English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Our world is on a trajectory leading to a point where terrorists will eventually acquire a nuclear weapon.1 It is only a matter of time.2 After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States recognized the lack of effectiveness of its previous intelligence and military efforts in deterring terrorists and sought an alternate way to defuse the radical Islamist threat.3 By continuing to advocate the use of military force in Iraq after weapons of mass destruction were not found, the U.S. pursued a strategy in line with the idealist school of thought by attempting to plant a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.4 Iraq became the centerpiece of the United States' ambitions to stop the region from exporting violence and terror, and attempted to transform it into a place of progress and peace.5 This effort was ambitious indeed, and many argued that these goals were beyond the United States' ability to achieve. However, this strategy offered a possible solution to the endless cycle of violence across the Middle East and Africa and its continuing threat to U.S. national security. The current administration, in contrast, announced last year a "rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region," ostensibly to counter the growing strength of China's military power.6 Like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand, this shift pivots the U.S. away from its true threat and increases the peril its citizens will face. The United States should focus its efforts on supporting democratization in troubled regions, and policy makers must counter those who criticize this strategy, including military-industrial complex advocates of the "pivot."Is China the Real Threat?Several of China's antagonistic actions have come to the forefront of news in recent years. China's vigorous assertion of territorial claims in the East China Sea, increasing development of its military capability, malicious cyber activity, humanitarian concerns, and continued difficulty in acting as a ffee-market trading partner have garnered the world's attention. But how has the present U.S. administration come to regard emerging security concerns in the Asia-Pacific as more serious than those on which the previous administration focused?The answer is that elements of the U.S. military-industrial complex are seeking a new Cold War-like confrontation to sustain the spending levels to which they have grown accustomed over the past sixty years.7 Defense industries want to sell high-priced weapons, and the armed services want large budgets to command.8 These actors-who stand to profit most from a new Cold War-hope to convince the U.S. that China is its most serious threat.9 The prospect of low-intensity brushfire wars characteristic of the nation-building and counterinsurgency conflicts of the Global War on Terrorism are not the most profitable for all parties involved.10 With a sophisticated technological threat that poses challenges along the lines that their advanced weapons programs are designed to meet, China has become the adversary of choice of the U.S.-based military-industrial complex.11Despite efforts to paint China as an aggressive nation seeking to forcefully expand its sphere of influence, China will not pose an existential threat to the United States like the Soviet Union did years ago.12 Although China will likely continue to engage in a host of activities that will affect interests in the South China Sea, they do not share the same ideology or global ambitions the Soviet Union held during the Cold War.13 They are not seeking to spread communism around the world through subversion or overt force.14 China's interests may compete with some U.S. interests in East Asia, but the U.S. has no vital interest in the region that is seriously threatened.15 Maritime trade routes that could be affected have alternate courses.16 Changes in Asian economic affairs may have an impact on U.S. wallets, but downturns would unlikely threaten the United States' livelihood, let alone its survival. …

The Waning Grand Strategy of Democratization: Why a Pivot to the Asia-Pacific Places the United States at Greater Risk of Terrorist Attack