The cascade of statements, deployments, agreements and announcements from the United States and its regional associates in the last week has to be one of the most unpleasant shocks for China’s leadership — ever.  The US is moving forces to Australia, Australia is selling uranium to India, Japan is stepping up military actions and coordinating more closely with the Philippines and Vietnam in the South China Sea, Myanmar is slipping out of China’s column and seeking to reintegrate itself into the region, Indonesia and the Philippines are deepening military ties with the the US: and all that in just one week. If that wasn’t enough, a critical mass of the region’s countries have agreed to work out a new trade group that does not include China, while the US, to applause, has proposed that China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors be settled at a forum like the East Asia Summit — rather than in the bilateral talks with its smaller, weaker neighbors that China prefers.

Rarely has a great power been so provoked and affronted.  Rarely have so many red lines been crossed.  Rarely has so much face been lost, so fast.  It was a surprise diplomatic attack, aimed at reversing a decade of chit chat about American decline and disinterest in Asia, aimed also at nipping the myth of “China’s inexorable rise” in the bud.

The timing turned out to be brilliant.  China is in the midst of a leadership transition, when it is harder for important decisions to be taken quickly.  The economy is looking shaky, with house prices falling across much of the country.  The diplomatic blitzkrieg moved so fast and on so many fronts, with the strokes falling so hard and in such rapid succession, that China was unable to develop an organized and coherent response.  
...

...to reinforce the sense in Asia that the US has reasserted its primacy in a convincing way.  The US acted, received strikingly widespread support, and China backed down.

That is in fact what happened, and it was as decisive a diplomatic victory as anyone is likely to see.  Congratulations should go to President Obama and his national security team.  The State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House have clearly been working effectively together on an intensive and complex strategy.  They avoided leaks, they coordinated effectively with half a dozen countries, they deployed a range of instruments of power.  In the field of foreign policy, this was a coming of age of the Obama administration and it was conceived and executed about as flawlessly as these things ever can be.

quote:

But second, historically, foreign policy has been an area that many Presidents who become bogged down in domestic issues end up doing well, simply because they are not constrained in the same way, and are able to use levers of American power put into place over decades and centuries.

quote:

Third, as is talked about later in the article, China has yet "made it moves" in reaction to these developments, and sometimes unintended consequences can be a real pain in the butt.

quote:

Overall, do you think - over the next decade or so - these actions will lead to a sharpen conflict with China, or continue to strengthen America in the region? And why?

quote:

That is in fact what happened, and it was as decisive a diplomatic victory as anyone is likely to see.  Congratulations should go to President Obama and his national security team.  The State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House have clearly been working effectively together on an intensive and complex strategy.  They avoided leaks, they coordinated effectively with half a dozen countries, they deployed a range of instruments of power.  In the field of foreign policy, this was a coming of age of the Obama administration and it was conceived and executed about as flawlessly as these things ever can be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

But second, historically, foreign policy has been an area that many Presidents who become bogged down in domestic issues end up doing well, simply because they are not constrained in the same way, and are able to use levers of American power put into place over decades and centuries.

Just curious if your research shows the accompaniment of of a highly resistant congress along with this 'bogged down' condition you're referring to. And I was also wondering if you could cite some examples of what specifically "bogged down" these presidents you're talking about. You make an interesting point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

What is the probability China plans attacking militarily Australia or other countries mentioned? Also, considering the US is de facto bankrupt, what sense it makes to expand its military presence? 

quote:

That is in fact what happened, and it was as decisive a diplomatic victory as anyone is likely to see.  Congratulations should go to President Obama and his national security team.  The State Department, the Department of Defense and the White House have clearly been working effectively together on an intensive and complex strategy.  They avoided leaks, they coordinated effectively with half a dozen countries, they deployed a range of instruments of power.  In the field of foreign policy, this was a coming of age of the Obama administration and it was conceived and executed about as flawlessly as these things ever can be.

This is really funny. LMAO

quote:

You don't really understand much about geo-politics, do you, Fellow?

Firm

quote:

The US is a “resident Pacific power” in the same sense the old Soviet Union was a “resident Caribbean power” during the Cuban missile crisis – or in the same sense the British, the Dutch, the French, and the Germans were Pacific powers during the heyday of European colonialism. That is, the US is an invading power, with tens of thousands of troops stationed in its Pacific protectorates, such as South Korea, Japan, and the Pacific atolls and micro-nations which are little more than American lily-pads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

You don't really understand much about geo-politics, do you, Fellow?

Does this rhetorical question suggest you do?

quote:

ORIGINAL: audioguy58

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/20/the-pacific-pivot/

quote:

The US is a “resident Pacific power” in the same sense the old Soviet Union was a “resident Caribbean power” during the Cuban missile crisis – or in the same sense the British, the Dutch, the French, and the Germans were Pacific powers during the heyday of European colonialism. That is, the US is an invading power, with tens of thousands of troops stationed in its Pacific protectorates, such as South Korea, Japan, and the Pacific atolls and micro-nations which are little more than American lily-pads.

quote:

I've dabbled in it, yes.

I'm not always up-to-date on current developments, by remember most of the basics and theory.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: audioguy58

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/11/20/the-pacific-pivot/