The Chinese strategist Sun Tzu (
The rising cost in blood and treasure of US President George W. Bush's four year incursion into Iraq has generated among Americans a question rooted in Sun Tzu: Is the cost worth it? Increasing numbers of Americans, including scores of military leaders, seem to think not.
This billowing skepticism suggests a more profound question: Beyond Iraq, have Americans wearied of the burden of worldwide security commitments and deployment of forces that are more extensive than any since the Roman Empire? Are Americans ready to retract them?
In a word, are the Yankees on the verge of going home?
If so, the consequences for Asia alone can hardly be imagined. Would China revive the Middle Kingdom that once dominated East Asia? Would Japan return to the militarism of the 1940s? Would India seek to control South Asia? How would the middle powers -- South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan -- ward off the big boys?
The number of US soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen deployed around the world is imposing.
Fully one-third of the 1.4 million men and women in the armed forces are posted outside the country, either ashore or afloat, in 136 countries.
Their operations range from several sergeants on training missions in Latin America or Africa to 169,000 troops in Iraq and 19,000 in Afghanistan. Some are in Central Asia, which is literally halfway around the world. Moreover, this military empire dates back six decades to the end of World War II.
Today, 69,000 troops are in Germany, 35,000 in Japan, 12,000 in Italy and 11,000 in Britain. In South Korea are 33,000 troops still there 53 years after the Korean War.
The cost in blood has been intense. In South Korea, Vietnam and the smaller skirmishes such as that in Panama since 1945, more than 82,000 US warriors have suffered battle death. More than three times that number have been wounded. The number killed in Iraq has passed 2,050 and continues to climb.
Added to this is the cost in treasure. US taxpayers have been asked for US$450 billion for next year's defense budget, which is more than the combined military spending of China, Japan, France and 10 other nations, according to the CIA.
Against that backdrop, Americans appear to have become impatient with Bush's inability to go beyond platitudes to articulate a visible course with attainable objectives in Iraq.
Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, pointed in a speech to the "growing incantations among Americans that there is no end in sight."
The senator, who lost the Republican presidential nomination to Bush in 2000, asserted: "If we can't retain the support of the American people, we will have lost this war as soundly as if our forces were defeated on the battlefield."
It may be too late to rekindle public support. Not only have political activists such as Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, become more vocal, but defense stalwarts such as Representative John Murtha, a Democrat who was wounded and decorated in Vietnam, have turned against the war.
Murtha, who has been influential on military matters for many years, said in a speech: "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the US cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home."
Among active and retired military officers runs an undercurrent of dissatisfaction with the way the war in Iraq has been fought.
While abiding by the tradition of staying out of politics, they say privately they are displeased with the absence of strategy, the lack of sufficient troops, and the failure to mobilize the American people for an all-out struggle.
A new study by the non-partisan Pew Research Center, which is respected for accuracy and balance, suggests the Iraq war has "led to a revival of isolationist sentiment among the general public."
Pew researchers reported that 42 percent of Americans, the highest percentage in 45 years, say the US should "mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can."
Among those most critical was a curious combination of religious leaders and scientists.
It's not likely than many US clergymen or scientists have read Sun Tzu. If they did, they might agree with another one of his pithy observations: "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS