(Editors Note: The following is a response by Greg Autry, co-author of the book, Death by China, to a recent piece by Andrew Erickson and Gabe Collins article: China's Real Blue Water Navy)
Your piece of August 30, "China's Real Blue Water Navy" seriously misstated the argument in my book, with Peter Navarro, Death by China. The article framed its opening with this out of context quote: “The People’s Republic is moving forward at Manhattan Project speed to develop a blue water navy capable of challenging the U.S. Navy.”
Andrew Erickson and Gabe Collins used this snippet and an insulting tone to establish a strawman argument. The implication was that I believe the PLAN was on the verge of bombing Pearl Harbor or invading San Diego. Having established a spurious opponent, the authors then spend several pointless pages proving the obvious – that China is not about to invade America like some scene out of Red Dawn (before that film was edited to appease Beijing's sensibilities).
Erickson and Collins ignored the balance of our narrative and left the reader with the implication that just because China is rapidly building up a more assertive navy – they obviously are – and wish to displace the U.S. from the Western Pacific – nobody seriously believes they do not – that we believed they were something near unstoppable and that there was no balance in this situation. Nothing could be further from the truth and acknowledging that our book is not subtle (it is written for the general public, not diplomats or analysts), we were very clear about that.
Examples of text from that chapter that Erickson and Collins conveniently omitted include: "any frontal assault by the existing Chinese Navy would not get within 50 miles of such a fleet [U.S. task force] in open waters" and "in a dog fight, the American F-22 fighter would likely down its Chinese counterpart in a New York minute. So too, would the USS Ronald Reagan and its armada almost send any of China's new aircraft carriers to Davey Jone's locker in short order."
The point being that our position isn't that China's military is on the verge of global supremacy. Our argument is that the Chinese regime is increasingly aggressive and irresponsible and that their military is getting to be good enough to be dangerous. Further, it is growing so quickly that despite the quality or nature of any one component, it will be big enough to to move from just dangerous to very dangerous. A very dangerous military in the hands of paranoid, totalitarian ideologues should be a serious concern for every nation in East Asia as well as for the United States, regardless of its relative effectiveness or any analysis of its actual purpose. Their article did us all a disservice by dismissing that position out of hand.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Justice for israel
China LMAFO bacward and will disintergrate before they ever catch up.look at history
Frank
Which period of the history?
Qin, Han or Tang ?
Or the history of the last 60 years?
Schminner
The Ding Dong period.
Richard
All countries under the U.S military umbrella are paranoid whether it's Japan, Indonesia or Georgia. This is because they have been made to dance to the tune of the U.S hegemonic behaviour.
A real bull of Japan is not China but Russia, remember the Kuril Islands, and the Koreans have made to hate each other insteady of embracing one another.
Every article I read on the Diplomat website there is smell of hate against China, but I keep asking myself is it real hate or Japan is just afraid of China for what they done to them in the past.
Dialogue is the only way forward.
Schminner
What would China accomplish if they decided to attack America?
If they did decided to attack and succeeded, I guess they will have a huge gold reserve and the dollar printing machine from the Feds…. hmmm, not a bad idea.
Gordon Harris
I agree with Frank. China really has little history of taking over countries away from its borders, other than Tibet, which has historically gone back and forth under Chinese influence. China rightly believes that the western Pacific is in its front yard. It does not have anything resembling the Munroe Doctrine, which basically claims an entire extra continent as being under its control. Why shouldn’t China do all it can to defend itself from a potential adversary which continually develops and brags about having more and more types of lethal weapons and which shows little compunction about using them even upon the citizens of austensibly friendly nations on the opposite side of the world?
Bankotsu
I think the U.S should concentrate on their own economic problems rather then make trouble for China. That is better for everyone actually.
Frank
The problem with western authors is that they do not read histories. China is not going to attack USA is because Chinese people realized 2500 years ago, that it is unwise to wage wars far from your home. If any of the authors (Greg Autry, Erickson and Gabe Collins) ever read about Zheng He’s seven trips to India Ocean in Ming dynasty, they will understand that. In the early 1400, nobody on this earth could challenge Chinese navy. Actually, nobody could challenge China either. China could attack and take over any countries in Indian Ocean. China never attacked countries afar before, and will not do so in the future.
Noel Worthy
Frank, sir. China did attack countries before in its history, a quote from the Chinese ex president" Tibet has been part of China since it was conquered by China during the Yuan Dynasty" I don't about you, but for me to Conquer another country back in those times was To Invade a Country! Also, since China regards the Yuan Dynasty as one of theirs and NOT a Mongol one, then China invaded as far West as Vienna, Austria!
Bert
That's good then. I am relieved. We are save. :-)
Noel Worthy
Frank you said" China never attacked countries afar before,and will not do so in the future",
OK, Yuan Dynasty, Chinese, 1279-1368, Attacked Burma 1283 and 1287, Kingdom of Serbia Attacked 1288,
Java Attacked 1293.
There are more, but that's enough to debunk your statement…..oh yeah also Tibet
reason
Yes but China is willing to use force on its neighbours which will draw the U.S in to a conflict. The U.S, I hope, isn't going to let China use force to regain past Imperial territories of its neighbours.
Frank
"afar" You understand afar means far away. Right? China is not stupid to attack a country far away. That is all I am saying.
truth
What about 1962 war with India . Issuing passports with disputed territories on the map
Frank
1962 is a year of butt kicking. That is why. Americans also kicked some butts.
Leonard R.
The article did you a disservice Mr. Autry. It began with the false premise that China needed a blue water navy to be a threat to the United States Navy. And since the PLAN blue water navy isn't remotely competitive with the US Navy, it must follow that China poses no threat to the US Navy.
It's not very well-reasoned. However, the Collins & Erickson article does veer into objectivity here and there. For example, it provides a good checklist of PLAN deficiencies. But for your critics, I'll put it into a syllogism. Fifty-Cent Brigade message board commandoes & think-tank peaceniks can show me where my premises are wrong.
Premise 1: PLA generals & Chinese leaders have expressed the desire to displace the US Navy from the Western Pacific. (They've expressed far worse sentiments than that, in fact).
Premise 2: China has built a missile designed specifically to destroy US aircraft carriers operating in the Western Pacific and kill tens of thousands of Americans working on them.
CONCLUSION? What conclusion should one draw from those two premises? My own conclusion is that China does indeed pose a considerable threat to the US Navy.
Mr. Navarro & Mr. Autry are genuine American heroes AFAIC. China has been waging war against the US for a long time. And the US has not been fighting back.
Unfortunately few prophets are welcome in their time – especially among academics. And that is why some folks are castigating Mssrs. Autry and Navarro — for merely pointing out the obvious.
Keep up the good work sirs.
John Chan
@Leonard R,
USA is thousands miles away from Asia on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, it is not an Asian nation, nobody has the capability to threaten USA’s homeland and all nations in Asia are trading partners of the USA, why does the USA need to posing monstrous and intimidating US Navy to harass Asian nations?
Navarro and Autry are genuine American warmongers, for their own personal gains and pockets they are willing to put innocent Americans in the harm’s way by fabricating baseless misinformation full of hatred; yet you called them heroes, you surly have a funny taste.
phil
"US Navy to harass Asian nations"
John, small correction: harrass China rather because almost all Asian nations welcome the US.
Leonard R.
@ JC:
Thank you for confirming my first premise.
Bankotsu
"Our argument is that the Chinese regime is increasingly aggressive and irresponsible and that their military is getting to be good enough to be dangerous."
China is not waging imperialist wars in the middle east, killing people with drones or instigating colour revolutions, or building military bases in latin america, so what are you worried about?
Maybe it's better for you to concentrate on solving the economic problems of the U.S rather then take the easy way out and bash China.
JohnX
Banotsu wrote: "China is not waging imperialist wars in the middle east, killing people with drones or instigating colour revolutions, or building military bases in latin america, so what are you worried about?".
No you are right, but they are doing so in Asia and the Pacific.
applesauce
at least the end points of both sides are the same, china isnt gonna come and zerg rush america anytime soon
also:
"Chinese regime is increasingly aggressive and irresponsible and that their military is getting to be good enough to be dangerous."
whos to say what is "resposible" or "irresponsible" what has the chinese done that is "irresponsible"? if your are pointing to the disputes in the seas, the other governments there deserve a full half of the blame. in fact seem the chinese have taken care actually to NOT rush military units in.
Errol
No it would not. Doing so will really trigger a military build-up in Asia. Each of China's neighbors are small, but they are numerous and scattered thru-out a broad front. Instead Beiing sent out its 'civilian' ships to push its agenda and its sphere of influence outwards.
ACT
to continue Errol's comment:
while the PRC has not–thankfully–yet used military units in enforcing its territorial claims, it has made enough boisterous threats of the use of force that the effect is roughly the same; instead of using military force, it has used paramilitary vessels and organizations to all but physcially shove rivals out of an area of dispute. Thus far, the only rival this has not been successful against is Japan, which is probably a good thing, because if Japan were to bow and appease the PRC government, the PRC would then test the waters further. i suspect this would come in the form of doing something similar to some minor and otherwise inconsequential US interest. More than just mere territorial or resource claims over a few collections of rocks, the PRC is seeing just how far it can go. I expect this behavior to resume once Xi Jinping has consolidated power, since the legitimacy of the PRC–no matter who holds the reins–rests upon appeasing its public through economic growth and the successful "defense" of "sovereign lost territory".
John Chan
@Errol,
Every nation has the right to build up defense as it sees fit; only the USA is stopping others defending themselves, meanwhile it is posing monstrous intimidating forces in Asia in the name of pivoting to Asia, please point your finger to the instigator, USA, not the one responses to the threat.
Besides, you should ask your government where have they spent your tax dollar, why is your nation’s military not buildup for the occasion? Please take some responsibility, not always is somebody else’s fault.
JohnX
John Chan wrote: "only the USA is stopping others defending themselves, meanwhile it is posing monstrous intimidating forces in Asia in the name of pivoting to Asia,".
Can you explain in greater detail how they are doing this?
Oro Invictus
On the one hand, Mr.Autry, that the article in question did selectively use information from your work is disingenuous is a matter for concern, I find it difficult to be overly sympathetic to your plight; yours and Mr. Navarro’s work seems, quite frankly, not only dangerously jingoistic and paranoid, but guilty of the same misrepresentations you accuse the writers here of by selectively using information to paint the PRC as some type of malevolent entity bent on the utter subjugation of all else out of pure maliciousness. Not everything the PRC does is done with the overriding goal of harming the US, rather, like any government (in fact, to an even greater extent than most governments), the PRC’s actions can be seen as the function of the short-sighted self-interest of the CPC itself in its goal to maintain power. Indeed, while I agree that the international community needs to take action in regards to things like the PRC’s aggressiveness in its periphery, its support (tacit of otherwise) of egregious human rights violations domestically and internationally, and its deleterious environmental policies, to sound a call for some sort of response which amounts to initiating a global standoff is irresponsible and against the best interests of all parties.
I’m no fan of the PRC government (as you’ve no doubt noticed), but I’m not going to treat them like some one-dimensional beings whose intentions are unrelentingly evil. That sort of behaviour is precisely why I don’t like the CPC and its associated organizations, as they constantly view everything in terms of their self-interested actions being good (and thus any action, no matter how reprehensible, “justified”) and all those who oppose being evil (and thus deserving of extreme “retribution”); it is an egotistical and bigoted world-view which is antithetical to a cooperative environment and will only lead to ruin. Similarly, just as how most of the PRC’s issues are not because of “hostile overseas forces” or “malcontents” but problems of the CPC’s own making, so too is the case with the problems facing the US.
The whole world doesn’t, has not, nor will it ever revolve around the PRC nor the US. The sooner you (and really, most people in regards to their respective nation-states) accept this, the easier things will be going forward.