Apparently, NRO’s RINO columnist Jonah Goldberg still believes, like other RINOs (including former Bush Administration officials) that the policy of appeasement towards China is good. He even called it a “success”.
Goldberg has written:
“The most important point is that China’s rise doesn’t reflect some grand failure of American foreign policy but its success. Drawing China into the global economic and political system has been a bipartisan foreign-policy goal for generations. That creates new problems but better ones.”
He’s wrong. America’s bipartisan policy towards China – a policy of appeasement, has been a dismal failure. Sure, China has risen, but that’s a negative fact. China has brought down an unarmed EP-3 plane in neutral airspace, harassed an unarmed American ship (the USNS Impeccable) in neutral waters), blinded an American satellite with a laser, caused the 2003 blackouts by cyber attack, shut down the DOD’s computer network in 2008, stolen the American industry, and supplied tons of weapons to the Taleban, with whom it shares a common goal of defeating the US. (Some of these weapons have been supplied by Huawei corp., a business partner of Bain Capital, Romney’s former corporation.)
Goldberg further proved how ignorant and stupid he is when he wrote this:
“Even with its copycat stealth fighter, China is certainly less of a military threat to the United States than the Soviet Union was.”
Totally false. China is ALREADY a bigger military threat to the US than the Soviet Union ever was. The USSR was never able to blind American satellites or conduct cyber attacks against the US, did not have AI-equipped subs, did not have quiet nuclear-propelled subs until 1985 (when Aldrich Ames sold American secrets to the Kremlin), did not have stealthy fighterplanes, and did not have anti-ship ballistic missiles. It also never dreamed of shooting down American satellites with ballistic missiles, and never harassed unarmed American ships or aircraft in neutral waters. China is capable of all of this. It’s military is already superior to the US military. It has more ships, more submarines (75 vs 71) and more tanks. It has a larger number of modern (post-4th-generation) fighterplanes thant he USAF (hundreds of Flankers, JF-17s, J-10s and JH-7 versus the USAF’s 137 F-22s). Most worryingly, though, it has accumulated (and is growing) a large arsenal of access-denial weapons (SAMs, AAA, fighterplanes, ASCMs, ASBMs, land-attack BMs, land-attack CMs, bombers, satellite blinders, anti-satellite BMs, hacking devices and submarines) which could deny the US military access to war theaters and some of them could even reach Andersen AFB. The DOD is worried about these AD weapons, as are some think-tanks such as the CBSA, which has published several studies on the subject. As for that “copycat stealthy fighterplane”, it’s not a simple copy, even though it does incorporate parts copied from F-22s (the front) and PAKFAs (the rear). And it is superior to every fighterplane of the US military, except its small fleet of F-22s.
Goldberg also wrote that “China is still governed by a fundamentally evil system. Hu has blood on his hands — he ordered the slaughter of hundreds of unarmed Tibetan protesters in 1989. But it’s less evil than when it kept a billion people in poverty and killed 65 million of its own citizens. That’s progress.”
What utter gibberish. A dictator who ordered the slaughter of hundreds of unarmed protesters is better than Chairman Mao? That’s progress? No, that’s not progress. And BTW, has Goldberg ever heard of the new holocaust ongoing in China since 1979? As a result of China’s one-child policy, 35,000 unborn children are compulsorily murdered in China every year (that’s 12.775 million unborn children per year)? Probably not, although he acknowledged, as Mark Steyn did several years ago, that as a result of the one-child policy, “China has 700 million very poor people. By 2050, it will have 400 million very old people. It will “get old before it gets rich,” as conservative writer Mark Steyn likes to say.” (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/257392/america-s-china-syndrome-jonah-goldberg)
One thing Goldbert did get right is that:
Another reigning cliché is that the sun is setting on us as it did on the British Empire. But what does that mean? China isn’t remotely powerful, influential, or rich enough to play the leading role of America, and we aren’t nearly so weak, ignorable, or poor as to deserve the supporting gig as 1950s Britain.
Besides, although China clearly wants its moment in the sun, it doesn’t seem particularly eager or able to lead. “When was the last time Beijing offered its own peace plan for the Arab-Israeli conflict, for instance?” asks Jonathan Eyal, Europe correspondent for the Straits Times in Singapore.
“Other emerging powers are no better,” he adds. “What is India’s contribution to, say, solving the crisis in Sudan? Or Russia’s plan for dealing with the North Korean nuclear problem?”
In other words, American leadership is still the global norm.”
And it will likely remain the global norm for many decades.