Negotiating ADIZ
US Response to China: Confused or Well Coordinated?
show comments
  • Corlyss

    I certainly wouldn’t doubt that the media blew the story – they’ve a great track record for that. But I am skeptical so indeed I will keep checking VM for stories related to this issue.

  • Thirdsyphon

    At the risk of repeating myself, I think this crisis is unfolding along the same lines as the last two confrontations with China: the losing side agrees to back down without formally making any concessions, and the winning side agrees not to crow about it. That’s how the 2000 “spy plane” crisis (point: China) and the 2007 antisatellite weapon system crisis (point: US) were resolved in the past, and it’s almost certainly how this ADIZ nonsense is being brought to a merciful conclusion even now.

    WRM has been a perceptive and subtle critic of this Administration, especially when it comes to foreign policy; but his urge to perform this laudable and necessary service can occasionally lead him to seek out fault where no clear ground for finding it exists. On the crisis in Syria, for instance, it is difficult to imagine *any* course of action that WRM would agree with, given how many of his well-reasoned critiques against the Administration’s intervention in Libya are equally applicable there.

  • Kevin

    Am I the only one who thinks the first and second paragraph of this post are quite contradictory? All I took away from this article was that things are quite muddy or perhaps that after a rocky start the administration is coordinating things better with the Japanese, Koreans, etc. Who are the “diplomatic sources” in para one? Administration hacks and sympathizers or more dispassionate observers? Are they credible or not?

  • Kevin

    Am I the only one who thinks the first and second paragraph of this post are quite contradictory? All I took away from this article was that things are quite muddy or perhaps that after a rocky start the administration is coordinating things better with the Japanese, Koreans, etc. Who are the “diplomatic sources” in para one? Administration hacks and sympathizers or more dispassionate observers? Are they credible or not?

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.