US China Japan Quandary

As I write this, President Obama has ended his Asian tour (sounds rockstaresque). Although he was met by major protest nearly everywhere he went, from the Philippines where protestors were sprayed with water hoses to Malaysia, his main worry continues to be how to deal with Japan, an ally but at the same time not offend one of America’s largest holder of U.S. debt – China.

In word, President Obama stated that the US Japan alliance was "stronger than ever" adding in so many words that America opposes any efforts (by China) to undermine Japan’s administration of the disputed and uninhabited Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea (note East China not East Japan).  By taking this position, The President basically questioned China's sovereignty and “legitimate interest," to use the words of foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang, in the Diaoyu Islands, which they feel have nothing to do the Japan-US security treaty. Also, there remains the effort of the U.S. to implement Obamas GATT and NAFTA, the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which excludes China.

Some may argue otherwise, but it should be remembered that since the fall of japan after WW 2, it was clear that a primary objective of the occupation of Japan would be U.S. military control in the region for decades to come albeit not originally outlined in the Potsdam Declaration as such. This was achieved when General Douglas MacArthur, along with a few staff WROTE the entire new constitution of Japan that has lasted ever since. Specifically via But the most unique and one of the most important provisions came in Article 9, which outlawed the creation of armed forces and the right to make war.

This is a difficult prospectus for the U.S. while mainstream media incessantly pounds that China is faltering economically, the question is compared to whom?  Not the U.S. for certain.   First, U.S. bureaucrats insist that the Chinese economy is in deep trouble, although the Chinese economy grewat 7.4% year-on-year for the first quarter of 2014. In particular when compared with the miniscule expanded 0.10 percent growth in the U.S. Gross DomesticProduct (GDP) observed in the first quarter of 2014 over the previous quarter.  And loot will continue to flow in to China given the global demand for copper, soybeans and multiple investments and trade arrangements between China and South America. China has a large hand and equal investment in Copper in both Chile and Peru and Iron in Brazil as well as sustainable energy development in Venezuela. Plus one must recognize the long standing relationship China and Trinidad have in the Caribbean. The reality is that South America now imports more from China than it does from the European Union, according to the U.N. economic agency for the region.

Then there is the issue with China and Russia , which appear to be making moves toward quitting using (diversifying) the US dollar or at least significantly cutting the dollar share in their forex reserves (a move that will most likely broaden the Yuan’s daily trading range). Add to this that from of January 2013 to the end of July, the Bank of Russia reduced its stockpile of US Treasury securities from USD 164.4 billion to USD 131.6 billion (a reduction of US Treasury obligations by USD 32.8 billion, or by 20 percent), there are some serious issues on the table for the administration to address and not just give window dressing.

Even more important is that the military containment of China for the U.S. is the main reason this administration has proffered unequivocal support for Japan, although they are well aware that such may have a dire impact and strain on the U.S. economy.  Specifically, speaking, if China desires to retaliate, in concert with Russia and other BRIC nations, the result could led to starting the demise of the dollar – meaning the American way of living will be severely impacted as a consequence with growing levels of inflation in the form of increases in the cost of food, clothing and gasoline and utilities.

It should be reminded, give the manner in which the U.S. has targeted Russia for what has occurred in the Ukraine, and leaving China out of the TPP talks, what we observe as closer interaction between Beijing and Moscow are really about protecting their domestic economies. But it is not farfetched to see that is they continue this close corporate, an outcome of bad and poorly thought-out U.S. foreign policy could be a direct challenge and attack on the dollar.

The U.S. concerns in China will prove to be challenging for the present administration. For one they are all over the place in policy and tend to reflect a moderately satirical ineptness to the goals and aims of their foreign policy efforts.  On the other, I am still waiting (as I suspect others) for  Mr. Obama to define what he means by “rebalancing” U.S. policy towards Asia, when his actions show opposite and even worse, the same old U.S. approach. By this I mean the neocolonial zeal reflected in President Obama’s desire to re-occupy the Philippines consequently continuing the United States historical imperialist agenda in Asia.

China has the second largest economy in the world and recently it has been project to pass the U.S, before the next year, with some economist suggesting that the size of the Chinese economy will become three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040. The concern is that much of the U.S. dollar’s valuation stems from its lock on the oil industry and if China and Russia and the BRIC nations can accomplish this, next thing is the dollar is gone and  gold will rise. As I write and you read, Iran is already in the field trying out a non-dollar based international trade system.

It will be hard for Obama to both keep from upsetting China and at the same time appease Japan, as current news reports in the region have noted.  It is the administration desire to maintain U.S. military hegemony in both Malaysiaand Philippines, by making sure neither nation ever reach the strength militarily equal to Vietnam, as well as do all possible to prevent China from reaching parity with the U.S as a naval power that could eventually challenge American in the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific. The obstacle is, has the Obama administration really thought about what their actions may result in, or are they just making it up as they go like they were in a game of pick-up and run?

Will Libya be America’s next Vietnam?

Not so long ago I remember comparing then President’s George W. Bush entry into Afghanistan as being another Vietnam. It had no direction and unfortunately under the current administration, although it has instruction, it still is going every which way but loose. Now I remember Vietnam, seeing news every day of mangled bodies of young American soldiers barely out of high school fighting in mangrove swamps and being carried out mortally wounded on large helicopters, just as I remember the day we watched the draft and saw the birthday of my uncle, October 28, the only male in my family, listed on the draft board on television. He was lucky, being the only male he was not taken in the draft.

The actions in Libya began at a certain start date, albeit Bush and Rice made new in roads in the earlier part of this decade that may have contributed to what Obama has implemented to date. Such was not true for Vietnam, seeing that the US entered that war incrementally, in a series of steps between 1950 and 1965. President Harry S. Truman, in May 1950, authorized economic and military aid to the French, who were fighting to retain control of their Indochina colony, which was comprised of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

But the Vietnamese Nationalist defeated French forces at Dienbienphu in 1954, which led the French to create a non-Communist entity south of that line. Since the United States refused to accept this, President Dwight D. Eisenhower went into nation building mode that became South Vietnam. Similar to what the US and NATO are doing with taking the sides of the rebels in Libya.

Although not on the record, like then, we and other nations have sent military advisers to help the country’s rebels. Thus far to date, the NATO no-fly zone has failed to both protect citizens and aid the rebels. Both, similar to our first entrance into Vietnam where we intervened in the middle of civil war. The reason we lost in Vietnam was due to not have lucid goals and objectives and a lack of confidence in our mission in southeastern Asia. The same can be asserted for the current Libya policy where we have no goal and worse, do not even know who we are supporting.

What is evident is eerily similar to 1961, when President John F. Kennedy secretly sent 400 Green Beret soldiers to teach the South Vietnamese how to fight against Communist guerrillas in South Vietnam. By the time of his death in November 1963, there were more 16,000 U.S. military advisers in South Vietnam.

The lesson that Obama and our politicians should take is that history is the best teacher. After Kennedy was killed and Lyndon Johnson began became President, the incessant bombing of North Vietnam increased and Johnson sent the Marines to South Vietnam in 1965. Although Johnson had intended to fight a limited war, he did not expected that the North Vietnamese would be able to hold out long against the American military.

To date our air campaign has had little effect against Moammar Khadafy. And if we make the mistake of assuming that airpower will get him out singularly, we are wrong and will be in line for a long term stalemate. It is just strange to that after all these years have passed since we first jumped into Vietnam, we have yet to figure out policy that match our political and military goals under such circumstances. Baffles the mind, doesn’t it?

madness, madness, war

Coming home to a place you know well and trying to reintegrate after being deployed abroad cannot be comprehended by the average citizen, as well many civilian politicians, community leaders and even some top military brass. This is because we as a nation are insensitivity to others and do not understand what it means to go off and fight for ones life in a brazen and foreign land. Thus it doesn’t surprise me that a person, regardless of any social marker, can flip like a light switch and kill folk in their immediate environment.

For years we have been aware of cases of men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and committing violent criminal acts. Just last month a 21-year old Indiana man killed himself in a movie theater after watching Zombieland. Then there was the case of William Grant Johnson who killed a physician in New York and shot several others before he was captured. And there was Michael James in Hawaii who murdered his wife and son and also killed himself. Then there is Jacob Gregory Swanson of California who killed his girlfriend and committed suicide afterwards. The list goes on and on: William Howell, a Colorado-based Army Special Forces soldier who shot himself in the head in his front yard in March; the attempted murder-suicide at Fort Lewis this summer, and the Iraq war vet who killed himself and wife in Washington state less than a month ago.

This is not just consistent for our recent wars but even wars of past Last month in the UK and American Vietnam veteran killed his boss and tried to kill three others in a “Reservoir Dogs style attack”. We have known for years that domestic violence has been on the rise for war veterans as well as the extent to which PTSD has been occurring as well however, what do we do nothing, and act like nothing is going on or worse as if it is not a serious problem that needs to be addressed. All we do is turn our backs, watch football, and decide what clubs we going to go too while these folks come back here in states of anger and rage we will never comprehend.

Most of us know a war is going on but are with drawn and only show passion if any in the form of political discourse. The truth is that we are removed otherwise, far removed and live our lives the way we would if a war was going on or not. It is like the military is involved, engaged and fighting the war by themselves because the general public goes around as if we don’t care. We don’t even feel the impact of the war for the only ones that really do either are fighting it nor have family members fighting in it. And just imagine how that makes veterans returning home feel?

As a scientist, I know first hand that we aint doing our part. I mean there is no research available nor being conducted to discern the impact of multiple tours and their effect on behavior; or how many tours are too much before a person evinces serious problem behavioral outcomes; or how effective are the evaluation measures we use to suppurate data from veterans returning home; or how well (if at all) are the programs we use to re-integrate veterans are? Ask this as a scientist for I see the same thing in the field of my specialty which is working with infectious disease and mental health outcomes among correctional populations. The goals of my confederates and me are to re-integrate inmates successfully, reduce mental health and infectious disease outcomes as well as keep them from returning back to prison.

We have found that there are different approaches that work for different inmate/correctional populations and worse, there exist no standard protocols for program implementation for inmates and vary from state to state. We need to support research and encourage research for the purpose of dealing with the behavioral health outcomes of military populations. I say this as a scientist; for it seems we are doping nothing and worse do not know what is required or needed; what works and what doesn’t.

What ever the case we need some answers and some answers fast. These folks are used to solving problems by killing - killing is all they know. Otherwise it will only get worse and Major Malik Nadal Hasan, MD wont be the last. It all reminds me of “Five nights of bleeding” by Linton Kwesi Johnson- especially the lyrics there is “war amongs' the rebels, madness, madness, war,