China Inc.

21st Century

There has been a lot of coverage in the media over the last two years about the threat posed to the U.S. economy by the growing economic strength of China. There is talk about how China is causing American workers to lose their jobs because Chineseproducts are cheaper. President Bush is bringing up the issue of China seeking to gain a competitive advantage by undervaluing their currency, using government subsidies and other unfair trade practices. Policymakers wring their hands over the threat posed by China. When a Chinese state-owned company wanted to buy UNOCAL, an American petroleum company, their was an outcry about how this posed a threat to U.S. security and needed to be examined by a government entity responsible for scrutinizing foreign investments in the U.S. Books like the one below are being written about the Chinese economic threat.

20th Century

In the 1980s, U.S. policymakers wring their hands and corporate executives shake as Japan's economic might appears to be taking over the U.S. economy. Japanese automakers are threatening the market dominance of U.S. automakers. All manufacturing sectors of the economy appear to be threatened and American workers thrown out into the street by cheaper and better Japanese products. Japan is accused of unfair trade practices and their investments in the U.S. are coming under growing scrutiny. Books are being written about the economic threat by Japan.

Recent concerns about the economic threat posed by China bear an eerie resemblance to those expressed about Japan almost 20 years ago. I expect books will be written analyzing the Chinese competitive threat and thinktanks will produce white papers about the subject just like was done when fears about Japan's economic dominance were paramount. There has been little discussion in the media comparing the two situations. The U.S. seems to suffer from chronic collective amnesia. Everytime a political, military or economic threat appears to threaten America, we act as though this was the first time something like this has happened. Likewise, once the Soviet Union and Communism was the BIG threat. Now Islamic fundamentalism is the BIG threat. Perhaps the U.S. could act or react more effectively to world events if policymakers remembered the old adage that "nothing is new under the sun."

Movies about 9/11

Although this blog is not intended for discussing movies, I recently saw a news segment on the nightly evening news that was just crying out for a comment. Since it had international dimensions, I felt that this was a good place to discuss it.

The news segment was about the upcoming release of several movies about the tragic events of 9/11. This news segment posed the obvious question if making movies on this event was appropriate at all or whether more time needed to elapse before such an emotionally-laden movie should be shown. The news segment stated that while some families who lost family members in the Trade Center bombings thought that more time should have elapsed before making a movie others supported showing movies about this event. This segment continued by showing trailers from one of the upcoming movies on 9/11, UNITED 93. The news report said that one New York theater had already pulled the movie trailer due to complaints. It was only a matter of time until movies on this subject were produced and it won't be long until films about the current situation in Iraq are being made.

It seems to me the most important question is how a movie treats this subject. If, in Hollywood fashion, the movie sensationalizes the event by reproducing the old disaster films Airport (1970) and Towering Inferno (1974) then movie studios are shamelessly creating a tearjerker just for increased film revenues. If the movies take a more critical and analytical approach examining how the country responded to the event, then the movies could serve a useful purpose. Let's hope that future films on 9/11 and subsequent events treat them in a thoughtful manner and not in a way that relieves Americans of tears and their pocketbooks.

Iraq: Why one should think before acting

There are many comments and opinions about the War in Iraq and whether we should have invaded or not. I do not wish to revisit these. I feel it is important to raise the some basic questions that are not being asked. For example, did anyone think about the impact on world opinion, particularly that of Muslims, of sending U.S. troops to overthrow the government and occupy the capital of a Middle Eastern country. Everyone knows the U.S. is not popular among Arab countries and not looked favorably upon by many Muslims. It is obvious that emotions have been very sensitive between Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus, our military and political leaders should have been more prepared to wage a war for world public opinion after we decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It seems our military leaders were sleeping during their military history courses at West Point or they would have remembered a key element creating military strategy:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Sun Tzu(6th-5th century B.C.), The Art of War.

Three observations about the War illustrate this quote. Apparently no one thought it odd that we met so little resistance in overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime when we knew he was militarily prepared for an invasion. If you any military leader thought of the abovementioned quote from a classic military strategy book or knew military history, they would have realized that any enemy fighting against a numerically and technologically superior force would likely resort to guerilla/terrorist warfare rather than be annihilated in a direct military confrontation. Obviously our military leaders forgot about guerilla wars we fought in Central American and Vietnam.

The second observation is that Arabs are not fond of the U.S., partially due to our long term support for the State of Israel. Thus, Muslims in an Arab country are unlikely to be happy about American troops being in their cities and capital for any extended period of time. Iraqis did not like Saddam Hussein but he was one of their people.

The third is that Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups need to constantly use propaganda against the U.S. to maintain the support of Muslims. Nothing supports the terrorist's claim that the U.S. is out to get the Muslim world then U.S. military action. This allows Al-Jazeera and other Arab news sources to have a constant stream of words and images showing the U.S. as an enemy of ALL Muslims.