hong kong media: the us's "one percentism" is making a comeback
2024-09-24
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
reference news reported on september 23on september 20, the hong kong-based south china morning post website published an article titled "the us military and security agencies are becoming paranoid", written by the newspaper's columnist lu gang. excerpts from the article are as follows:
former u.s. vice president dick cheney briefly returned to the public eye as a lifelong republican to announce his support for democratic candidate kamala harris in the presidential election.
what is overlooked, however, is the larger point that cheney represents — the national security principle sometimes derisively referred to as the “one percent doctrine.”
after 9/11, the "one percent doctrine" became the de facto policy of the bush administration. today, the ideology behind it is making a comeback, inciting pentagon generals and senior officials in the us congress to make alarmist statements: the us military is ill-prepared to face the threat from china, the "axis of resistance" led by iran in the middle east, the alliance between russia and china, and even the possible russian-chinese-iranian-north korean military alliance.
how does the one percent doctrine work? cheney, a master of the principle, once said: "the key is to treat a possible threat - no matter how unlikely it is - as a near-certain threat."
"if there is a 1% chance that pakistani scientists are helping al-qaeda build or develop nuclear weapons, we must respond to it as a certainty," he said. "it's not our analysis that matters, it's our response." this is how the united states thinks today about china and other threats, real or imagined.
that’s why the united states needs to ban chinese social media platforms, since china could harvest the data of ordinary americans and use it for nefarious purposes, no matter how incredible that is; impose a 100% tariff on chinese-made electric vehicles, even though there are almost no such cars on american roads; destroy huawei and other chinese telecommunications companies, because they could control the 5g world; and investigate chinese-american scientists and engineers for espionage, even though they are no more likely to be spies than other ethnic groups in the united states.
the u.s. military requires total global readiness (and corresponding top-level spending) to counter threats around the world, most of which the united states itself has created or exacerbated.
this means that the old “threat inflation theory” may be gaining traction again: the united states is rapidly falling behind china in preparing for the next war; to deal with simultaneous threats from china, russia, iran and north korea, the united states needs a much larger military than it has now; a “whole of government” approach is needed in the defense field; and reluctant allies must share the united states’ burden.
china conducts military exercises mainly on computers, while the united states has been waging real wars around the world. are we to believe that china has surpassed the united states militarily?
for a long time, the u.s. military followed the “two-front” principle: the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously, if necessary, in opposite parts of the world. the united states seemed to be convinced of its legendary performance during world war ii, believing that it had single-handedly defeated the japanese empire and nazi germany, when in fact the latter was mainly defeated by the soviet union.
the united states has failed to end insurgencies in iraq and afghanistan, but now it wants to challenge four countries with the world's top 10 militaries at the same time. the real problem is that these four countries are unlikely to unite against the united states unless washington backs them into a corner.
under the “whole of government” approach, social platform bans, high industrial tariffs, and actual military deployments are equivalent from a defensive perspective against the same adversary.
but even the united states does not have unlimited resources. allies must support the united states, even if it means sacrificing their own national and security interests. if they are unwilling, a little coercion and threats will always make them yield.
the us's approach is not based on reality, but rather attempts to make the unbelievable credible. it does not use theory to explain reality, but forces reality to conform to a certain doctrine. (compiled by xiong wenyuan)
