"The US & China sittin' in a tree"

Jambo and I just had a lively, productive conversation on the ol' cell phone. I wanted to transfer the gist of that conversation here, so Jambo don't think I'm further prosecuting the argument (we ended in agreement), I simply wanted to put the ideas we discussed on the Bund.

First, I take issue with the idea that in terms of "home grown" terror (a very specific type of terror, not to be confused with an over all threat assessment which would include foreign nationals) bastardized American-Christianity (McVeigh, those who kill abortion doctors) represents a bigger threat to the US then radical American-Islam.

I would first have to ask that "home grown" be defined. Jambo defined it as "a US citizen." We then went into comparing attacks, such as Major Hassan, versus abortion "doctor" assassinations. And if you want to tally historical body counts, then yes, be it McVey or the KKK's long murderous history, bastardized versions of what we recognize as Christianity has literally killed more Americans then have US citizens of the radicalized Muslim faith. But the reason I dislike such a line of reasoning is because not being "home grown" doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the ability of foreign nationals to attack us at home, from within our home. So what would be the point of focusing on that narrow comparison when it doesn't include those most likely to hit us at home in 2010?

Let me put it another way - just on pure population percentages the US is going to historically have more acts of terror committed by "American Christians" then by "American Muslims" - historically speaking. That doesn't mean that in 2010 the greatest threat within our boarders emanates from "radical" Christianity. Over stayed visas, illegal entry, legal immigrants whom have been radicalized, US born Muslims becoming radicalized, the overall threat of an attack on US citizens, in my estimation, overwhelmingly comes from radicalized Muslims and not radicalized Christians. Focusing on, or even simply comparing in an attempt to make a larger point, the historical body counts perpetrated by Christian US citizens versus Muslim US citizens is such a narrow focus that it really does nothing to further the conversation of where the greatest threat within our borders is now (or I should say since 9/11). If we are talking the potential of an attack on the homeland in 2010 I don't see how noting that radicalized Christian Americans have to date a higher body count than radicalized Muslim Americans has any bearing on domestic threat assessments.

Look, I know you were merely getting to a larger point Jambo, but I simply took issue with that pit stop. Yes, American Christian terrorists have a higher body count then American Muslim terrorists, but that's like saying after pearl Harbor that Christian-American terrorists (the KKK, etc) have killed more Americans than Japanese-Americans. Ok, that's true - but what's the point? We are still at war with Japan. We are still at war with radicalized Islam. What's the point of comparing that body count when it doesn't tell us who the greater threat is (at home or abroad) right now?

****

Jambo also noted that "historically" speaking fundamentalist Islamic states are doomed to fail. He said that Titus and he (on the phone) could come up with only 2 - Taliban controlled Afghanistan, and Iran. My problem with that assessment is how do we know they are doomed to self implode when one of them is still in existence, and the other was only toppled after direct, outside intervention? Jambo conceded that "historically' was the wrong term, and that it was his opinion that Iran simply "wont work." And I agree 100%. The problem is communism is doomed to fail. There is no example of a successful, functioning state of communist dictate in all of recorded human history. However, the Soviets spent 70+ years "not working", causing mayhem, murder and mischief the world over in the mean time. This is why I dislike talking about Iran in dismissive terms, as if it has sewn the seeds of its' own destruction via their oppressive fundamentalist regime. They may well have, in fact I'm sure of it. But how long that will take and how much chaos they can cause in the mean time isn't certain at all - thus their applying a sytem of governence that ultimately "won't work" has no bearing on their threat level today or in the forseeable future. They have survived 31+ years, a couple attempted coups, a recent uprising, and every economic sanction the civilized world can throw at them, and yet they chant death to America Fridays and continue to to build their bomb Saturday through Thursday.

****
And this leads me to my final point, and what we ultimately agreed on. I can't redo the whole conversation (man, I miss those live interactions), but basically I asked Jambo if he were running the State Department or the DoD, would he advise the presdient that China is the biggest threat on the immediate horizon, or Iran? He answered "China, by far," I disagreed. For a few fundamental reasons. The symbiotic nature of the Chinese and US economies is too entrenched for it to be in China's interests to attack us either militarily or economically. We are the largest consumer of Chinese goods. We have granted China the most favored nation trading status (the most coveted economic "status" in all the world). They hold trillions in our debt (our default or refusal to pay - via a conflict - would be catastrophic to the Chinese currency) . They sell our own military their fatigues for goodness sake. An attack on the US would SINK the Chinese economy. And China knows it. On their last meeting the Chinese Premier warned President Obama that excessive US federal spending should be monitored. The irony of a "communist" premier telling a US president to "slow down on the big government" is priceless. And in this case says more about our president then it does the Chinese, but I digress ... the point being that far from considering a conflict with us they are concerned we aren't doing enough to remain healthy. The Chinese ambassador to the US was recently asked a good, basic question. "How can China still consider itself communist when embracing free market principles on such a large scale?" The answer made the room chuckle - "We are communists, with Chinese characteristics." The laughter was because everyone knew "Chinese characteristics" meant "capitalists." Make no mistake - I'm not by any stretch of the imagination arguing that China is not still ruled by an authoritarian, politically opressive single Party system. I'm simply saying that when The Wall Street Journal lists their top 100 "freest" economies (their 15th annual list came out 2 days ago) and once again Hong Kong is #1, then China has more to lose than gain by starting a conflict with the US. If all those city dwelling college age/educated young Chinese men, whom are happy with downloading their ipod apps and eating western hamburgers, were suddenly unemployed in a spiraling economy because China went after the US, THAT would represent the greatest potential for revolution against China's ruling Party, bar none. Put simply, China's ruling elite have too much to lose in a conflict with the US, and too much to gain by remaining economic partners (of sorts). And the fact that they will never get that capitalist genie back in the bottle means that they, more than Iran, have sewn the seeds for a generational demand for a peace seeking regime (and I would argue the inevitability of democracy - at some point - as politcial liberty goes hand in hand with economic liberty).

Show me where Iran has that sort of incentive. It's a given now that there are only 2 potential outcomes for the Iranian problem. Either there will be an external military intervention or Iran will get the bomb. There's no in between. We've thrown every economic sanction imaginable at them and their nuclear efforts have proven immune. They fund terror groups the world over - from Hezbollah to the Iraq insurgency. They have sworn to wipe a democratic ally of ours off the map. So, as Jambo pointed out, allowing them to procure a nuclear device is "out of the question." I agree. Which means this ends militarily. And in the event of this inevitable military attack Iran has threatened to mine the Straight of Vermus (sp?). The route in which 30% of the entire world's oil supply travels.

So, I'm advising the President of the United States on the biggest "looming threats." On the one hand I have a fundamentalist nation state that shows no immediate sign of internal collapse. That is seeking to develop nuclear weaponry at the very moment I walk down the drive at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They have promised to deliver a "crippling blow" to the US and her closest allies. They have proven resistant to every form of economic sanction, and what's worse the economic battle is one sided given we can't seem to hurt them but they could disrupt oil flow and blow the top off of US gas prices. On the other hand I have a nation whom needs us so bad they're encouraging Obama to get his financial house in order.

As I said, Jambo and I are in agreeance.