Thursday, September 08, 2005

WSJ: Inside Pentagon, A Scholar Shapes Views of China

sept 8th

sorry only excerpts from this article, wsj copyright.

peaceful rise of china. ROTFL. they wouldnt recognize peaceful if it were presented to them on a platter with watercress around it.

china is the worst imperialist power around, and has been throughout history.

and our fools talk of bhai-bhai.
 
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

PAGE ONE

Secret Weapon

Inside Pentagon,
A Scholar Shapes
Views of China

Beijing, Mr. Pillsbury Says,
Sees U.S. as Military Foe;
An Optimist Turns Gloomy


His Direct Line to Top Aides

By NEIL KING JR.
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
September 8, 2005; Page A1

WASHINGTON -- Michael Pillsbury, influential Pentagon adviser and former China
lover, believes most Americans have China all wrong. They think of the place as
an inherently gentle country intent on economic prosperity.

In that camp he lumps the lower ranks of the State Department, the Central
Intelligence Agency, most U.S. investors and the majority of American China
scholars, whom he chides as "panda huggers." Mr. Pillsbury says his mission is
to assure that the Defense Department doesn't fall into the same trap.

"Beijing sees the U.S. as an inevitable foe, and is planning accordingly,"
warns the 60-year-old China expert. "We'd be remiss not to take that into
account."
[Michael Pillsbury]

Mr. Pillsbury's 35-year China odyssey, from fondness to suspicion, parallels
Washington's own hot and cold relations with Beijing -- from the diplomatic
warming of the 1970s, through the shock and disillusionment of the
post-Tiananmen Square era, to today's growing economic and political tensions.
That's hardly a coincidence: Whether in public or in the policy-making shadows,
Mr. Pillsbury has been a persistent force in shaping official American
perceptions of a nation increasingly seen as the world's fastest-rising power.
...

"Mike's core insight has been to plumb the subterranean anti-American feelings
within China's military," says Daniel Blumenthal, a China specialist at the
Defense Department until late last year and now a scholar at the conservative
American Enterprise Institute. "He takes the Chinese at their word, and that
has given him real influence within the Pentagon."

...

The report laid out five "pathways" that could lead China to develop "more
assertive foreign and security policies" or even provoke small wars to secure
its growing energy needs. U.S. China experts noted that these and other
passages seemed lifted straight from Mr. Pillsbury's scholarly work.

The Chinese government disputes Mr. Pillsbury's assessments, as well as the
Pentagon's assertion that Beijing is dramatically increasing its military
spending. Asked to comment on Mr. Pillsbury, the Chinese Embassy in Washington
said in a statement that "any words or actions that fabricate and drum up
China's military threat are detrimental to regional peace and stability."

...

Mr. Pillsbury, who has nurtured ties with the Chinese military since the early
1970s, insists he remains open-minded. "My core doctrine is that the Chinese
think differently than we think they do and that it's imperative we understand
what motivates them," he says.

...

Following Tiananmen, Mr. Pillsbury's conclusions on China became notably
darker. In one 1993 study, he noted: "China has the advantage that many experts
on Chinese affairs...testify soothingly that China today is a satisfied power
which deeply desires a peaceful environment in which to develop its economy.
They put the burden of proof on others, defying pessimists to prove that China
may ever become hypernationalistic or aggressive."

...

In early 1995, Mr. Marshall sent Mr. Pillsbury to Beijing to gather Chinese
military writings. The Pentagon by then was promoting a new generation of
heavily computerized military hardware, and Mr. Marshall wanted to see what the
Chinese made of this so-called revolution in military affairs.

Mr. Pillsbury interviewed dozens of authors, and returned after several trips
with crates of books and journals, more than 500 volumes in all. The haul
formed the core of his first two books, both published by the Pentagon's
National Defense University.

Hardly light reading, the books got glowing reviews from several
neoconservative thinkers, including Paul Wolfowitz, Mr. Rumsfeld's former top

aide and now president of the World Bank.

In his 1997 "Chinese Views of Future Warfare," Mr. Pillsbury portrays a
military hierarchy fascinated with information warfare and the need for weapons
systems to deliver "acupuncture" strikes and take out satellites. A particular
obsession: what he claims to be the Chinese pursuit of "shashoujian," or a
secret "assassin's weapon" that China can use to surprise a more powerful
opponent.

"Mike can make a good case that the Chinese are developing submarines to sink
our aircraft carriers or missiles to take out our satellites," says James
Lilly, a former CIA station chief who served as ambassador to China in the
early 1990s. "His whole point is, 'Pay attention. Listen to what they are
saying.'" China's long-term strategy, Mr. Pillsbury argues, is to amass its
strengths while attracting as little attention as possible.

He is increasingly convinced that China's military thinkers and strategists
derive much of their guidance and inspiration from China's Warring States
period, an era of pre-unification strife about 2,300 years ago. This is the
thesis of his latest book, "The Future of China's Ancient Strategy," which the
Pentagon plans to publish this fall. Its core assertion is that China's history
and culture posit the existence of a "hegemon" -- these days, the United States
-- that must be defeated over time.


...
__________________________________________________

13 comments:

KapiDhwaja said...

Interesting name "shashoujian" (Secret Assasin's weapon)- I like the word. Japan's Ninja culture is replete with such weapons. Wonder if India has developed its own shashoujian to tackle China. This should be our focus. Interesting that China now calls us its "friend". Downgraded from "brotherhood, bhai-bhai" to friend before they decide to teach us another lesson. Looking forward to it with our "shashoujian" ready.

san said...

Pak is capaigning for a nuclear deal like the kind India got:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1225167.cms

Campaigning, or should I say blackmailing?
They're warning that any imbalance between India and Pakistan could lead Pak to take "extraordinary measures". In other words, more dangerous stunts in the footsteps of their N-proliferation and support to Taliban/AlQaeda.

Atlanticists like Michael Krepon are then opportunistically elevating their criticism of deals with India.

Anonymous said...

okay, I give up. what is an Atlanticist?

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

Atlanticist means the folks who live on the other side of Atlantic Ocean - which oflate became Ivory tower

san said...

Atlanticists are those who give primacy to trans-Atlantic relations,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanticist

On American soil, it describes a lobby within the US that tends towards Euro-centrism in all significant matters.

These people tend to be more pro-NATO and also pro-Pakistan, because they are still fretting over the Soviet threat.

san said...

The former Dutch PM says that the US deliberately allowed A Q Khan to continue nuclear espionage:
http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/09khan.htm?q=np&file=.htm

Sounds to me like they wanted Pakistan to nuclearize. We can see the results of this myopia.

Anonymous said...

Read this shocking news : China cracks secret MEA communications


http://www.newsinsight.net/nati2.asp?recno=3456

Prashant said...

The views of this researcher gel with this purported speech by a (now) former defense minister of China Chi Haotian. It outlines a completely amoral and frightfully "pragmatic" approach that China plans to adopt to become the prime hegemon of the world. It is obviously the writing of someone who knows what he is talking about. I won't be surprised if it is genuine. The epoch times is apparently a Chinese dissident paper. Not sure of their political makeup.

http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-4/30974.html

GoBEARS said...

post a link Rajiv, will ya ??

Some of us can access the WSJ and would like to read the whole article.......

Good work..

indianpatriot said...

I would not be concerned if America and china fight over Taiwan as it would be to India's advantage. But the present mess in Iraq and American imperial overreach in Iraq concerns me which while not wanting to confront China may try to confront India as a book by General Padmanabhan (America Checkmated) reveated. General Paddy assumed that China (along with russia) would come to India's aid. But what if America and China together fight India to establish new world order. We need our Bhahmasthra fast and it should be 10 ICBMS and 50 IRBMS with thermonuclear warhead.

AnotherIndianPatriot said...

IndianPatriot, 10 ICBMs wont even deter Bangladesh. Here is a simple anology. If I make the mistake of landing you the first punch and wait, then you are going to land 20 punches on me till I am down and out. In other words, have enough deterence capabability to take on one and all, and we'll continue to have peace in our country. Somebody wrote a book in the US called "Against all enemies". That motto should guide us in strategic matters.

Zhang Fei said...

ip: I would not be concerned if America and china fight over Taiwan as it would be to India's advantage.

Absolutely true. Which is why I think it's smarter for China to take a poke at South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh) instead of taking on Uncle Sam, with his 10,000 warheads. Any which way you look at it, India's cities are well within range of hundreds of Chinese nukes, making for a fearful deterrent. The Chinese are not in any shape to fight off the mean green machine. But India is a completely different story. The Chinese have crapped all over Indian forces before. Can they do it again? Only time will tell.

Arjuna said...

Zhang Fei :: Can they do it again? Only time will tell.

They are doing it all along... supporting Islamic terrorism in India.. giving weapons to Naxals... sponsering naga rebels...

It is "China" written all along...

So we need not look at clock for time..