Let's be clear about one thing; the American President,
Dwight Eisenhower who knew a thing or two about war and weapons of war – having
been the American general who defeated the Nazis and liberated Europe – did the
right thing when he warned about the growing power of the military-industrial
complex.
He may or may not have been a military historian, and he may
not have been an economic whiz kid, but he did not need to be a historian or an
economist to know something about the relationship that exists between an
absurd military posture and the ruin of nations. All he had to do was read up
just a little about ancient Greece ,
Rome , the Ottoman Empire
and others, to realize that a nation in relative economic decline (compared to
others) will sign its own economic death warrant and military decline if it
tries to expand militarily. Too bad, Eisenhower did not live long enough to see
his view vindicated by the collapse of the old Soviet
Union . He would have said to the Russians, I would have told you
so if I thought you'd listen to me.
The correlated reality is that a rising economic power feels
compelled to embark on a program to arm itself. It will do so in the knowledge
that those who are still more powerful will try to slow down, if not crush, the
economic progress it is making. And so, it will take the view that it is
prudent to arm itself as if buying an insurance policy to protect its gains. In
fact, a rising economic power can do so because to prepare for self-defense –
as opposed to taking offensive action – will only cost it a fraction of the
economic growth it is achieving.
That was the history of rising economic powers such as
Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Japan till they
made the fatal mistake of changing their military posture from defense to
offense and the conquest of other lands. They captured the colonies whose
natural resources they coveted, and then got so greedy as to turn against each
other. And while this was happening, America became the rising economic
power that began to see the necessity to arm itself and protect its gains. It
did so and did it well – not only for itself but also for the foolish European
powers that ruined themselves eventually.
Why is it important to remember this history? It is
important because the cycle of life has come full circle, and America is now in economic decline compared to
other rising powers, especially China .
This is the rising economic juggernaut that's arming itself with mostly defensive
weapons. It has also deployed a limited number of systems to act as offensive
deterrence. This is to signal to the world that an aggressor contemplating a
surprise first strike on China
will not escape retaliation.
In response to that situation, there are those in America
who argue that the country should arm itself, and there are those who argue it
should adapt to the new reality, concentrating instead on revitalizing its
economic base, thus be in a position to face a future that no one can predict
how will unfold. Benny Avni is one of those who argue for arming America . He
wrote: “Will any of the 2016 candidates be ready for the China
challenge?” an article that was published on April 15, 2016 in the New York
Post.
Having called China
a challenge – as seen in the title of the article – and having nitpicked on
every activity China
undertook no matter how benign it may have been, Avni diagnosed China 's
posture, describing it as an evil-minded aggression. And he ended the article
as follows: “Bottom line: The best chance of reining in China is
through credible military deterrence … Will our next president put [that option
on the table]? Based on the candidates' words and deeds, there's little sign of
that so far”. This is a most extreme hawkish posture.
How did our author come to formulate those ideas, anyway?
Actually, it is hard to answer this question because the writer started the
article by stating his position without prior warning. Here is how he did that:
“Our top Asian allies may soon find themselves in an epic battle with China .” He then
falsely claimed that China
took properties that belonged to other nations when, in fact, no flag was
flying over any of the reefs or atolls he says belonged to those nations. But
to reinforce the absurd claim he made, he quoted Secretary of Defense Ashton
Carter who said that China 's
actions are causing anxiety and raising tensions in the area.
Whereas the Secretary did not say to whom those reefs and
atolls belong, Avni went on to explain that America
has a skin in the game because: “$5 trillion in annual trade and a third of the
world's maritime traffic sail those waters [South China Sea,] and China may soon
become the arbiter of it all.” As can be seen, Avni's suggestion is that the
South China Sea should be interceded by America
which lives half a world away, and not by China that lives in the
neighborhood. Go figure.
Benny Avni mentions that Ashton Carter announced new
military deployment in the Philippines .
But he moans that “a show of force no longer instills fear.” As if to
illustrate this point, he asserts that Obama will always shy away from military
confrontation. He then asks: What will our four top presidential wannabes do
about China ”?
He guesses what each candidate will or will not do if elected
president, and gives his bottom line. He prescribes that America should
arm itself.