US Strategic Foreign Policy

US Strategic Foreign Policy: What If America Should Blink?

Implications and Considerations of an Ineffective Confrontation with Red China

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

[Author’s note: This article was first gladly accepted, with offered upfront payment, and then rejected by associatedcontent.com that concluded, due to Yahoo ownership influence no doubt, that the article was racist because of political criticism of Obama. It was obviously an act due to political correctness in thinking, meaning Leftism. Any criticism of Obama is, thus, axiomatically condemned as, by definition, being racist. George Orwell, where are you when we need you?]

This is a discussion of how much more really dangerous the world would become if American power ceased to greatly influence any freedom-enhancing prospects for the 21^st century. The needed strategic vision of the USA needs to be globally reassessed and reevaluated due to the many new international realities of a new century.

Such important nations as Brazil, China, and India are major players that are truly seeking to assert new power relationships and indications of preferred influence by their movement toward the top tier of countries that have, in fact, mastered the requisite style and structure of contemporary technocracy. On the part of America, however, the recent pathetic (because of an absurd nature) missile launch off the coast of California was a silly “shot” aimed at so clumsily formulating a warning to China, though not, of course, publicly announced as such, which makes this article a rather urgent matter.

There are manifold substantive implications and, thus, various definite ramifications concerning what has and is increasingly occurring as a real integral challenge to the Pax Americana existing since World War II. As an added factor, Obama has deliberately put this nation into grave jeopardy by his helping to effectuate the ancient Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times. In any event, thought must be rendered to the subject at hand, regardless of present conditions, as to this country’s foreign policy.

Geostrategic, geopolitical, and geohistorical aspects of all possible important areas of major conflict must sensibly enter into the theoretical, rational, and pragmatic calculations of how and what may come to influence the probable and reasonable range of actions logically available for the United States. A highly significant and definitely strategic reassessment and reevaluation is then rationally requisite to the ever vital task of trying to critically determine the proper goals, true mission, and natural limits of this country’s acceptable foreign policy in a broadening and diversified technocratic era.

Although many things may change in the world, however, this is still basically a world governed by either the threat or actual use of violent force; it is, as long as human nature remains the same as it has for thousands of years, a mostly dangerous geosphere; failure is rarely, if ever, politely excused. Although power tends to corrupt, as Lord Acton well noted, however, the lack of exercising requisite power, when and where needed to prevent terrible consequences from unfortunately dominating events, can also lead to corruption.

The latter point, revealed here for greater political cognizance, is just too often ignorantly forgotten or, perhaps, not quite properly and consciously understood as the fact of power-based realities in this world.

Actors, Players, and Realities

One does not need to be either a Machiavellian or an advocate of Realpolitik to simply know the hard truths, unbending verities, involved with political efforts to acquire, build, protect/sustain, or project power either just locally from one adjacent country to another or, alternately, at (very) great distances around the globe. The intelligent willingness to dynamically keep in mind the geostrategic, geopolitical, and geohistorical factors that necessarily enter into any potential conflict is, therefore, significantly important for all creative and dedicated statesmen seeking effective efforts at developing and sustaining successful statecraft.

In the case of China, the Red Dragon of the Orient, in particular, miscalculations, by the leadership of the USA, of a truly major sort would be unforgiveable concerning how, for instance, incoherent or feeble actions or decisions could be misinterpreted or misjudged by the Chinese.

Hu Jintao is regarded, by the experts, as being a pragmatist, which ideologically means he is really committed to acting as more of an ideologist than do normal or typical ideologists; pragmatism is the functional opposite of what it operationally claims to always be because the assumption is that only “pragmatic” and not ideological decisions are made; this is an absurdity; no one, as analogies, has principle-less principles or holds a non-philosophical philosophy as to their decision-making abilities.

Hu Jintao can, therefore, be logically counted on to have his despotic-trained ruthlessness more than adequately match his authoritarian abilities, not exactly the proper background of a future democratic statesman, as may be alleged by idealistic optimists. As has been seen, diplomatic and related efforts to placate Chinese international ambitions is really not, however, likely to simply please the basic power establishment (AKA the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee); it will and has, however, well whetted their aggressive appetite for more successes versus a mainly conciliatory America.

As an important factor to seriously consider, so much of this country’s national debt is, of course, in the firm possession of this main power of Asia ($2,000,000,000.00 and increasing), with its still very rapidly growing economy, that substantially benefits from American and other foreign trade. But, it needs to be appropriately remembered, e. g., that Japan, in the 1920s and 1930s, was also back then a rather good trading partner with the United States, prior to World War II; and, this was so true such that, famously, the scrap, e. g., from the former Third Avenue Elevated Railroad, from New York City, came back to this country in the form of bullets. It is hoped that history will not terribly repeat itself, though, in a sense, it often does, meaning in one way or another.

Trade alone, thus, no matter how tremendous in volume, is no really axiomatic guarantor of peace in this world; and, figuratively bending over backwards to secure peace, seemingly at any price, is no truly proper assurance that it will be then obtained merely because one side ardently desires to achieve this situation of a wanted lack of war. Moreover, a mere absence of military conflict ought not be crudely or simplistically equated with “peace” where the palpable and realistic threat of force may exist just short of actual (full-scale) war.

Appeasement, as one actual option so used by the Obama Administration, never really works; witness Russia actively helping to build nuclear reactors for Venezuela, which has, practically speaking, no real need for any nuclear power; it is, therefore, a deliberate act of provocation directed intentionally against the USA in spite of America, for instance, looking the other way on the matter of the country of Georgia’s continued occupation by Russian forces.

This is an obnoxiously vicious “peace” that seriously questions if war might not be better in terms of firmly backing the existence of the important principle of free governments being left in peace; also, the signing of arms control agreements has so proven itself meaningless, along with not deploying defensive missiles, against Russia, in Central Europe; thus, repeated and quite overdone acts of conciliation (AKA appeasement) ought not to be, shallowly, thought of as supposedly bringing true peace, pacification, into existence concerning the harsh realities of power politics.

Only strength and the courage, ability, and cognate will to then exercise such power impresses the Russian Bear, they are still the heirs of czardom; so, they have justified contempt for whatever is, thus, realistically perceived to be weakness, to be appeasement, meaning by whatever euphemism.

International realities minimize past opportunities in such places as Africa and Asia where, in the past, the Soviet Union, Red China, and even Cuba enjoyed playing around in the new nations created after de-colonialization by backing so-called revolutionary movements. Today’s major hot spot is certainly Latin America, with its abundant natural resources, energy sources, and the potential of emerging markets, where one can find the Russians and the Chinese, besides the North Koreans and Europeans.

And, coming from the Middle East, the Iranians, with their nuclear (military-oriented) program, corrupt autocratic regime, and being the globe’s premier state sponsor of terrorism, are definitely looking to also create a sphere of influence there. It is a contemporary and often explosive playground where both first and second rate powers are seeking to undermine the international authority of America in general and, of course, to do so in South America in particular. This challenge must be faced and met.

Tehran, as can be guessed, strongly wishes to crescively and shockingly bedevil America right in its own backyard, the Western hemisphere, by brewing trouble in various Latin American countries; this is by which the strategic resources, inclusive of alliances, of the USA, denounced as the Great Satan, would be increasingly strained to the utmost limits, with many wanted and continuously multiplying diplomatic distractions and foreign disruptions. For Iran, this certainly includes establishing intimate friendships with the region's notoriously anti-Yanqui, meaning the supremely radical, populist Leftist regimes, especially as is obviously apparent in Venezuela. Nor should Brazil be left out of this situation.

A quite visible and deliberate Tehran-Caracas axis of terror is being vilely realized so vividly in the open relationship between Venezuela's tyrannical and vicious caudillo Hugo Chavez and Iran's ideologically obsessed and rabble-rousing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a sinister spawn (to use his language) of Satan if ever there was one.

These two radical leaders of ideological vice have not only gone to each other's capitals about a dozen times in recent years; in addition, one can rightly note that these fiends have also publicly made known their personal attachments for each other, as observers keenly note, by bestowing each nation's highest honors on one another; the old saying holds that birds of a feather do nest together, as rats of the same litter do think each other fitter to live in the trash pile they adore.

What is more interesting is the behind-the-scenes machinations of China in its Machiavellian scheme to economically engage America while simultaneously undermining it both politically and diplomatically; Russian moves are normally more obvious; but, China’s, the Dragon’s, are usually more covert and generally subtle, as is appropriate to the oriental/Asiatic mind, meaning as to the deviousness being coldly exercised at deeper levels than would be normally apparent. What does not get international publicity is what is more important to learn about as to implications involved.

The two autocratic swine, Chavez and Ahmadinejad, who do pretend to be ardent lovers of their people qua democrats, have also publicly spoken of willingly creating an "axis of unity" directed explicitly against the United States (the Great Satan) and, thus, heatedly discuss constructing a post-American new world order. There would be the hegemony of the anti-American coalition of states organized for the destruction of the USA. Back in the year 2006, for instance, the BBC had reported that Ahmadinejad had lovingly opined of his Venezuelan compadres: "The distance between our countries may be a bit far, but the hearts and thoughts are very close." That same could be said about Chinese despotism.

As can be understood, their countries have built up economic relations directed toward common energy issues as states that are absolutely major energy producers, in the fields of oil and natural gas, in that both are politically belligerent OPEC cartel members. Added into the very interesting broader mix of the contending realities involved, China and their proxy state of North Korea do, of course, benefit from any chaos in the world, which is no surprise, as fostered by the troubling efforts of either Venezuela or Iran.

Whatever helps to substantially sap American power reduces its effective ability to greatly intervene in China’s backyard, meaning the Pacific Ocean, with the idea of eventually significantly excluding or, at least, very largely minimizing America’s currently important role in that specific area of the world; at the proverbial end of the day, it can appear as simple as that fact just related. Latin American activities are a means of leveraging China’s power by using Venezuela and other Marxist regimes to steadily and, sometimes, rapidly weaken the resolve of American power by multiplying the number of challenges and cognate provocations.

This background consideration of power rivalries must be kept in mind for gaining a better picture of what is really occurring in the rear of the headlines found in newspapers and on internet news websites.

Because Venezuela, as a radical regime, is ready and willing to send refined gasoline, a potential target of economic sanctions, to Iran, this weakens dramatically whatever pressures the international community might apply to the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding its really rogue nuclear program. And, China, too, benefits notably by this clever introduction of further complications and complexities that are being deliberately created by Chavez.

Iran has also improved its relations with other component parts of the anti-American Latin Left mob to be easily found in Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador; these are certainly radical states commanded by definitely sympathetic characters, quite ideologically affiliated, with Venezuela. More to the highly critical point here, some commentators have asseverated, openly, that Iran’s clearly anti-Americano multi-connection with Managua, La Paz, and Quito was actually handled by and intriguingly developed enthusiastically with the studious support of Caracas; this was manifestly related, as can be known, to its vilely rogue networking activities, its actively counterbalancing “anti-imperialist” forces, in that entire region.

But, behind the scenes, it can be readily suggested that China, with much open connivance by Russia, has orchestrated things to go more smoothly, effortlessly, by playing the role of honest broker for various power wheeling and dealing efforts in South America. Helping to increasingly distress the USA is the primary goal, though extending Chinese influence, south of the American border, is a useful side benefit, of course, which will definitely pay future political and diplomatic dividends within the anti-American coalition dedicated to supposedly fighting imperialism; this is while Russia and China do knowingly violate the Monroe Doctrine against extending foreign influence into Latin America as a means, ironically, of today’s newest version neocolonialism.

With the benediction of the Chinese, therefore, Iran [and through its allies] is, e. g., seeking ardently to then create many damaging strategic instabilities and diversions for the United States, in its own backyard, by dynamically stimulating political/revolutionary volatility and deliberate subversion. Tehran wants, furthermore, to rapidly gain the willing adherence of international institutions for its decidedly radical (AKA anti-American) causes, which is in addition to the vile propagandistic enhancing of its leadership's tarnished image at home, through projecting a heroic and altruistic picture of itself in the world at large.

If no successful and intelligent strategic countermoves are taken by the Obama Administration (which seems very likely), China’s diplomatic power and influence will, thus, be substantially increased in Latin America, which will, in turn, act as a vital kind of major political lever to then raise the stakes of power politics elsewhere, as in Asia. And, further keenly adding to the multiplying tremendous difficulties would be a major breakdown in proper measures to counterbalance, e. g., Iran's efforts in the Western Hemisphere, meaning with China’s covert assistance.

Failure to do so, therefore, will only wrongly permit a clearly anti-American, terror-affirming, oppressive, anti-free market economics orientation to take hold in the USA’s own backyard.

Recommended Plan for Action: Deeds, not Words

It must be clearly recognized that the fundamental situation of World War II and its aftermath is really gone; the Cold War and its consequences are now, in essence, also basically gone; of course, there are, admittedly, certain recognizable carryovers into the present, even of World War I if that might need to be mentioned; but, new and complex configurations of international realities do exist, e,. g., the major challenge of radical Islamic terrorism and its terrorist regimes, to now significantly confront matters of America’s vital national security concerns. The main goal or mission of the USA needs, consequently, to be manfully redefined and vigorously restructured in direct light of such changed circumstances in the world.

A two-ocean navy is, of course, still operationally mandatory for this country due to its factually being, of necessity, a sea power to potentially confront various land powers, e. g., Russia, China, etc. But, the present commitments to Europe, especially Germany, Great Britain, and France, and, in Asia, to Japan must be fairly quickly curtailed and quite significantly; this is, obviously, because they are able to take care of themselves and their own interests.

America is essentially a sea power-oriented nation because its definable strength is based upon freedom of the seas guaranteeing that trade routes are to remain open; its fundamental security is to be assured by projections of naval power whenever and wherever needed to readily or later, as the case may be, secure the vital interests of this country against any real or potential threats. Most confrontations will, consequently, be with land powers such as Russia or China; these natural thoughts are related to the physical/geographic configurations of where on this planet different nations are located as to the historical definition given by their geographical boundaries that are concerned with their existences.

Thus, e. g., Russia has been invaded, on average, many more times from the West (attacks, for instance, made by Sweden, France, Germany), not from the East, meaning as to the Eurasian continent’s physical circumstances; it is, thus, functionally impossible to absolutely neatly separate these various political and historical facts from such necessarily associated geographical facts. Much of Russian paranoia is fairly reasonable and understandable, but aggression ought not to be simply rationalized as being agreeable, meaning for preventing all possible paranoid responses, under all or various circumstances.

Of course, Wilsonian idealists and other such crackpots will still wish to ignore these hard matters of notable importance, dealing with human beings based upon where they actually live as part of their geo-cultural and geopolitical realities, because they do supinely think that paper treaties and diplomatic good will can rule the world. But, what can be realistically done, contrary to absurd idealism, to then better secure America’s future in this world? Major changes, it is posited, are then needed as soon as possible.

NATO needs to be completely scraped and replaced by an alliance system more strategically flexible and functionally related to the many changed situations faced by the US, not its allies; a weak or inconsistent American foreign policy, moreover, serves neither them nor America, the Eagle. There are, therefore, implications and ramifications that do logically follow. A militarily, diplomatically, and economically strong nation, the soaring Eagle, would significantly impress any current or potential allies, not just feel-good propaganda given in terms of a discredited Wilsonian internationalism (by whatever euphemism), as with the Obama Administration.

Foreign policy, thus, must be technically forceful but not forced; and, its proportioned (AKA realizable) goals, within certain parameters, should be properly directed toward an “aristocratic” internationalism of nations, not a liberal or radical cosmopolitanism, often with ideational interventionism, favoring collectivist principles. The wrong model or perverse paradigm would always be an “enlarged” social-market economy, for the world, filled with tremendous numbers of social-democratic regimes favoring domestic Weimarization, meaning destructive cultural Marxism, PC thinking, and the Culture of Death.

Furthermore, one critically sees, readily, how foreign interventionism, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, parallels domestic interventionism and, for major powers, vice versa at that. The welfare State is in a permanent symbiotic relationship with the warfare State to then exist, unitedly, as the welfare-warfare State. One can intelligently realize this by historically citing how Prince Otto von Bismarck, in the 19^th century, had so firmly supported Social Security for German workers to then make the militarism of the State more popular and nationalistic, though Bismarck was, of course, very far from being a Socialist.

The larger and beneficial point to be made here is that the USA’s international stance should reject the now old model of the welfare-warfare State, while yet being concerned properly for the true interests of this country. American foreign policy needs, logically, to be made nearly totally USA-centric in its own attitudes in that superpower status must exist to prevent the possible filling of any vacuum caused by a massive loss of American power; weakness, not strength, has, in fact, historically resulted in America getting into wars, not the avoidance of them, which seems so counterintuitive.

But, it is still true. Both, e. g., the humorist Will Rogers (as a representative of popular or pedestrian knowledge) and Chief of Staff George Marshall had fortunately accepted the ancient Roman maxim: If one wants peace, prepare for war. It was true back then; it is still so today, which is a significant part of the advocacy of needed political realism in international affairs. What can be done, therefore, to properly aid the recommendations for pursuing a policy of strength?

Because nine tenth of correct execution resides in effective preparation, the next President, assuming he is not Obama, needs to form an ad hoc emergency council composed of the heads of the CIA, NSC, NSA, FBI, etc. to better coordinate the ways and means of instituting all the various elements of an action plan; the status of forces report must, e. g., be critically evaluated in light of potential challenges from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Turkey, and a few other selected countries.

There must be, thus, forceful intelligent thoughts given to how a practical consolidation of armed forces preparedness procedures could needfully aid toward the significant goal of tightening knowledge of the conditions, capacities, and capabilities of all the armed services, with most attention appropriately given to the navy. Because hyper-advanced cloaking devices and associated concealment/stealth technology, part of the naval budget should be redirected toward building two battleships with two others kept in the active planning stage.

Regardless of continual talk about absolute obsolesce and fatal vulnerability, many new developments in military technology now make a battleship [which could fire tactical nuclear missiles], once again, a tremendously potent and formidable weapon of strategic warfare by which to better coordinate its enhanced existence with a substantial battle fleet. If and when needed, the knowledge that such an “unpleasant” vessel would threateningly exist, with what can be fairly regarded as possessing absolutely substantial firepower, will make any regime think twice (or, perhaps, several times) before wishing to directly engage it in a toe to toe fight.

One can, moreover, be employed for the Atlantic and then the other for Pacific Ocean, thus, causing, forcing, an enemy power to make more numerous calculations of the possible permutations and combinations of the tactical resources that would need to be made available by the enemy; this would be for successfully countering the seemingly incalculable, immense, force possessed by a thoroughly modern battleship. So, there would then be multiple and obvious advantages in usefully increasing the military problems of America’s potential enemies, which is not a bad idea.

American power can be kept “silent” but known; both national determination and strength are proper objects of rational attainment, within the reasonable boundaries of international order, as so clearly determined by classical Natural Law teachings, the long diplomatic history of America, foreign treaty obligations, international law (only as it conforms to Natural Law principles) and other relevant factors for sustainable and reasoned action; this is for better attaining this nation’s foreign policy objectives.

Because it has become a destabilizing and discredited force for actually enhancing threats to the US, this country ought to withdraw, in stages, from most United Nations agencies and ask it to transfer its headquarters out of New York City; separate affiliations with utilitarian-oriented institutions such as, e.g., the Universal Postal Union can be properly maintained for logical needs that will functionally continue. The United Nations (UN) is no genuine forum for considerations of such matters as those pertaining to the subject of human rights, in light of, e. g, the number of tyrannical regimes that head such a committee, which axiomatically, by rational definition, undermines its entire assumed purpose.

But, the UN itself must be rationally regarded as an oppositional organization basically adverse to the important needs and substantive realities of America in the 21^st century and, therefore, fundamental disengagement must be made to stress the additional fact that Wilsonian internationalism is being completely rejected; all of America’s real and essential interests and those of the radical UN significantly and necessarily diverge, as has been, of course, substantially proven many times.

Those nations in Latin America both willing and able to largely conform their political systems into patterns consistent with basic pro-freedom agendas for their peoples are mainly suitable as trading partners for the US; those that wish, on the contrary, to be belligerent powers adverse to American vital interests need to be actively shunned, not either indirectly or directly placated or appeased in any of many various ways. Sooner or later, appeasement never works; weakness projected is not a form of existential or phenomenological strength, as is often wrongly thought by progressivists and their ilk.

Realignment and Readjustment of Foreign Policy

Weakness is held justifiably in contempt; strength is, therefore, actually respected (and can be feared as well), not the ability to seek endless or absurd compromises with what are, in essence, enemy regimes; appeals can be made over, as may be needed from time to time, the heads of the vicious dictators to the oppressed or misguided peoples themselves.

American foreign policy initiatives must, therefore, be both pragmatic for real action and principled as needed for the interests of the US in advancing conditions suitable for favoring free governments in the world, though America ought not to seek to guarantee such circumstances by being a world policeman. What is properly meant by this highly important and policy-directive assertion? In the forever sagacious and pointed diplomatic words of John Quincy Adams, America is the supporter of liberty everywhere in the world but the guarantor only of our own.

The American imperium must either reflect better the realities confronted or, alternately as it is rightly suggested for the 21^st century, be completely renounced as to any ambitions of assumed empire. A foreign policy, to be properly politically coherent and substantively realizable, must reflect the right understanding of the polity from which it is developed and based upon, which ought to be a republican government qua governance, not the existence of an imperial bureaucratic structure.

Foreign ambitions and aspirations, adventurism, normally suitable for an empire with imperial designs upon the world ought not to be ever entertained by any free republic, which should, one assumes, studiously avoid any acts of aggression, of deliberate imperial belligerence. One must see that the latter condition produces not just cognitive dissonance in the thinking of the majority of its sadly influenced politicians, most of whom then become corrupt, but also confuses the bulk of the citizenry as to the priorities proper to a republic versus an empire. There are, as a result, certain to-be-discussed matters put here, to be handled, for the reformation and rectification of proper government in this country, as to what ought to be the natural, structural, and operational condition of the polity.

Thus, e. g., the Iron Triangle of Big Government, Big Business, and Big Labor must, thus, be destroyed for the appropriate sake of reviving republican governance, as being truly the correct political perspective regarding the nature of what the American polity ought to be like, in its compositional nature; this is as to the directive quality of the political structure and origin, by definition, of the foreign policy’s nature as to its aforementioned definitional justification for then enabling free government to, thus, survive as a republican order, not as an imperium, which, credibly, pertains to the coherence of a polity so needed.

Domestic and foreign policy objectives must, therefore, be substantially compatible and reciprocal, not divisive or antagonistic, if any anticipated international success is to be reasonably expected from the latter objectives; in contradistinction, the imperium exalts the existence and need for the Iron Triangle for better pursuing domestic statism, for affirming a love for tyranny. As a consequence, acts of foreign interventionism normally serve the arrogant purposes of imperial ambitions, not republican order for the appropriate sake of political governance and associated republican liberty under law.

This is definitely not, as often ignorantly alleged, a retrogressive appeal to a Fortress America mentality or status; it is logically and rationally held here to be simply impossible to completely sever this nation from all and every possible alliance situation; moreover, it is, thus, reasonably known that not even a modern technocratic superpower can realistically (or otherwise), e. g., pursue a policy of autarky for itself. Isolationism, being both physically and theoretically impractical, is not being advocated.

But, certain critical measures must. Also, be now fully taken to so potentially help avoid future crises; matters pertaining to what used to be called brinksmanship should be not ever courted or encouraged; this can be done by looking out for the economic interests of this country, in peaceful ways, conducive of trade with other countries, though true peace must be founded through strength, not wishfulness or willfulness; a nation’s practice of economics, regarding foreign trade, should not be war by other means.

Private industry must be greatly encouraged, through tax exemptions if necessary, to seriously attempt to synthesize rare earth elements in case China cuts off the supply of these vital components needed for an advancing technological civilization. Countries, e. g., in Africa can be looked into for these strategic elements, and free-trade agreements are one way to accomplish this for aiding international commerce, as ought to be reasonably known; South Korea, in fact, recently discovered that it has such materials.

Other areas of the world where such raw materials might be possibly located, to thwart the Dragon’s almost complete monopoly of them, must be then rationally taken into consideration, regarding the seeking of requisite alternative sources of desired supply. The flexing of the economic muscles of this surely major Asiatic power will eventually lead to its assuming ever greater and greater political influence, throughout the world and generally adverse to the main interests of the USA, if strategic thinking is ignored as to geostrategic, geopolitical, and various cognate geohistorical realities and considerations.

In addition, the Chinese navy is developing into a formidable force for its own specific needs, though not the strategic equivalent of the American navy, of course. The grave point is that an amassment, critical concentration, of forces specially geared to aggressive actions, directed locally toward the gaining of an objective near and dear to the felt political-strategic needs of China, may so cause a miscalculation or, perhaps, a deliberate act taken against American interests. Danger, it must be seen, can be piled upon danger. Would an America, economically and politically crippled by Obama, suitably react in a timely, meaning quite fast, manner to then get back a solid strategic (military) advantage, if or when needed?

Not enough substantial or appropriate US naval forces might then be readily and immediately present, at a particular time and place, to then totally or mainly upset, delay, or deter certain significant Chinese aggression. When this is added to the obvious fact of China’s being a land power intent upon increasing its many contacts and growing influence throughout Asia, the now mounting Chinese challenge can undoubtedly become alarming, in a given context, when its vital interests become intensively focused; their imperial ambitions are still focused, e. g., upon regaining Formosa/Taiwan.

If the Eagle should wrongly blink (back down) during such a shocking situation qua major confrontation, meaning as per American diplomatic or treaty obligations, that terrible precedent would signal a basic reversal of fortunes significantly indicative of what may, thus, very well be the important future trend lines of a failing (and discredited) American power.

This would logically pertain to the entire Pacific, which would be then transformed, in effect, into a “Chinese lake” as to the new perilous configuration and dynamic projection of power in that part of the world. To counter this, Japan would probably seek to arm itself well beyond the many restrictions imposed upon it as a result of losing World War II. North Korea, a client/proxy state of China, would become further emboldened to expand its own agenda, which is not to mention Russia, Iran, and other powers who would eagerly jump at the chance of further testing and ruining, bedeviling and sabotaging, various American foreign policy interests.

And, as a direct strategic consequence, the world would, indeed, then become axiomatically a so much more dangerous place, as China, whose economy seeks to rival that of the US, endeavors vigorously to fill the new power vacuum in Asia. It is expected that the Russians, ignorantly, will champion China’s aggression as a convenient means of seconding the surely wanted decline of American power, which will threaten, eventually, the Bear, not the Eagle, due to Russia’s proximity to China. Would this be fairly expected?

An empowered aggressive Dragon should logically concern the former Soviet Union much more than the US because a rising threat, so perilously closer to home, raises the historical specter of a new Golden Horde, in a geohistorical perspective, rudely coming from the East against Mother Russia; geostrategic and geopolitical considerations would, furthermore, not exclude such a reasonable possibility becoming a good probability, meaning when and if the Middle Kingdom gets a good chance to act successfully, in the normally rough and unforgiving game of power politics.

Further, one can keenly note that the recent change in Chinese leadership indicates a solid, studied confidence that their well thought out agenda for advancement is clearly going, without any basic hesitation, in the right direction, meaning as far as they are so concerned; their considerable plans, in racing toward distinctly power-dominant goals, are then allowing them justifications for their gaining hegemony in Asia.

This concerted campaign is, of course, gaining momentum because of the strengthening of alliances with Iran, Venezuela, and other strongly anti-American regimes. The US must not remain diplomatically or otherwise asleep to these hard realities, due to the obvious consequences of retarding or crippling this nation’s foreign policy efforts, which may very well include, as could be then guessed, a military confrontation in the relatively near future; this nation must be surely kept alive to what can happen, concerning strategic realities, if there is any degree unpreparedness.

The implications, ramifications, and repercussions of a significant failure of nerve on the part of America can have and, on the whole, will at least have consequences that will be both direct and indirect in Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East, not just in Asia. Doubts and uncertainty would, logically, enter into the calculations then made by first, second, and third tier power players, as to the intentions and capabilities of the US anywhere.

That result would be unfortunate without any question, though desired by Obama, a neo-Marxist Fabian Socialist, in his quite disturbing quest for unquestionably undermining this country and its vital interests, both domestic and foreign. Why can this be said? There is evidence readily available as to the intense perfidy that is so intentional because of the hatred that exists, in the Chief Executive of this nation, for this country.

Dinesh D'Souza, e. g., perceives correctly that Obama has an inherited anticolonialist rage, an instructive frenzy, directed against domination by Western civilization that came from the far leftist/Marxist beliefs of Obama's father and, therefore, one must substantially realize that this is, revealingly, what drives the President, as is so meticulously discussed in D'Souza’s quite enormously intriguing and absorbing book rather provocatively entitled: The Roots of Obama's Rage. Thus, those, e. g., who do yet ignorantly and simplistically persist in merely seeing him as just a typical progressive liberal, in the American historical tradition, are entirely wrong in their defective analysis of what so significantly moves him.

Obama, it should be rather obvious by now, has great contempt and disdain for American republican government, regardless of his extremist desire to yet damage severely the imperium. So, it is true, one suspects, that the earlier mentioned Chinese malediction of “interesting times” has, indisputably, come during this present era.

Conclusion

To prevent foreign policy adventurism on the part of China, US strategic foreign policy initiatives should, therefore, make definitely sure that America should not blink in a future confrontation with the Dragon of the East; and, such requisite actions for appropriately achieving independent policies such as, e. g., recommended US withdrawal from the UN would strongly signal that this nation will, thus, not absurdly tolerate China’s using the UN as a tool against America and its valid foreign policy interests; the UN is a useless relic of World War II, which ended, one ought to know, over 60 years ago; and, it can be quite sincerely noted, as a verifiable fact, that the world has greatly changed since then.

As was explained in various ways, geostrategic, geopolitical, and geohistorical aspects are all intimately involved, sooner or later, pertaining to all the surely important areas of major conflict in the world; to thoughtfully take up the presented challenge, one must, as properly indicated, sensibly enter into the theoretical, rational, and pragmatic calculations to be sensibly made in adamant favor of redirecting and reorienting US foreign policy. There has been given the requisite how and what that is involved in how a statesman can rather sagaciously influence the probable and, moreover, quite reasonable range of good actions, as to requisite and appropriate statecraft, logically available for the United States.

The strategic reassessment and reevaluation ardently argued for, in this article, is rationally requisite to the vital task of trying to critically formulate the proper goals, true mission, and, inclusively, natural limits of this country’s suitable foreign policy; this appropriate thinking is, furthermore, to be applied intelligently in a broadening and diversified technocratic era where information is power, besides other aspects of contemporary power.

For American safety and the additional security of the Free World, the Pacific ought not to become a Chinese lake where the Dragon can freely act to advance its agenda. And, this growing challenge must not be seen as separate or, rather, in basic isolation from Islamic aggression directed against the West. Good current reading would, therefore, include Frank J. Gaffney’s War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World. As could be easily guessed from the bold tenor of this present article’s advocacy, a holistic and synergistic approach to America’s national defense needs should, thus, always clearly be taken.

And, the only way to avoid amoral, meaning actually immoral, appeals to Realpolitik is by the proper application of American influence in the world, though not primarily by use of armed force unless truly needed; interventionism is, therefore, not the best of statecraft as it then requires, e. g., no truly great statesmanship to get this nation into an endless series of wars.

Wilsonian internationalism and radical cosmopolitanism must be rejected; thus, this pointed advocacy is set in terms of forwarding efforts to increase the support for the good principles of classical Natural Law teachings, favoring of free-market economics through genuinely free trade, enforcement of the freedom of the seas, and adherence to international agreements that operationally facilitate respect for law over and against the use of force as a guiding principle.

Bibliography

Stanislav Andreski, Social Sciences as Sorcery, 1973.

Hadley Arkes, Natural Rights and the Right to Choose.

____. Beyond the Constitution.

____. The Philosopher in the City.

____. First Things: An Inquiry into the First Principles of Morals and Justice.

____. The Return of George Sutherland: Restoring a Jurisprudence of Natural Rights.

____. Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law.

Randy E. Barnett, Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty.

M. E. Bradford, A Better Guide Than Reason: Federalists and Anti-Federalists.

____. Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution.

____. The Reactionary Imperative: Essays Literary and Political.

J. Budziszewki, Nearest Coast of Darkness: A Vindication of the Politics of Virtues.

____. The Resurrection of Nature: Political Theory and Human Character.

____. The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man.

____. True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment.

____. What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide.

____. Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law.

Owen Chadwick, The Secularization of the European Mind in the 19^th Century.

Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, 1970.

____. Warrant for Genocide, 1967.

Robert Conquest, Reflections on a Ravaged Century.

____. The Dragons of Expectation.

____. The Great Terror.

____. We and They: Civic and Despotic Cultures.

____. Where Marx Went Wrong.

Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy (multivolume source).

Rauol E. Desvernine, Democratic Despotism.

Anthony Esolin, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization.

Francois Furet, The Passing of an Illusion: The Idea of Communism in the Twentieth Century, 1999.

Étienne Gilson, God and Philosophy.

____. From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species and Evolution.

____. The Unity of Philosophical Experience.

____. The Spirit of Medieval Philosophy.

____. The History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages.

____. Three Quests of Philosophy.

____. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.

____. Methodical Realism.

____. Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge.

Paul Gottfried, The Strange Death of Marxism.

____. Ed., Understanding Anti-Americanism.

Kevin R. C. Gutzman, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.

John H. Hallowell, The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology.

____. Main Currents in Modern Political Thought.

____. The Moral Foundation of Democracy.

James Kalb, The Tyranny of Liberalism: Understanding and Overcoming Administered Freedom, Inquisitorial Tolerance, and Equality by Command.

Willmoore Kendall, The Basic Symbols of the American Political Tradition.

____. The Conservative Affirmation.

____. Willmoore Kendall Contra Mundum.

Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism Revisited: From De Sade and Marx to Hitler and Pol Pot.

____. Liberty or Equality.

Fr. Henri de Lubac, The Drama of Atheist Humanism.

Forrest McDonald, A Constitutional History of the United States.

____. Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution

____. States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876.

____. E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic, 1776-1790.

Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.

____. Whose Justice? Which Rationality?

____. Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry.

____. The Tasks of Philosophy.

____. Ethics and Politics.

Fr. C. N. R. McCoy, On the Intelligibility of Political Philosophy.

____. The Structure of Political Thought.

George Michael, The Enemy of My Enemy.

E. B. F. Midgley, The Natural Law Tradition and the Theory of International Relations.

____. The Ideology of Max Weber.

Fr. Vincent P. Miceli, The Gods of Atheism.

Fr. Moorhouse F. X. Millar, S.J., Unpopular Essays in the Philosophy of History.

Thomas Molnar, Return to Philosophy.

____. Archetypes of Thought.

____. The Pagan Temptation.

____. Politics and the State: the Catholic View.

____. God and The Knowledge of Reality.

____. Utopia, the Perennial Heresy.

Thomas P. Neill, The Rise and Decline of Liberalism.

____. Makers of the Modern Mind.

____. Religion and Culture.

Gerhart Niemeyer, The Communist Ideology,

____. Between Nothingness and Paradise.

____. Aftersight and Foresight.

Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays.

____. On Human Conduct.

____. The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Scepticism.

____. Hobbes on Civil Association.

____. What Is History?

____. The Vocabulary of a Modern European State.

Josef Pieper, Abuse of Language Abuse of Power.

____. For the Love of Wisdom.

____. In Defense of Philosophy.

____. The Four Cardinal Virtues.

Paul A. Rahe, Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift: Montesquieu, Rousseau, Tocqueville, and the Modern Prospect.

Heinrich A. Rommen, The State in Catholic Thought.

____. The Natural Law.

James V. Schall, S.J., Roman Catholic Political Philosophy.

____. Christianity and Politics.

____. The Politics of Heaven and Hell: Christian Themes from Classical, Medieval, and Modern Political Philosophy.

____. Reason, Revelation, and the Foundations of Political Philosophy.

____. At the Limits of Political Philosophy: From the "Brilliant Errors" to the Things of Uncommon Importance.

____. The Mind That Is Catholic: Philosophical and Political Essays.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, The Return of Anti-Semitism.

Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History.

____. On Tyranny.

____. Persecution and the Art of Writing.

____. Liberalism, Ancient and Modern.

____. Thoughts on Machiavelli.

____. What Is Political Philosophy?

____. The City and Man.

____. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes.

J. L. Talmon, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy.

____. The Myth of the Nation and the Vision of Revolution: The Origins of Ideological Polarisation in the Twentieth Century.

____. Political Messianism – the Romantic Phase.

Bruce S. Thornton, Decline and Fall: Europe’s Slow-Motion Suicide.

____. Greek Ways: How the Greeks Invented Western Civilization.

____. Plagues of the Mind: The New Epidemic of False Knowledge.

Stephen Tonsor, Equality, Decadence, and Modernity.

Robert C. Tucker, The Marxian Revolution.

Frederick D. Wilhelmsen, Christianity and Political Philosophy.

____. Being and Knowing.

____. Man’s Knowledge of Reality.

Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

____. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

References

www.michael-oakeshott-association.com/

http://www.morec.com/schall/

www.leostrausscenter.uchicago.edu/