This month marks the 350th anniversary of the West’s first war with China. In February 1662, Generalissimo Zheng Chenggong swept the Dutch off of Taiwan, bringing the island under Chinese rule for the first time in history. The Dutch were Europe’s most dynamic colonial power, and the Taiwan colony was their largest holding in Asia, so the war is fascinating from the perspective of global history, touching on the question of the global balance of power in the pre-modern world.
But the war also has lessons for today, because among the factors that enabled the Chinese to win was a rich, effective, and, to Westerners, mysterious military tradition – a strategic culture that provided a discernable boost to Chinese warcraft. The Dutch, famous in Europe for their weapons, tactics, and logistics, found themselves hopelessly outclassed by the Chinese. Since military leaders in China today are still deeply imbued with this traditional military culture, it behooves us to study it.
Westerners still tend to underestimate Chinese military prowess, viewing China as a historically peaceful nation frequently invaded by bellicose neighbors: Huns, Mongols, Manchus, and, of course, Japanese. During World War II, U.S. and British propaganda strengthened this image by depicting China as a hapless victim of a modernized, assertive, and militarily effective Japan. Most westerners even believe that the Chinese invented gunpowder but never used it in weapons, reserving it for fireworks.
In fact, the first guns were developed in China, as were the first cannons, rockets, grenades, and land mines. The Chinese eagerly studied foreigners’ weapons, such as Japanese muskets and English cannons. So it’s no surprise that on Taiwan, the Dutch found themselves hard pressed by Chinese firepower. The Dutch were no laggards. Dutch cannons and handguns were famous throughout Europe, and the Dutch arms industry was a major part of its booming early-capitalist economy. Yet the guns aimed against them by their Chinese foes were strikingly effective, and the Chinese gunners were so fast and so accurate that, as one Dutch commander wrote in chagrin, “they put our own men to shame.”
Yet an even greater Chinese advantage in this Sino-Dutch War was in the area of leadership. The Dutch were known throughout Europe as the inventors of modern military drill, and, indeed, Dutch innovations revolutionized warfare in Europe. Dutch drilling regimes — in which musketmen were trained to march in lockstep, carry out intricate maneuvers, and act as one coordinated unit — spread throughout the West, prompting military historians to argue that Europeans possessed a special “Western Way of War,” making them the most effective fighting troops in the world.
But, in a striking coincidence of world history, at the same time as Europeans were developing their new drilling regimens, China was undergoing a military revolution of its own. Perhaps one should instead say “revival” of its own, because ancient Chinese armies were incredibly well drilled and disciplined. Still, the revival of the 1500s and 1600s went well beyond ancient models, and Chinese commanders experimented with training regimens that sound strikingly modern – the simulation of combat stress, the assumption of prone positions for firefights (Westerners were trained to stand up, exposing their bodies to more bullets), advanced strength and endurance training regimens.
The Chinese forces the Dutch faced on Taiwan were extremely well-trained, and the Dutch, for all their Western Way of War, were routed on the battlefields like novices.
But the most important Chinese advantage was in strategic and tactical culture. Chinese military commanders were able to draw on two millennia of careful thinking on warfare. Most Westerners know about Sun Tzu’s Art of War, which is read by CEO’s from Germany to California, but most westerners have no idea how many brilliant strategists, tacticians, and logistics experts succeeded Sun Tzu, building the world’s richest corpus of military thought.
Zheng Chenggong and his generals referenced complex scenarios and stratagems by means of a few words, much as westerners use the term “Trojan Horse.” This store of knowledge helped the Chinese to outwit the Dutch at nearly every turn, luring them into traps, making careful use of terrain, combining naval and land power in unexpected and effective ways.
The Dutch, concluding that they had no hope to prevail against the superior Chinese forces, ultimately gave up and handed Taiwan over to the Chinese. The next war between Chinese and Western forces wasn’t fought for another two centuries, and by that time the global balance of power had shifted. Europe was industrializing. China was in decline.
Today, China is modernizing at an incredible clip, and the U.S. appears to be in decline. The technological balance is still in the West’s favor, but the situation is changing fast.
Maybe it’s an awareness of this rapidly-changing status quo that’s motivating Western experts to urge Washington to contain China, and it seems that President Barack Obama is moving in this direction, even as his Republican rivals urge even more ambitious military buildups.
Yet one rarely hears them making a much cheaper and ultimately more effective suggestion: to learn more about traditional Chinese warcraft and military affairs. No nation is so deeply imbued with its own history as China. Commanders in China’s armed forces are as deeply aware of China’s deep legacy of military thought as Zheng Chenggong and his generals were. They know their Sun Tzu, their Zhuge Liang, their Qi Jiguang. But they can also quote Clausewitz and Mahan and Petraeus. They know their own tradition, and they know the Western tradition. They’re following Sun Tzu’s advice: “Know your enemy and know yourself.”
If Westerners don’t study the Chinese military tradition, then the West will be at a significant disadvantage. The Sino-Dutch War, Europe’s First War with China, is a great place to start learning.
Tonio Andrade is a professor of history at Emory University. He is the author of the recent book 'Lost Colony:The Untold Story of China's First Great Victory over The West'.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Gerry Kangalee
another point of view
Derek Weese
Precisely why I am a military historian.
The_Observer
American exceptionalism has seen it’s best days come and gone. Time for the US to learn to be neighbourly while they can barely pay the mortgage.
John Chan
I think 三國演義 (Romance of the Three Kingdom) should be the better place to start learning Chinese culture, political and military wisdom. Mao said he beat KMT on half volume of 三國演義 only. Nearly every Chinese male read 三國演義.
“Sun Tzu Art of War” is a theoretical writing, and 三國演義 is the application of “Sun Tsu Art of War.”
Ba Tau Nhieu Chuyen
That’s hardly an example considering how the Mongols subdued the whole of China with a force equaled to 1/100 of its population. The Japanese also conquered China. Neither of these used Sun Tzu’s Art of War, which is a nice book but overinflated.
The Vietnamese used their own tactics and soundly defeated the mighty Mongols not once but thrice. While the Chinese suffered under the yoke of the Mongols, Vietnam enjoyed triumphant victories. They, of course, relied on no Sun Tzu.
The West shouldn’t be worried too much. The myth of a superpower that is China is still a myth and any attempt to inflate the situation is futile example of a frog trying to become a cow.
John Chan
@Ba Tau Nhieu Chuyen,
If Vietnamese is so invincible, please tell me what has happened to Vietnam in the last two hundred years? How can they were conquered by a western alien and a Fascist Japan until China helped them to liberate themselves? Besides how can Vietnamese get kicked out by a tiny nation Cambodia? And how can the invincible and bellicose Vietnamese even couldn’t protect their culture; Vietnamese submitted to the white alien brutality and used their imposed ugly curly script instead of using their ancestor’s writing?
Ba Tau Nhieu Chuyen
As always, you’re missing the point. I never said the Viets are superior at anything. They simply didn’t know or didn’t believe in Sun Tzu.
But as you mentioned: If China was such a super country with higher-than-thou attitude, then why did it spend the 3 centuries before last being… such a sick man of Asia?
Yar Yar
That’s funny. Vietnam was kicked out by Cambodia?
Matthew
I completely agree with you, as well as with Davelnaf and Aaron. At first, I was intrigued by the idea of “learning” from, and not underestimating a potential opponent. However, the emphasis on this one battle became rather one-sided and simplistic. Let’s not overstate China’s supposed history of great military strategy, especially in light of how the Japanese and others with much smaller forces have whooped their rears.
rlroll2
The Vietnamese may have used their own techniques to defeat the Mongols not once but thrice, but they, fortunately for them, had enough sense to backdown (and avoid a serious, serious butt-kicking) from further confrontation with the Chinese in 1975. A confrontation, I might add, that they started. It will be interesting to see how the Vietnamese handle their current issues with China in the South China Sea. As to China and the West, Democrats, Bill Clinton et al. have bent over backwards to pass as much technology to the Chinese military complex as possible. Academia in the US has likewise done everything in their power to accomadate Chinese students looking to learn and pass information back to their colleagues in China. We don’t take the whole thing seriuosly; they do. Eventually the Chinese will get it right.
Ba Tau Nhieu Chuyen
Actually, what the Vietnamese did was not about trying to prove who was superior. They fought for their own survival and once backed into the corner, they fought brilliantly. The third victory the Mongols was a decisive defeat using brilliant military tactics to totally crushed both the huge Mongolian armada and the land force. After that defeat, Kublai Khan never bothered Southeast Asia again.
In 1979, China was defeated by Vietnam in what was a test of will between a big army with no experience and a much smaller force with years of experience (fighting the war with U.S.) China underestimated Vietnam, which proved it didn’t learn anything from its own Sun Tzu.
James
We also spanked them in the Korean conflict. Our initial losses were due to a half serious effort. But once focussed, we defeated them.
Cyrus14
Even a very thin Filipino line was able to hold on against their human wave.
Alex
China is rapidly growing, but it isn’t catching up:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Chinas_Century.pdf
This peculiar phenomenon applies to military spending, R&D spending, and per capita income. The U.S. has actually widened the gap in all three areas over the past 20 years. Also, even its massive defense budget – a 4% of GDP – isn’t even close to something that would begin to qualify as “overstretch.” If you’re going to play the decline card, you need to play it better than you have here.
“In fact, the first guns were developed in China, as were the first cannons, rockets, grenades, and land mines.”
This is true. But these weapons are less important to modern warfare than computer viruses, guidance systems, and the like. China exports many high-technology products, but it actually is primarily an assembler of these commodities, rather than the actual developer behind them (and the imbalance, favoring assembly over R&D, is widening rather than closing).
If the militaries of the modern West can learn something from China, then you should clarify what that is exactly, since for now, it seems that the PLA could learn a lot from them, instead.
You spend plenty of time looking at the Sino-Dutch war, but skirt over China’s devastating defeats at the hands of the British Empire, Japan, and Vietnam. A common trend? All of them had smaller economies than China did at the time of the respective conflicts, more or less demolishing the argument that sheer economic size bestows pure geopolitical power.
John Chan
@Alex,
You have proven the author’s point view, haven’t you? Westerns are hubris and ignorant, that’s precisely the phenomenon of the Romans in their dying days. It seems the author’s wake up call is wasted.
Galen Manapat
While I would never underestimate a potential enemy, particularly China, I am bullish on America. Unless Obama convinces all Americans that we are vermin who need to crawl under a rock and beg forgiveness from the world for existing, there is another possibility and another outlook.
I am a Viet Nam vet who believes in american exceptialism.
During the Cuban Crises we forced 90% of Russian conventional submarines near Cuba to surface by tracking them until their oxygen and batteries ran out and were forced to surface.
Americans received a nasty “right hook” during our earlier fight with England and with the Japanese in 1941. It the case of England we endured injustice for around 14 years before deciding to fight them. And fight them we did with camaflage and deceit.
In both cases, the grievances made us angry and filled us with resolved to defeat the one who pulled the first punch.
Americans have an uncanny ability to response to challenge. We are VERY GOOD at adapting UNDER CRISIS.
At the time of the attack at Pearl Harbour, America had totally ineffective torpedoes. We had bad torpedoes. The Japanese had excellent torpedoes. (So much for being ready for war!) Submarine after submarine came back and said: the torpedoes do not work. In 1942 Submarine commanders were blamed for not hitting targets until one skipper set up a submarine net in Pearl Harbour and proved that torpedoes were tracking 8 feet lower that the US Department of Defense said they were tracking. Red tape, finally the torpedoes were redesigned and fixed.
Here is my point: we should have lost that war. But we didn’t. We one that war as we began with torpedoes the Japanese would not have used. The British developed radar which could only transmit to 12 miles then, but it still found the Bismarck off of France. Americans improved that radar so it could extend 60 – 80 miles.
In a pinch, an America that believes in herself WILL FIND A WAY.
From a Filipino / German American Yank
Klee
You guys also overstated the US’s ability, tactics, fighting experience and technology. If US is so powerful, they would not have lost the following wars.
1.) After more than 58000 soldiers died & more than half a million handicapped, Vietnam was and is a communist state and not a friend with US;
2.) After 9 years & close to 5000 died, yes, the dictator was gone, but Iraq still doesn’t have a stable government and there are civilians killed in conflict everyday. The only thing US gains is a foothold of a military supply base. US has to make all kinds of excuses to leave the scene.
3.) After more than 11 years in Afghanistan, Taliban is getting back stronger & stronger. US soldiers are still being killed every day. US now is trying to back away by withdrawing before 2014. Because, US knows they will not win there regardless. They now are talking to Taliban under the table. Under Bush administration, US refused to talk to them. US is running out of steam and again looking for excuses to back out of Afghanistan.
That is true that in these several decades, US’s military strength will be greater than China’s. But the situation will come clear when the Chinese economy surpass US’s around 2030. I believe by 2075 China’s military strength will be in par or surpass the US’s, but, of course, all the readers here will not be around to see that coming though.
jkm
Interesting point. Supply chain problems might also have had something to do with this defeat. Reading a quick overview it seems that Dutch E.I.C handling of the situation was singularly inept, diplomatically and strategically. But tactically and morale wise troops on the ground did rather better than might be expected against overwhelming opposition. Action was mainly sieges, so little drill involved, but lots of digging.
Boris
I know US troops still boast their professionalism, told soldiers how to fight according to standard operating procedures, which is the most silly practice in Chinese view, even Taliban know how to use the flaw of those procedures and shoot down your Chinook and let you suffer heavy loss.
The reality here is that the US Army move in a too bureaucratic way,which is a dead end and very dangerous on the battlefield.
James
The Taliban managed to down a Chinook because they threw up a barrage of RPGs and actually hit it. The Chinook is very large and slow moving. The planners thought it better to use on Chinook versus the 7 to 10 Blackhawks required (depending on altitude, equipment, and mechanical failures). That incident more due more to complacency and underestimation of the threat. As far as bureacratic interference, the Army does not fight the way it wants to, but rather the way the politicians and bureacrats will allow it. The President is directing the war instead of giving the military what it wants.
XBY
@James,
“As far as bureacratic interference, the Army does not fight the way it wants to, but rather the way the politicians and bureacrats will allow it. The President is directing the war instead of giving the military what it wants.” That’s exactly the purpose why Sun Tzu write The Art of War,and he want to brief on all main points related to war or battle and ask the king of Kingdom Wu not to interfere during war or battle planning and following procedures.
He in fact proposed in his book, under certain scenario, the general is authorized to reject wrong order from the king to favor the interest of the nation, and it’s viewed as loyalty to the nation.
Reason
Am so glad to see a piece like this as I’m working on a piece “The Curse of Sun Tzu.”
So this is great material for me :)
XBY
“The Curse of Sun Tzu”, don’t know which curse from Sun Tzu you found.
I know most guy here discuss this and that have no idea of what is war or battle,so novice. The guy state Sun Tzu is outdated is because he do not know what Sun Tzu said in his book. Seems you’re interested in the topic, so give you some ideas on what Sun Tzu said in his book in a much modern version and you can decide by yourself.
Say the chapter 2 of the Art of War,there’re a modern version which are two US documentary films called “What makes a battle?” and “The Arm behind the Army”. This will give exactly view of Sun Tzu, Sun Tzu here summarize the financial side of a war and battle, and give some wise advice to levy the burden of war or battle for a nation. In ancient time, to start a war need many preparation and huge cost and have to face problem of logistic to feed an army of hundred thousand soldiers, I don’t see things changed today, and in fact even worse today.
When you see the points of these two US films, you will know those who judge the capability just from the win or lose of war is totally novice and childish. The win or lose of war is not simply the professionalism of general and the soldier, it’s first governed by the power of a nation.
Reason
@XBY
Thanks, will make time to check out your advice.
I’m not really talking about curse… more of a Sun Tzu malfunction in generals who wrongly believe they are sagacious – of which the world is full of
davelnaf
As I was reading this article I was thinking “OK, let’s move this ball forward.” But the author continued to harp on the Dutch misadventure on Taiwan 350 years ago. Although the reason why the author did has some relevance it is still more relevant to say that ‘times have changed, sir.’ During the Korean War the Chinese communist used primitive human wave attacks because they had no real alternative. Almost thirty years later they didn’t fare too well against the Vietnamese. The flawed combat tactics and weapons of a 350 year old Dutch misadventure on Taiwan has absolutely no relevance to the present. The western way of making war has made Sun Tzu et al irrelevant.
John Chan
@davelnaf,
Bigotry will misguide people to the wrong direction and to the dead end, that’s what your comment shows. The author tried to open the mind of westerners like you about a world outside your own. Anyhow it is your analysis flawed, based on the western propaganda in Korea War and 1979 Vietnam border war to rebuke the author’s recommendation is self-defecting.
Human wave is the way the westerners butchering each other during the WWI. The longest and largest retreat in the USA military history was in Korea, because they fell into the PLA’s pocket trap. Perhaps the author should use that battle to illustrate the deadly disadvantage if the westerners do not open their mind to other civilization, just like that 5 star West Point generalissimo who had learnt a painful lesson at the expenses of thousands lives of the US and its allies’ soldiers.
davelnaf, it seems you have never seen that book. Please refrain from commenting on something you have no clue about, such comment only reflect the poster is ignorant.
davelnaf
The human wave attacks during the Korean War are an established fact. When the allies adjusted to them, which is a hallmark of the Western way of war, they became less effective to the point of being nullified. It is true that WWI saw a lot of this kind of combat, but it is well understood why combatants on both sides used them. The point I made in my earlier comment is that combat experience is vital to success in waging war. China’s experience is very outdated and I don’t think the border dispute with Viet Nam counts for much. The PLA is trying to catch up with the West—that would be the US. Prior to Pearl Harbor the Japanese had convinced themselves they had reached not just parity but superiority with the US. The danger exists that at some point the PLA will do the same.
Reason
@JC
Does it not bother you that the Korean War was fought against UN mandated troops? Not the US.
Seems the CCP now enjoys prattling on about the sanctity of the UN – but the CCP actually went to war against the UN.
How do you reconcile this?
johnnybegood
The real war is economic and cultural, and the U.S is winning.
Military action has never at any point in history been so limited in power. And as such Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ as a theoretical work requires reinterpretation to remain relevant for economic, cultural and social battles, not just military conflicts. The west has probably published the widest thought on that giant work, so intellectually we are still the masters of war
John Chan
@johnnybegood,
Indeed, “Sun Tzu’s ‘Art of War’ as a theoretical work requires reinterpretation to remain relevant for economic, cultural and social battles, not just military conflicts.” But it seems the West is not a good student of Sun Tzu, military conflict is only small portion of ‘Art of War’ and the least important portion of ‘Art of War.’ The West shows that it only has capability to manage the least important portion of Sun Tzu’s work, no wonder the West only knows bombing and killing on industrial scale.
aaron
I think it’s great that the author draws attention to China’s rich military tradition but he’s leaving out some important points concerning China’s (Zheng’s) victory. It’s not that the Dutch were so outclassed by Zheng, they were vastly outnumbered. Taiwan Historians Denny Roy (Taiwan, A Political History) noted that the Dutch were heavily outnumbered and John Copper (Taiwan, Nation-State or Province?) claimed that Zheng’s forces numbered 30,000 whereas the Dutch defenders numbered only 2,000. It’s great to look at Chinese weapons and tactics, but a 15 to 1 force advantage is probably something worth considering also… Not to mention; the Dutch were based half way around the world(a bit of a logistics challenge) and Zheng had footholds in Mainland China and northern Taiwan. Further, Taiwan was not vital to the Dutch; it was the lucrative spice trade from the Dutch East Indies which brought in the profits.
steve
This article overstates the case – the Dutch presence in Formosa was small, and the island was a minor part of a large empire whose more lucrative parts were elsewhere. The fight between a small frontier outpost garrison and regime who needed Taiwan as part of its entire strategy is so unbalanced that you can’t really read much broader meaning into it.
If a Qing dynasty frontier post in Turkestan got overrun by one of the local khans(as they often did) you wouldn’t use this an an example to contrast Islamic and Chinese military cultures.
Maximus
Interesting article. Educational.
mike flynn
bottomline china had population and proximity in their favor. the first is enough to overwhelm any well trained force. and their culture has little regard for the individual and leaders willingly sacrifice millions to hold (take) the ground. why else did USA (ummm, i mean UN) not chase china across the yalu in 1951?
the dutch were far from a homeland with a tiny population base. they surrendered to the brits in new amsterdam around the same time. it seems to me the training techniques you credit to dutch probably go back to the phalinx heyday of rome if not further, for proof of a western coordinated force tactic.
its never that simple. warfare is a timeless pursuit. built on the previous successes and failures. its impossible to credit one country or one man so completely with an innovation. suntzu, surely is read in the west as much, probably more than von clausewicz is in east. know your enemy.
that said, USA and china know USA will never invade mainland china, (nuclear option?)so they will take liberties in the neighborhood. china also knows the west is suicidal in its self-hating anti war stances. china plays a zero-sum game while we feminize and dither hoping china’s interests become so closely tied to ours, they would never fire a shot, AND defend our world order. good luck with that.
Michael
It is useful, I think, to remember that the American armed forces have been engaged in actual warfare — fighting, killing, and, yes, dying — for most of the past two decades. They are battle-hardened and committed, as well as “blooded.” I don’t believe there is a nation on earth with this kind of tested military. So long as the United States is not drawn into a land war in Asia, I cannot believe there is an adversary — even one as big as China — that can meet American force at sea or anywhere else without suffering disastrous defeat. As for the Dutch being beaten in Taiwan: Look at a map. Rotterdam and Bruges are a long way from Taipei.
John Chan
@Michael,
Carthage had a mighty navy, they were battle hardened too. Carthage was the unchallenged hegemony in the West for hundreds of years before the arrival of the Roman. Roman had no navy, and had to build ships from technology stolen from Carthaginian. Well, Carthage navy was defeated by the Roman inferior equipped navy and faded into oblivious.
It seem your confidence is just as misplaced as those Carthaginians, as well as you have misread the article which is not about win or loss of a battle.
RJD
I think all the emphasis on military power is missing the point. The Chinese have conceded the overwhelming superiority of the US military’s weapons for the next decade at least. So if any conflict comes, it is more likely to be fought in the financial markets and in the cyberworld. There is no way to know if someday we will wake up to find the entire Internet down, the GPS network down, and the US currency plunging and interest rates exploding as China dumps US debt and refuses to lend more. That would paralyze the US more than anything the Chinese military could do.
That said, there is no fundamental conflict of interests between the US and China, and many areas for profitable collaboration. What would be best would be for the leadership of both sides to reach out and build a regular program of high level meetings on a semiannual basis. A US-China partnership, like an oligopoly in business, would be to the advantage of both nations.
John Chan
@RJD,
China does not have fundamental conflict of interests with the US, but US has fundamental conflict of interest with China. USA is a predatory imperialist aim to maintain world dominance and hegemony, it cannot tolerate any deemed challenge, it must nips any potential threat in the bud, that’s all those rounding up the lackeys to gang up China with arm containment all about. The relentless media smear campaign against China is just part of the containment effort.
ACT
“John Chan
@RJD,
China does not have fundamental conflict of interests with the US, but US has fundamental conflict of interest with China. USA is a predatory imperialist aim to maintain world dominance and hegemony, it cannot tolerate any deemed challenge, it must nips any potential threat in the bud, that’s all those rounding up the lackeys to gang up China with arm containment all about. The relentless media smear campaign against China is just part of the containment effort.”
@John Chan:
First off, I’ll spellcheck you. You said:
“China does not have a fundamental conflict of interest with the US, but the US has a fundamental conflict of interest with China. The USA is a predatory imperialist that aims to maintain world dominance and hegemony; it cannot tolerate anything deemed to be a challenge, and it feels it must nip any potential “threat” in the bud. In this case, it’s the rounding up of “lackeys” to gang up on China in the name of “arms containment”. The relentless media smear-campaign against China is just part of that effort.”
Secondly, some points:
1. You mentioned earlier that the CCP wants an aircraft carrier. Do kindly explain what the mission of an aircraft carrier is? Oh, that’s right, the objective of an aircraft carrier is to allow for “force projection”, the ability of a nation to place aircraft within striking range of another nation’s forces or soil with the end goal of taking a war to enemy soil and thereby defeating them. If the CCP has “only peaceful purposes” and only intends a “peaceful, kingly reign”, then is the CCP constructing an offensive weapon that is used to support and facilitate the invasion of nations separated from yours by large oceans?
2. The current state of affairs with the United States was born out of the need of the United States to defend itself. Before Pearl Harbor, the United States—a nation that, sadly, founded and completed itself via the genocide or enslavement and mistreatment of most, if not all non-white peoples—had thought that the oceans were enough to protect it from any aggressor. The Japanese changed all that, however, using aircraft carriers. The policy makers in the aftermath of WWII, therefore decided that the best way to ensure that war and suffering were never brought to American soil by a foreign nation ever again was to construct bases on the soil of allied nations, so that there would be an open and known deterrent to any who would harm the American people or the peoples of her allies. So, no, the US is not predatory, but is merely acting in the best interests of its people. That said, what the US did—toppling governments during and after the Cold War—was, and still is, wrong.
3. Continuing on the above topic, who are you to call the United States “predatory” and “imperialist” when the CCP invaded Tibet based on centuries old land claims that should have died with the old Chinese Empire in 1911, and then invaded Vietnam for–among other reasons–daring to even think that it might move outside the ancient and equally dead tributary system that China shackled Vietnam with long ago, in the form of signing a mutual defense agreement with the USSR. Then, in 2005, the CCP released a law saying that if Taiwan EVER attempted to gain formal independence–despite having its own government and sovereignty for the better part of six decades–the CCP would proceed to assimilate that nation by force. So, no, you have no right to ever call the US predatory or imperialist when the CCP–whose rule i assume you live under by the quality of your rhetoric–still has modes of thought that are several hundred years dead almost everywhere else in the world. This is also not mentioning the fantastic levels of corruption within the CCP itself which has resulted in so many tragedies–not the least of which is the recent high-speed-rail-line failure last year.
Reason
I think you overstate the PLA’s ability to bring down the US financially.
If what you say ever happened, the democratic countries of the world would quickly raleigh around each other and create new tools for commerce which would exclude the the CCP and any country foolish enough to come under their Axis. All of the mechanisms for global commerce still exist in the West, not is China.
China would quickly find itself on the very, very cold side of a very, very cold war.
An intentional catastrophic collapse of the global financial system instigated by the CCP would not see the collapse of democratic societies. Look around, even now, we’re going through the WORST economic recession in 70 odd years… but for most it really isn’t too different to 5 years ago when all the bankers were raking it in.
It’s about fundamentals – and the Chinese wet-dreams about pulling the US threw its own a*s financially and throwing it on the scrap heap of history just aren’t realistic.
They belong in the realm of the Great Leap Forward when China was going to “overtake Britain in just a few years of industrialization. The CCP is very prone to fancy and unfortunately a large proportion of the Chinese public are willing to believe their fancy.
abbarick
I fear any collabaration between the two giants would not be good for the world. See what great evil collaboration between the US and Western Europe in the form of NATO, IMF, World Bank has done and is still doing to the world today. See how the end of the Cold War has not brought any peace to the world but sorrow, shame and disgrace, and suffering.
Tony
The current U.S. military is loaded with combat veterans. The current Chinese military is loaded with inexperience.
Greg
I think we know from comments by leaders of the pla, threatening to vaporize the us west coast. Surround china and contain it.
ex-AWACr
‘the assumption of prone positions for firefights (Westerners were trained to stand up, exposing their bodies to more bullets)’
Obviously the author has never fired a muzzle-loading weapon. It is flatly impossble to reload one while prone.
Bruce Acker
It is interesting to note that many of the examples cited were largely expeditionary affairs. Being the master of ones own castle is substantially different than fighting an expeditionary war. That US is in decline, though a debatable point, rarly includes the notion that its sovereignty is seriously threatened at home. Likewise, it is likely in the future that Chinas rise will make it far less likely to suffer humiliating occupation. I predict a coming period where Westen domination in Asia subsides, and Asian domination of the West remains unthinkable.
XBY
Let’s change a view and discuss why Dutch fail, what is the mistake of Dutch general?
First, Dutch guys do not do a basic homework must be done by any qualified general, check the terrain and know the advantage and disadvantage of their own defense, they do not know tide and ignore a shallow entrance, where under certain case, the bigger ships of Zheng Chenggong can enter and land.
Second, their intellectual organ do not work, in fact, Zheng Chenggong first found a forwarder base close enough to Taiwan, and Dutch simply do not know.
Third, when they already under adverse circumstance, Dutch do not concentrate their force, concentrate their resource in fortified city,and they just sit without any action and let Zheng Chenggong defeat them one by one.
It’s not because Zheng Chenggong have 25,000 soldier and Dutch side has less govern the win or loss, because you can not let 25,000 soldier across Taiwan Strait by swimming, it’s many mistakes made by Dutch that let Zheng can fully use their advantage of more soldiers.
There’re war win by nation and war win by General. This war between Dutch and Zheng Chenggong, China side is win by General.
Passerby
It never stops amazing me how these armchair strategists on the Internet have all this time to waste.
a_canadian_observer
@Passerby: Does your comment include John Chan, the self-proclaimed armchair military strategist?
And, BTW, does your comment include yourself?
Abbarick
The author clearly wants to draw attention to that First War, and that he has done. He has not denied the nature and outcome of other wars with China. Many comments here seem to suggest that that First War is irrelevant today siting the defeats China had suffered from other subsequent wars. But those comments seem to miss the point about the lessons of that First War which was over Taiwan. China has repeatedly made it clear that there could be no negotiation that would make it give up its sovereignty over Taiwan. We may not be clear how long it took China to prepare for that First War, but when it was ready it won the war decisively. It is still about Taiwan, and the enemy this time is the US, the strongest military power of today just like the Dutch was at the time of that First War.
China never tried to cover up the defeats it had suffered in wars waged against it, they are openly taught in Chinese educational institutions. One will often hear about what the Chinese leaders themselves tagged “Century of Humiliation” which was not about Chinese victories, but shameful defeats. Such history of shameful defeats is taught to Chinese people to build up sense of patriotism in them to be ready to prevent any further humiliation, and to do all to remove the shameful past. The reunification of Hong Kong and Macau were significant milestones in the recovery from the Century of Humiliation, but without the reunification of Taiwan the recovery from the humiliation will never be truly completed. China has made it clear that peaceful reunification is the desired option, but that other options are not off the table. Taiwan is China’s backyard and it can afford luxury of time to wait, watch, contain and prevent just until the “the time is ripe”, as in that First War.
As for the defeats China suffered from neighbours its core strategy is to try to promote good neighbourly relationships with all neighbours. It is also ready to make possible necessary sacrifices, mainly economic sacrifices, to achieve that objective in order to avoid any repeat of humiliation. China message in that First War with the West is the same as today, that is, TAIWAN IS NOT FOR GRABS!
aaa
The Chinese people love peace, China must protect themselves