwise (and don't have duty-related injuries). I could dig up the story on this, but I'm pretty sure I posted it in a previous thread.

As far as you know, though, does the VA continue to pay for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder treatments, or for similar mental injuries? The anecdotal evidence has seems to point to getting the VA to pay for this to be a bit of a fight for the average soldier.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Translation: Damnit this was supposed to be a thread about Class warfare, not economic warefare!

Well, if we do end up in a military conflict with China, class warfare won't mean a damn thing, we'll all be suiting up, from ages 12 to 85.

[John Galt]

I've never really understood the fears of a war with China. Where would this war occur? China certainly can't attack the U.S. They don't even have a freakin' aircraft carrier. They lack the ability to even project power into most of Southeast Asia. And their military R&D is so far behind the U.S., that they are losing ground (not gaining). Would the U.S. invade China? That would be beyond stupid and make almost no sense.

So, the only way I can see a war with China would be by proxy (ala Korean War). Again, though, the scenarios are few. Some authors have theorized a conflict in the Spratley Islands (which has some more resonance given the U.S.'s prediliction for fighting oil wars). However, the U.S. has no stake in the South China Sea islands and it looks like there is no oil there anyway. Perhaps the only regional scenario for war would be a new Korean conflict. In that case, however, I think the war would have nothing to do with the U.S. and China, but more to do with South and North Korea.

How exactly do people see this war happening? I haven't ever seen any scenario that makes any sense or accounts for the likely state of the Chinese military (which is wholly infantry dependent with no logistical support) over the next 25-50 years.

[Anthony]

it all starts with money.

act 1:
growing tensions mount. US, used to decades-long prominence as the world's last true superpower with tons of global presence, sees a new character enter the act - China - a centuries old isolationist country with the resources to take itself to the forefront of the global stage: millions and millions of citizens (case in point, there are more people living in the Chinese rural east than there are people in the world *combined*), billions in assets, positive cash flow, and foreign investors lining up to throw money at a country whose biggest asset - huge number of citizens and cheap labor - makes it the most attractive market to get into.

act II:
China starts the process. it hosts the 2008 Olympics where it teams up with Russia to pool resources so that it can win more medals (and more gold medals to be specific) than the US. 2008 is the year China plans on reintroducing itself to the world. in 2008 there will be a new player on the world stage. 2008 will be the most important Olympics in world history, as important as the Munich Games that put Nazi Germany against the rest of the world. a huge, ever increasing demand for resources - energy, construction materials and commodities from around the world makes China everyone's favorite friend, as even though they steal technology from your companies that are located in their land and even though their lack of proprietary law enforcement (read: they steal your patents and there's nothing you can do about it) allows them to get away with it - the amount of money to be made in China makes it too valuable a market to turn your back away from. China is hungry for resources, which makes them dependent on other countries, and other countries are greatly dependent on China's huge market.

act III:
China makes a bold move. they make a bid for a US oil company, one of the largest in the world. Congress decides to put national interests first and shoots down China's bid, which is billions upon billions more than what other companies can offer. China decides to play hardball. US starts getting shut out as China looks to other countries to purchase products from. China goes one further and stands up to KMart - with the biggest presence in China and by having nearly 58% of their products made in China is able to severly undercut mom and pop stores around the US. their purchasing power in China is so prominent that they are able to dictate to China how much they will pay for their products, and have contracts that stipulate that prices for those products are to *decrease*, not increase, over time. not being able to buy $50 DVDs anymore, America gets aggravated.

Act IV:
Tensions come to a head. With all the back and forth going on between China and US, China decides to shut out Japan as well. Japan-China relations, held together only by the tiny threads of paper currency, devolves drastically which causes the need for outside intervention (read: USA getting involved). As the US increases its military presence in the Japanese islands, China increases it's presence in Thailand. Many are surprised to see how sophisticated China's arsenal (thanks to German and Russian countries who built such things for China as well as surrendering key technology, all in exchange for the right to invest in China and to be awarded key contracts). So on and so forth, each country escalating its presence each turn, placing restrictions on trade with each other, China determined to inforce its newfound stature as a self proclaimed world power, US intent on curbing the rise of another large Communist country. war. it starts over money.

something like that.

[John Galt]

The problem I still have is that all of that conflates motive and means. I have little doubt that China and U.S. could become enemies. I have little doubt that tensions will increase and there will be motives for conflict. However, China's military sucks ass and isn't improving to make any real difference. And there isn't any logical theater for a war. I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea of a different type of cold war with China (although I still am skeptical), but a hot war just doesn't pass the laugh test for me based upon any reasonable projections. A war between the U.S. and China is virtually impossible and especially doesn't make sense as an economic conflict (it is clearly a lose-lose situation). At worst, this will play out just like the Japan-U.S. conflict that never really happened. Trade wars don't cause hot wars in the modern world. Besides, in 25 years, we will all be clones and drive flying cars, so who will want to fight a war?

[Anthony]

i want to believe you, John Galt. i'm not calling for a war w/ China. just from what i read things are pointing in that direction. but you seem to offer a perfectly reasonable alternative, cuz i certainly prefer a Cold War to a hot one.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by John Galt

I've never really understood the fears of a war with China. Where would this war occur? China certainly can't attack the U.S. They don't even have a freakin' aircraft carrier. They lack the ability to even project power into most of Southeast Asia. And their military R&D is so far behind the U.S., that they are losing ground (not gaining). Would the U.S. invade China? That would be beyond stupid and make almost no sense.

So, the only way I can see a war with China would be by proxy (ala Korean War). Again, though, the scenarios are few. Some authors have theorized a conflict in the Spratley Islands (which has some more resonance given the U.S.'s prediliction for fighting oil wars). However, the U.S. has no stake in the South China Sea islands and it looks like there is no oil there anyway. Perhaps the only regional scenario for war would be a new Korean conflict. In that case, however, I think the war would have nothing to do with the U.S. and China, but more to do with South and North Korea.

How exactly do people see this war happening? I haven't ever seen any scenario that makes any sense or accounts for the likely state of the Chinese military (which is wholly infantry dependent with no logistical support) over the next 25-50 years.

I don't see a military conflict with China anytime soon--it will still take China a couple more decades to develop even regional military power projection, as you state (leaving alone their ICBM capability, which is a defensive deterrent of course).

The point that I was trying to convey is that I do see the realtionship between China and the US as being much more competitive, with the Chinese being less and less acquiesent to US strategy concerns. While the Chinese power capabilities are not there economically, militarily, or politically yet, they are growing rapidly, and the Chinese are starting to feel their way into using the power that they do have. For example, they are very judicious with their foreign aid: they know they don't have the budget to be of influence in most places in the world, but they spend where they get the most bang for the buck and where it serves their interests. The newly independent states of the South Pacific are the prime example: these countries are practically vassal states to the US currently, but the Chinese have been pouring foreign aid there in the past few years to the point that they are now outspending the US in forein aid--there is some concern that these states could "flip" to the Chinese sphere of influence some time in the future.

Again, I don't see war as a result (nuclear deterrence, the lack of adequate military power on both sides)--but I do see strategic competition in the pacific as a possibility. More important is the competition for finite natural resources: China aspires to have an economy as large as the US, but unless alternative or new resources are found, there may not be enough of these resources to sustain the rapid growth. We are already seeing this with petroleum: Chinese demand is driving prices up, this is having an effect in the US and globally.

How this will play out long-term remains to be seen. To speak to Crapshoot's comments--our economies are strongly linked, and the coming decades may very well be marked by a fairly innoucuous mix of "competitive cooperation". But with that being said, even if the Chinese motives are purely introverted, their policies will have effects globally. We ignore a consideration of what these effects may be at our peril.

[JW]

The only likely catalyst for war between China and the US would be Taiwan, imho. I see that possibility as real but very unlikely. However, nations do dumb things, including the US. Any time there is a point of contention and treaty obligations, you have a possibility of conflict.