The U.S. Should Withdraw ItsTroops from China’s Periphery

Recently the U.S. army withdrew its last combat troops from Iraq, and President Obama declared the Iraq war over. Look at the achievements of the seven-year long war: a death toll of 4,000 American soldiers and at least 100,000 Iraqis. People and media around the world think the U.S. was once again trapped in the bog of war, which cost an arm and a leg in terms of politics, economics and diplomacy.

It’s hard to say what the U.S. has gained from the war except the mess left for the Iraqis. In 2009, only one U.S. company, ExxonMobil, won the right to an oil field in two public biddings, while companies from Europe and Asia won other contracts. Because oil reserves in Iraq rank among the top three in the world, people can’t help but wonder why Bush launched the Iraq war, for the rich resources of gas and oil and the interests of the nation, or for revenge for his father?

“War is an extension of politics,” Clausewitz said, which still relates to this war. In history, there’s no winner, no matter what country is involved in a war. In both world wars, the U.S. made a windfall by trading ammunition, but the ensuing wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq became nightmares. In fact, other than bringing disasters and hatred to human beings, wars make no sense at all.

For the time being, the most important task for the U.S. is to recover from the economic recession. This is the consensus of both the Obama administration and the American people. At the same time, the U.S. should focus its foreign policy on economic cooperation. However, since 2010, the U.S. has been flexing its muscles militarily, especially in staging joint military exercises on China’s periphery. Are they sailing their aircraft carriers and flying their bombers without consuming any resources? Of course not. In reality, the U.S. will benefit if it withdraws its troops from China’s peripheral regions after the Iraq war. Only a peaceful U.S. employing its innovative power and huge market can clear its debt to other countries.

We know that after WWII, Korea and Japan have seen decades of abnormal development under U.S. political and military protection, and have been dubbed economic giants but political dwarfs. Regional security has been complicated because they do not have independent diplomatic power. Thus, when Chinese policymakers observe these countries, the American factor always has to be taken into consideration. Moreover, because of American “support,” Japan, Korea, even Vietnam, the Philippines and other Southeast Asian countries find it difficult to engage with China over military issues. They believe it unnecessary with the U.S. presence.

This is the time to test American wisdom. They have no doubt that as the sole superpower in this world there is no other country able to challenge them. They can kill many birds with one stone if they withdraw their main forces. First, they can pool their resources for economic development; second, this will enable countries in the region to establish normal relations; third, the U.S. will improve its reputation around the world. At the same time, it can take the chance to take a look at this world and see how normal relations between countries are developed. The U.S. will be more charismatic by focusing on economic development and will be able to guarantee a long peaceful period where no other country will dare to provoke another. Nuclear deterrence alone is sufficient to preclude any major wars.

Has the U.S. benefited from its military presence in Asia? I don’t think so. In Afghanistan, for example, I am afraid there’s still a long way to victory. NATO forces are struggling to find Taliban troops spread out in the mountains. Even if they can solve the problem there, they will not be able to handle the terrorists who have infiltrated into northern Pakistan and inland Tajikistan. Without humanitarian aid led by the U.N., military interference alone can only backfire. Are the U.S.’ Asian allies loyal enough? The answer is negative. In this age when national interest outweighs ideology, countries approach diplomacy in a rational manner.

China will not want to challenge the U.S. for global supremacy for the time being. When we surpassed Japan as the second largest economy in the second quarter, we could hardly believe it. We have so many problems at home and we are still fumbling for the right road. Complicated regional politics have determined that China’s rise will not be easy, let alone becoming a superpower. We have Russia in the north, Japan and Korea in the east and India in the south, in addition to Central Asia and ASEAN, so we may not even have a bargaining chance. This can’t be unappreciated by the superior Americans.

According to the renowned strategists Brzezinski and Mearsheimer, if the U.S. has full control over the global order, it can retreat from the world and become a “benevolent emperor.” The premise for a troop withdrawal from East Asia is for China to grow stably but not rapidly, and for the Japanese economy take the lead. However, we have 1.3 billion people to feed and hundreds of millions of young people who want houses and cars. How can the desires of 1.3 billion not be equivalent to that of 130 million? If the Americans don’t understand this, the gap between Americans and Chinese will become wider and wider. The inevitable consequence will be a new “cold war” of containment and anti-containment across the Pacific Ocean.