|
The thesis of the article is that the Chinese theory of strategy is more advanced than its Western and Russian counterparts. It is more in detail, and has a greater breadth. It accepts both conventional and unconventional responses.
The reason that I said that the Chinese strategic thinking was superior was because the Vietnam example was brought up. I couldn't really think of a superior response to China's situation in 1979, and if a Western or Russian power could not engineer a similar response, it would be by definition inferior.
On the other hand, I do in some degree doubt this conclusion. Saying that China is superior in any respect is not an easy conclusion for me. I'd like to believe that if the United States or Russia were in a similar situation, a similar response would be enacted. Is there an efficient response that could be classified as a direct approach?
I'd like to see if this hypothesis can hold water. China in its history, is as prone to direct responses as any other country, see the Chinese colonization of Vietnam, the Chinese invasion of Korea, the Chinese defense of Korea against the Japanese, the building of the Great Wall to defend against the Jurchen threat... If there's anything culturally unique, then it's that when Chinese states are in an inferior position, they tend to play their hands relatively well, that is, when they are in a weak position, they switch off to indirect strategic approaches.
The main problem with the Chinese approach is that it's autistic. It doesn't work well with others. You end up with such crap as having to fight the Americans down to the last Vietnamese, or fighting the Indians down to the last Pakistani. In order to preserve secrecy, flexibility, and speed, your "allies" can't know what you're doing and what you're planning to do. The United States, on the other hand, can't assume this posture, or if it does, it will damage its international relations with this posture, as it has in its handling and execution of the Iraq war.
|