Also that web site had a link to the think tank run by Arthur Waldron, a person whom I don’t quite see eye-to-eye
But I was rather impressed by the website. Once you strip away the “China wants to take over the world” lens that Waldron sees things through, there is actually a lot of clear analysis in it. The article on what the consequences of Iraq are is quite interesting.
Quite a few of those articles, I started reading through the articles and thinking to myself, “yes I agree with your analysis, I just don’t think that this is a bad thing like you do.”
The thing that I found pleasant in reading the articles that Waldron writes is that it seems like the “blue team” is in disarray about what to do. There were all these articles about how “China is basically evil and trying to take over the world” (a point that I obviously disagree on), but not a single coherent strategy for how the United States can or should stop it.
The reason for this is that until about six months ago, the “blue team” was under the belief that the Chinese economy was going to collapse, and one thing that I’ve gotten in reading the blue team websites is that they finally figured out that maybe the Chinese economy won’t collapse.
The other reason that the “blue team” is in disarray is that Iraq was the centerpiece of their strategy to make the world safe for democracy, and obvious China was the evil anti-democracy force that they were trying to undermine. Iraq is now a total mess. We might be able to salvage a “mere failure” rather than a “total catastrophe” but in any case the vision of democratic change that the neo-conservatives had is dead, and they are struggling to find some sort of new vision.
Another good article in the “I agree with your analysis but unlike you, I think that X is a good thing” is