Five years or so later would bring Chinese armor to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, fully bypassing Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. In the next phase, another five years later, the Chinese would be massing for an attack on Iran.

At each stage our pacifists would yell and scream but do nothing, while China takes its time to assimilate its winnings, lay pipes and pump the oil it captured in each nation, ensure the self-sufficiency of its forces in the nations, secure its supply lines, and ready its forces before moving on to the next target. New equipment would be issued in each phase to make their forces even more deadly. They are, of course, under the umbrella of MAD against Russia, the EU and the US.

The Chinese would have no problem in fielding an army of 20 million men, overwhelming armor, and air superiority just for this 15 or 20 year effort. So, it might be 30 years; that doesn't change things a whole lot.

We would not stop it as things stand. Central Asia would become Chinese, and later...the Middle East. A large part of oil reserves in the world would be theirs, and they would not be shy about going for it. All of this done by a land bridge, obviating the need for supremacy of the seas, and making it extremely difficult for other nations to support the victims.

Farfetched? Sounds like every major empire building effort in history to me. Darius, Alexander, Caesar, et all, and Hitler (though he went far, far too fast!)

Well, it’s ‘main’ after (a) not getting into stupid messes, and (b) not getting deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep into very stupid messes, and (c) doing in the the most incompetant, corrupt way possible, as if the real objective was fighting a war so as to enrich one’s cronies.

Umm, remind me again which party got us into Vietnam and ran that as incompetently as possible?

Look, Iraq was a bipartisan mess approved overwhelmingly by both Houses of Congress. A Republican president led the charge, to be sure, and gets most of the blame for the screw-ups. But it was a national mess.

Similarly, Clinton, the only Democratic president we've had in the post-Cold War period, got us into numerous stupid messes. Granted, Bosnia and Somalia II: Chasing the Warlords weren't of as large a scale as Iraq. But they were even less tied to our national interests.

Well, it's 'main' after (a) not getting into stupid messes, and (b) not getting deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep into very stupid messes, and (c) doing in the the most incompetant, corrupt way possible, as if the real objective was fighting a war so as to enrich one's cronies.

George W. Bush famously campaigned on an end to nation-building but wound up launching perhaps the most ambitious nation-building enterprise in American history. The election of a Barack Obama as president might eventually get us out of that endeavor but he’d almost certainly get us in to others just as Bill Clinton did.

I said during Bush's 2000 campaign that the idea he was trying to push was a fantasy. The kind of isolation he proposed then was certainly a heartfelt desire of the American voter, but was simply not in mesh with the realities of being in the role of the lone superpower.... a reality he was reminded of, and to his credit reacted well to, when 9/11 came along. 9/11 didn't really change everything, it simly reminded us of reality. That is tacitly admitted to, also, in the reference to Obama likely getting us into the same situation. Again, try as we might, we cannot ingore the role of the world's lone superpower. I submit that 9/11 was the result of the last time we tried.

I find it surprising there are still people who ignore 9/11 and the changes it forced upon this country and this president. This was not a simple change of heart concerning nation building but was response based in the national interest moving forward from that day. Literally, things changed overnight.

Saying "9/11 changed everything" isn't a blanket excuse for every change you want to make. Nobody says "We need to change to the Metric system, because 9/11 changed everything". If you want to start nation building, fine, but have a good reason for it, 9/11 isn't enough.

James, do you honestly not see the disconnect between this post and the one you wrote about McCain’s League fo Democracies idea?

Not at all. America is a global power with global interests and it makes sense to work with our democratic allies in achieving consensus on those interests. That doesn't require -- and would likely mitigate against -- invading countries and imposing democracy.

Regards, C

I find it surprising there are still people who ignore 9/11 and the changes it forced upon this country and this president. This was not a simple change of heart concerning nation building but was response based in the national interest moving forward from that day. Literally, things changed overnight.

What do we do, for example, if China attempts to take over the Saudi oil, the Iranian oil, and the Sudanese oil? Hunker down, and accept it?

That's one of the worst thought out hypotheticals I've heard to date. There is a lot of ground to control between China and those oil fields, across hostile countries. Not to mention the resistance and insurgencies China would face from Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran alone. If the US even had to do anything, it would just be to loan supplies those other countries, to be paid back in the form of cheap oil in the future. So, lets recap:

1.) China becomes the 3rd world's new bogeyman
2.) USA becomes the 3rd world's best hope for defense.
3.) China's communist government collapses under the strain of the war, plus the post-war reparations, maybe as a condition of the ceasefire itself.
4.) The US has access to cheap oil for some time into the future as payment war debts.

Such a move by China would probably be one of the most ideal situations for the US.

Militarily:
We do not have strong allies in Europe.
We do not have strong allies in the Far East.
We do not have strong allies in the Mid East.
Ditto Africa and South America.

What do we do, for example, if China attempts to take over the Saudi oil, the Iranian oil, and the Sudanese oil? Hunker down, and accept it?

Fortress America is no longer viable.

Ultimately, then, “fixing America’s military” will require fixing America.

Good luck with that.