Largely correct, but I think it does miss a few points that might not naturally occur to a realist political scientist (as well as a few that should).
In World War I the U.S wasn't threatened so much by a German victory as by the tactics Germany was using. It should be obvious to any realist or liberal that having your ships sunk by submarines and a nation trying to convince Mexico to go to war with you is hardly good for your interests. Additionally Wilson was trying to shape the future into something better, and I have to admit that he made a good start on it.
In East Asia our security concerns (as well as some Sino-phobia perhaps) are dominant but there's also the fact that we simply don't want an authoritarian state like China to dominate the region and threaten Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and other nations. Liberal and realist concerns can mingle.

*Sadly I have to admit that China is, in realist terms, fully justified in seeking greater security for its supplies. It's not pleasant when two nations are motivated by intelligent concerns to oppose each other.

Good analysis. One of China's weaknesses is its thirst for resources; in this way, it is similar to Japan around the beginning of the 20th century. China will never be a true superpower unless it can secure access to these resources; but many of them are far away, such as in South America, where China has been heavily investing in oil production. Yet our navy could, at any time, disrupt this supply. So, the temptation for China to try and secure resources closer to him will increase, just as it did with Japan. What this move seems to be saying to the Chinese is that if they want to get adventurous in trying to project power and secure resources, there is only one direction to go: north to Russia.

China does have a strategic option in the SCA. Basically this is an alliance between China, Russia, all of the Central Asian Republics and possibly in the near future Iran (with its new ally Iraq). This configuration should provide China with a reasonably secure energy source.

I hope the Chinese realize that all of the belligerent sounds coming out of Washington are just targeted to US public, to remind them of American exceptionalism, to take their minds off the ugly fact that we just lost the Iraq war and are losing in Afghanistan and that further we are facing a financial crises that could go on for decades.

If the Chinese realize this then they can just continue on with their policy of peaceful coexistence with the US, their policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other nations and aggressive business dealings. It will be a slow process but I think China will win more friends over time. America's aggressive policy of intervention in the internal affairs of other nations will continue to isolate us. Further, as our finances continue to deteriorate we will have fewer resources to buy friends.

The collapse of the USSR should teach us something important -- a world composed of a few regional power centers is much more stable than the kind of helter-skelter scene we now have.

Because such a world will see endless conflicts as the little ones seek to become big ones and outdo the others. Constant temptation by bigger powers to meddle. NATO now guarantees the independence of Latvia. So we'll fight a nuclear war if Russia invades?

The faster Russia re-establishes its sphere of influence, and China creates one, the easier it will be to create that "New World Order."

Turkey, Egypt and Iran may be setting up such a dominant alliance in the Mideast, sub-Saharan Africa sorely needs one or two such, and possibly Brazil is emerging in Latin America.

The US would remain a "Pacific Power" -- just as Britain is still an "Atlantic power," but China clearly should dominate Asia. China has the people, the economic heft and the scale to do so. And one question is conveniently already settled -- the central power in Asia will not be Japan.

Challenging them is stupid and against our long-range interests. We have nothing to lose if China wins the tussles with Japan and Vietnam over the disputed territories -- these are marginal, at best. And Taiwan needs to re-join the mainland.

A muti-polar world is fine, a schoolyard full of raucous children invites danger.

An excellent analysis by Prof. Walt under the prism of Realism.
Reading the article, I could not help it bringing in mind Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" or Thucydides "Peloponnesian War". What I am trying to say is that like all empires, the American will eventually decline (most analysts say that it is already) because of overstretching. What happened to the Athenian Empire after the Sicilian Expedition or the British Empire and many other examples. After 2008 and the huge economic blow that every country had, states should more careful with their.. strategic plans. Americans have one of the biggest debt in the world and domestically things are not going so well. During this period, Obama sets out to contain China, like it did with the USSR. But during the Containment years of the USSR, American economy (not always though) was at its peak. In the post-Cold War era a new adventure came along, the war on terror and US interventions in the Greater Middle East. After Osama bin Laden's death, the war on terrow started losing its significance and another doctrine should be made. US tries to contain the Asian Tiger, China by its moves in Asia and this can turn as a boomerang to it. Economy as it is right now and new expeditions in the other corner of the world brings to mind the failures of all the other Empires. US will decline because it cannot learn from history. Waking up the Tiger is not the wisest of moves by US...

Militarily and economically, US is indeed the most powerful nation in the WH(and will remain so for a long time). But what do we mean by the US and exactly which people/group in the US wields most of that power? US used to be run by Anglo-Americans and Anglo-Americanized-whites. Today, it's essentially run by the globalist Jewish elites. Globalist Jewish elites harbor hostility toward and feel distrust of the white gentile majority and have been using their power to undermine the power of white gentiles. So, American power no longer means anything advantageous for white gentiles. Look at our broken borders. It's not US that is invading Latin American nations, but Latin American nations, especially Mexico, that is invading the US. If Americans are so powerful, how come we've been ineffectual against this invasive tide from Third World nations that's only been good for globalist Jews(to undermine white power), Democratic Party(looking for extra votes), and corporations(looking for cheap labor)?

Worse, affirmative action allows even illegal aliens from Latin American nations to receive preferential treatment in college admission and hiring over native whites. And the naval academy in Annapolis favors for officer training less qualified blacks and Hispanics over whites.
America may be the most powerful nation in the WH, but white gentiles are being outnumbered, castrated, and lobotomized by the globalist Jewish elites whose agenda is to subvert the power of the white gentile majority. When whites are just another minority, the Jewish globalist elites will play divide-and-rule among whites, blacks, and browns--with Asian professionals as their running dog stooges--just like British Imperialists played divide-and-rule among various ethnicities in India.

When so many white Americans have been denuded of their power, they must think nationally, not globally. They should realize that their main enemy is not China but globalist Jews. Now, not all Jews are not evil and venal, but around 80% of them are. Their agenda is to undermine and destroy the white race. Indeed, many prominent Jews have said as much, gleefully rubbing their hands for the day when whites are no longer the majority bloc in this country. No group is as enthusiastic about illegal immigration as the Jews are. It's not the Chinese who are invading America. It's the illegal masses from Latin America, who are being aided and abetted by the Jewish globalist elite that, with near total control of media and academia, hound and blacklist anyone who opposes out-of-control immigration as 'racist' and 'xenophobic'.
True, Chinese have made economic inroads into America, but why? Because the globalist cabal created the NWO economic system in the first place. Chinese joined what the Western globalists--many of them Jewish--created in theory and practice.
Also, China is less of a threat because there's no taboo against criticizing and bashing China and Chinese. No one denounces it as anti-sino-tism. Jews are far more dangerous because they cannot be critiicized. Any criticism of the venal power of Jews is denounced as 'antisemitic'. Things are worse now than during McCarthyism. Jewcarthyism will blacklist and destroy ANYONE who dares to criticize Jewish power or Zionist agenda.

So, why are we so worried about China? Chinese have no control over our government, media, academia, entertainment, etc. No, the people with such power and control are the globalist Jews. They gained elite power in America, and their main goal is the destruction of white American gentile power. What patriotic white Americans need to do is have some guts, wake up, stand up, and contain and counter Jewish globalist power.
50 yrs from now, it won't be the Chinese who'll be running this country. It will be Jews and the non-white majority made up mostly of blacks and Latinos--mostly Mexicans--whom the Jews will cleverly manipulate against whites. White people will have been robbed of their electoral power, economic power, and political power. Affirmative action will favor blacks and Latinos over whites, and Jews will play it for all its worth.
So, what does it mean for the US to be the dominant power in the WH when the people with all the power will be cunning globlalist Jews and masses of non-whites who will economically leech off whites via affirmative action and welfare?

Normally I am a great admirer of Professor Walt's bolgging and usually in agreement with his realist perspective, (although I do sympathize more with liberal "adventurism" then Walt). This outing however leaves me scrathing my head a little.

Somewhere here the leap is made from China establishing a regional sphere of influence, (which in all honesty is already in existence) including securing access to global energy resources, to a rival power military presence on America's doorstep. I think the logic used in making this leap is too heavily drawing from America's "Imperial" model of securing resources by militarily propping up illegitimate governments who need to supress civil unrest to maintain power.

The majority of the western hemisphere is a far way off from importing Chinese military bases to keep energy resources safe from local rebels, (what nations do lean that way are already happy with their Washington patrons). Essentially for the emerging financial superpower that is China securing resources from the America's will be more a business matter then a security issue, oil and other natural resources can be bought from Canada without soldiers in Vancouver.

As long as America stops ignoring the continued plight of Latin American governments overwhelmed by drug cartels the western hemisphere should remain free of the need for added asian security. The 2,500 Marines in Australia would be much better placed in Mexico.

For whatever reason or reasons, many in the West embrace the idea that China and the Chinese people are INEVITABLY the US's enemy. In a recent speech trying to paint China as a potential aggressor, Johan Mearsheimer had recently lamented the following.

"The picture I had painted here if China continues its impressive
economic growth is not a pretty one, indeed it is down right depressing."

The above reveals a deep seated but so far unjustified belief was that China and its people are the enemy. Hence China continues its impressive economic growth and 1.3 billion Chinese people having better lives are depressing to him.

anything that offers even the glimmer of hope that the US will abandon israel and the ME.

be careful what you wish for...

as for andreamerciless...honey, you need to lay off the sauce...your conspiracy theories are frankly, laughable.

get it straight obie...stop using slick PR to shift your alliances. We all know what you're up to...

putting troops into south asia and australia will only provoke china...this is NOT a sensible foreign policy initiative.

Prof. Walt, you describe yourself as a "realist" and you claim that Obama's Asia policy makes sense from a realist perspective. I apologize if I have overlooked you discussing the following somewhere: What are the US's real, fundamental interests? What is all that power projection, strategizing, balancing etc. getting the US in terms of its real interests? What sense does it make to project power to protect a status quo that if you look at it soberly is fundamentally disadvantageous for the US? What sense does playing superpower make if you are doing absurdly badly in terms of your trade balance, especially but not only with China?

If power is the ability to get something below market price - an incomplete, yet sensible definition -, what does the US get below market price for all its power? What sense does it make to ostensively protect your energy supply - at great cost - if you could achieve a high and completely sufficient degree of energy independence comparatively easily, at much lesser cost? And other important materials - they all have a world market price. You are not getting them much more cheaply for being closer to the sources. And China controls some of the most crucial ones anyway: rare earths. Would it not make much more sense to move fast to develop the resources in US soil?

To me, your so-called "realism" seems to be about looking more coolly at the nature of the mechanisms and structures of international relations - which I appreciate, otherwise I would not read your blog -, but in the end it seems to aim only at better playing the great game for the sake of it.

I would greatly appreciate if you took a step back and discussed what the primary goals of US policy should be, as opposed to seconday ones. Containing China is a secondary (i.e. not of lesser importance, but derivative) goal.

To quote some parts from my book:

That is what differentiates America from China nowadays. By emphasizing security above all else traditional realists (and American foreign policy analysts) have neglected what made America great – business, economics, innovation and entrepreneurship. Military power is but an expression of this foundation.

The Chinese have gone to lengths to learn from the fall of the Soviet Union in terms of their polity and party politics. The Americans would be similarly well-advised to study the Soviet Union for lessons in terms of prioritizing between economics and politics – and military overstretch. Interestingly enough current Russian President Medvedev’s pursuit of modernization and technology transfer has caused what is being touted by some a sensational shift in Russian foreign policy, this new line of thinking shows a remarkable level of pragmatism by stating that ‘Russia should have no friends, or enemies, only interests.’

and

Crucially America is once again fortunate as due to geography it has leverage over China. It can operate in what China might consider to be its ‘backyard.’ And there are many options to boot as well. America is blessed in that it only really needs to take of its Southern border with Mexico, being protected by two oceans to the East and West and Canada on its North. China needs to deal with neighbours as varied as Afghanistan, Russia and North Korea.

The Pacific Rim is open to US engagement and countries are fully aware of the benefits - such as the provision of public goods like security of sea lanes – that America has brought to the table. This is a dangerous situation as even well-intentioned American behaviour and sensible demands for American support can be perceived as a renewed containment strategy by hardliners in Beijing.

and

What China does is to systematically leverage its position in other areas. As an example, to China foreign policy on Iran is directly related to commercial relations with America. Regardless of their own interests in Iran, why would they make concessions to America when they can use the Iran case time and time again during trade negotiations?

Based on this excerpts I would say that, yes, it is understandable and makes perfect sense for the US to engage in East Asia but at the same time we should count on China making inroads into what are traditionally considered US-aligned countries.

Even though Stephen Walt does NOT acknowledge it, Nixon-Kissinger’s embrace of China has come back to haunt U. S. with vengeance.

It was called a stroke of genius in 1972 when Nixon-Kissinger embraced China to counter Soviet Union.

But U. S. did NOT stop there. U. S. decided to give China a much bigger role in world affairs by accepting China as a UNSC member and by inviting China to become the manufacturing hub of the world.

China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until Nixon’s 1972 visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting.

Had it not been for that Nixon embrace in 1972, China’s rise to super power status would have been far more slower with all the US, West European and East Asian markets closed to cheap Chinese products. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s technological progress would have been far slower in the absence of West’s technology transfers. Had it not been for that Nixon embrace, China’s military progress would have been far slower in the absence of huge forex reserves that China accumulated from the massive exports of cheap Chinese products and China used those forex reserves to acquire latest military technology.

As such U. S. has strengthened Communist Party’s hold on Chinese society by embracing Mao’s China - that embrace has afforded Communist Party to create millions of jobs for its hungry masses, replacing the frustrations of poverty that could ignite mass revolt. Even 1989 Beijing massacre did NOT stop democratic U. S. to divorce Communist China, China had already become that important to U. S. economy by that time.

Little could Mao or Deng have imagined that by wearing a capitalist mask, their followers will beat capitalists at their own game. Lenin used to say that ’capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them’. With West selling such proverbial ropes in the form of technology transfers, Chinese Communists have proven that Lenin saying quite prophetic.

Dear Stephen Walt,

thank you for your funny analysis. So it's about containment of China.

As we all know the Australian budget and economic growth became during the latest decade highly dependent on Chinese investments and exports to China. As a result from this economic ties Australia is going more and more in direction of China-friendly policies despite a still strong media campaign from Australias friends of the US.

What I haven't managed yet to understand is: how 2.500 US-marines will prevent China from further investing in Australian mines and getting political leverage by these investments on Australia?

Of course, China views the stationing of marines in Australia with media publicly declaring it's directed against China as intentional unfriendly behaviour by the US. So, of course, China is expected to respond.

If I understand it right, Xinhua just published the Chinese response under the headline:

"China likely to see trade deficit in two years: central bank advisor"

So, China is planning to have trade deficits to develop rural China regions. Fine for the China's economy and the world economy, the fast development of rural China will give it surely a boost. It means, China will buy a lot of commodities: energy, metals, minerals and things like these. Fine for those who sell those things, like Australia, Iran, Russia and many Asian allies. Prices of commodities will probably rise, but China has the money to pay, and hundreds of milions of poor people in rural China don't want to wait with the development of their livelyhood.

Pity for the U.S., that it doesn't have much to contribute the development of rural China, so it might not have much of the boom. To calculate with trade deficits to finance rural development means, China will have to finance the trade deficit. There is a very logic way to do this: sell off some savings like foreign debt bonds. As China holds mostly US goverment bonds, it's likely China will sell some of those to finance it's planned trade deficits. Pity for the US. When the US wants to sell bonds to finance it's deficit, China will not buy, but sell US bonds at the same time.

As I see it, the whole scenario brings good growths perspective to China and it's partners, while in the same time bringing bad growth perspectives to the U.S. Of course, China has the option to develop rural China slow and therefore be able to use running trade surpluses to finance it. Of course, that option would be much better for the US economy.

But why should China bother to behave in such a friendly way to the US, if the US openly seeks ways to contain China - or bring China down as Jon Huntsman put it?

As I see it if the US thinks it's time for egoistic behaviour in Asia, the US will surely be pleased to get back some of it's own medicine.

A very thoughtful analysis by Stephen Walt. There are two additional points, which makes it more likely that a "hot" confrontation will happen.

China actually believes that it is the center of the universe....in some ways, like the US. This will make any kind of compromise very difficult.

Secondly, the Chinese have the "bad emperor" problem. One leader runs the show, and if the leader happens to be a certain type (e.g. Mao) a little bloodshed does not count for much. If an arrogant China anoints the wrong leadership, their threshold for war may be low.

I am glad we are refocusing.....about time!

I guess for me the main issue is that I do not see China as being a threat. Unlike the Soviet Union(or even Nazi Germany and Pre-WWII Japan for that matter) the economies of the US and China are mostly interconnected and complementary. The US and USSR economies were in opposition -- there was nothing they sold that we wanted.

I also think that the USSR posed an ideological danger to the US and the West. There were people in the US and the West who wanted the Soviet system to be victorius (today, we call those people "professors"). I doubt there is anyone in the West other then Thomas Friedman who views the Chinese system as a model for our own system.

John Derbyshire who grew up in post WWII England sees a parallel in the debate then there and the debate here now. Instead of "East of Suez" we might hear "West of Guam".

"and it is why Roosevelt began preparing the nation for war in the late 1930s and entered with enthusiasm after Pearl Harbor. In each case,"

Of course you know this is wrong. We levied a heavy oil embargo against Japan that so threatened their industry that many jurist at the Asian equivalent of the Nuremberg Tribunals found Japan justified in attacking us. BECAUSE AN EMBARGO, IS AN ACT OF WAR!.

Then you blame the Cuban missile crisis on the Soviets. But, couldn't our placement of ICBMs in Turkey be cited as the first offense? You've offered a specious case here. Regardless of your rationale, I agree with your conclusion. Or, perhaps you agree with me, but have yet to articulate the solution that I have, AN INTERNATIONALIZED NAVY. You offer generalities, I offer innovative policies.

I think you owe me at least the occasional h/t (hat tip) Don't worry, the MBA students from Harvard, Wharton, Columbia, Kellogg/NW, and Stanford couldn't debate economics with me either. I think perhaps you're in too much of a self serving world, where utter sophism is heavily funded and actually holds currency in salons where it has no place. But, there's no shortage of sycophantic sophists eager for their turn at the reigns. No one could touch Diogenes physically nor logically, but since he sought and served the truth, he lived in a barrel. That is a mark of earnestness, and wealth and position a mark of compromised logic and ethics.

eom

"this logic reflects the realist view that it is to U.S. advantage to keep Eurasia divided among many separate powers, and to help prevent any single power from establishing the same sort of regional hegemony that the United States has long enjoyed in the Western hemisphere. "

I see the logic in this from a strategic point of view and ignoring morality (not that I think one should ignore this). But wouldn't this mean that the US would NOT see an interest in the EU becoming some sort of functioning state? There have been talks about using the current crisis there to reform the EU and make it more democratic. It also seems clear that the dominant power in Europe is, irony of ironies, the twice defeated Germany. Would realist thinking compel the US to seek to prevent a more effective EU?

I would feel much better about supporting an expanded role for US power extension in Asia if the argument could be made that the benefits were worth the expenses in American lives and treasure.

Have credible studies been done which show that the tangible and intangible pros of maintaining forces in other countries (e.g. arms sales, foreign policy leverage) outweigh the tangible and intangible cons (e.g budgetary debits, political blowback) of the strategy?

The ideological side of me recoils at the thought of paying to defend wealthy countries like Korea, Japan, and Singapore while at the same time we run up trade deficits with them. But the realist side of me is willing to be convinced by hard data demonstrating that the guns are worth the butter spent.

The Walt analysis seems to overlook the reality that China is spreading its influence throughout the Asia Pacific in the good old-fashioned American way -- by financial investment in huge amounts. The Chinese webhostingplay know they're short of many raw materials, and invest in them; . and the number-one priority for any Chinese leader remains the need to feed his nation.