2. The Cold War mentality of the United States will never recede

Everyone is no stranger to the "Report on China's Military Strength" released by the US Department of Defense. Since 2000, it has been published once a year (except for 2001), but in fact, the content is similar every year, and there is nothing new. What kind of treatment is the U.S. issuing an annual report on China's military strength? This is the treatment of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and the annual release of an assessment of the development of the Soviet armed forces is completely a Cold War mentality, a Cold War model, and a Cold War approach.

We have made representations to the US side, saying that this is the US Cold War mentality. Of course, the US side defended that the Ministry of Defense had no way, and this was a bill passed by the Congress, and the Congress required us to issue an annual report on a comprehensive study of the construction, development, internal reform, and weaponry of the Chinese People's Liberation Army, and we must do it in accordance with the requirements of the Congress.

In fact, not a single slap in the face is not only a demand of the US political circles, but also a demand of the US Department of Defense. Taking a step back, at least it controls the timing of releases. For example, 2008 was released in early March. At that time, the Chinese side raised this issue in its representations with the US side and asked the US side not to release it in early March. Because Taiwan was holding a "general election" on March 20 at that time, you talked about China's military threat at that time and spread some non-existent things, which would affect the situation on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan's "general election." The timing of this release was very bad, but the US side insisted, saying that it was required by Congress to be released at this time.

Then we can see that 2007 was released in May, and the same is true even further. Therefore, it is not only a matter of publishing content, but also the timing of its release is in line with American politics and American strategy. It was going to choose what it thought was the most appropriate time to launch.

In 2009, both the situation around China and the whole world have entered a different situation due to the impact of the financial crisis. On the other side of the strait, due to Chen Shui-bian's resignation, cross-strait relations have entered a positive development trend. It is difficult for the United States to choose an ideal period to release the report, so it is difficult for it to have a specific target for the period, but of course there are still some considerations, such as the situation in early March, when the US reconnaissance ship Flawless conducted reconnaissance in China's exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea to collect underwater information.

Of course, there is another medium- and long-term trend, that is, the relaxation of cross-strait relations. After Ma Ying-jeou came to power, he clearly promoted the development of cross-strait relations. During the "Han Kuang" exercise, the Chinese People's Liberation Army was no longer regarded as an imaginary enemy, and the issue of not firing the first shot was raised. It is no longer the case that Chen Shui-bian used to engage in any decisive battle outside the country, what kind of early countermeasures, and possibly early attacks on mainland cities, such as cities like Xiamen and Shanghai, and even attacks on Hong Kong.

Although language does not have substantive meaning, it is at least a good representation. In the face of such good expressions, and in the face of the possibility of further easing cross-strait relations, including military relations, the United States has the effect of throwing out a "report on China's military strength" at this time, which still has the effect of preventing further communication and relaxation of cross-strait political and military relations.

The most striking aspect of the 2009 military strength report is that it exaggerates the threat posed by mainland missiles to Taiwan. The cross-strait situation is moving towards a comprehensive relaxation, and a space for peaceful development is being obtained that is beneficial to both sides. At this time, by exaggerating the threat to Taiwan from the mainland's missile deployment, we are exaggerating the illusion of tension in the Taiwan Strait. Through a comparative analysis of the military strength of the mainland and the Taiwan region, Taiwan is required to buy as many US weapons as possible, so as to pave the way for US arms sales to Taiwan.

At that time, the heads of state of China and the United States were about to hold their first meeting at the second summit in London, and according to the evaluation of world public opinion, the meeting between the heads of state of the United States, the world's largest debtor country, and China, the world's largest creditor country, decided when the world economy would recover, or whether if these two countries were in serious trouble, the world economy would enter a long-term, medium-to-long-term recession. The US Department of Defense released the "Report on China's Military Strength" at this time, hoping to influence Obama's China policy, which is a larger political intention.

In fact, there is an obvious phenomenon that the policies of the Pentagon and the White House are not quite the same. The Pentagon-Defense Department is quite unimpressed by a series of somewhat left-wing policies pursued by a black president like Obama. Including Obama's desire to ease relations with Iran and to talk directly with Iran, Secretary of Defense Gates clearly expressed a different opinion.

Gates' argument that enormous military pressure is necessary to deal with Iran in order to have effective talks is in fact indirectly questioning Obama's policies.

Including the South China Sea Flawless incident, such a shadow can be seen. It is not the first time that the US side infiltrated China's exclusive economic zone to reconnoiter and was expelled. However, the US side has not hyped up major incidents before, and this time it has made a big fuss, and this is a very obvious attitude of the US military. Admiral Keating, who has long served as a leader of the US Pacific Command, has always taken a relatively objective attitude toward Sino-US military relations: He has repeatedly said that the two militaries should establish exchanges and should not directly clash. However, Keating suddenly changed his attitude in Congress and deliberately made the Flawless incident bigger. He talked about the development of China's navy, the possibility that Chinese submarines may pose a threat to the United States, and the strengthening of China's coastal naval strength to cross the blue ocean, and greatly exaggerated the so-called Chinese threat. Keating's speech was also very political, and it was not at all a purely military man's statement, and it was not a fact at all.

This can be seen from the political demands of the Pentagon, the Pacific Headquarters, and this group of American soldiers. From Gates' disapproval of Obama's treatment of Iran to Keating's testimony before Congress and his strong criticism of China's naval development, there is a bit of a drunkard's intention to drink alcohol. These U.S. military leaders, it seems, their biggest intentions are not really aimed at Iran and China, but against the US administration.

Of course, this military report was written by Congress at the request of the Department of Defense, and the Department of Defense can say that it is passive, and Congress asks it to be written, and this is the domestic legislation of the United States, and I have no choice but to write it. But what it looks like and when it is released, the Ministry of Defense has a lot of dominance.

The US Department of Defense has in turn influenced Congress and US political circles through the so-called task given to it by Congress through the military strength report, and is trying to exert influence on the US China policy, which has not yet taken shape. Influence throughout the policy-making process is the only way to be effective. It also wants to use various methods to influence the US policy toward Iran, the Korean Peninsula, and all aspects of US foreign policy, and to add military interests.

The military has separate interests, and this is evident in the United States. For example, in the US Congress, its senators and members of the House of Representatives have spared no effort in safeguarding the interests of the state, and if there is a military base in the state, then no matter how the US military disarms it, it absolutely cannot cut the base, because the existence of this base can bring a lot of income to the surrounding areas. A base needs to invest a lot of manpower and material resources, which will cause changes in surrounding consumption, and the driving force of various industries such as commerce and service industry is obvious. No matter how disarmament is done, I want to keep the military bases in my constituency and keep the military factories in normal production, and this is very evident in American political circles.

Then for the US Department of Defense, it is also obvious that it is an interest group. Once the international military situation eases, what else do you want it to do? It is not happy that it cannot sustain huge defense spending and a large global military deployment. So in the interest of the Department of Defense, it would rather have some parts of the world that are constantly smoking, constantly fighting, so that there is a good reason to get enough money from Congress and then become the strongest force.

The strong position of the US Department of Defense is very obvious from the perspective of Rumsfeld, a strong secretary of defense, and whether it is Colin Powell or later Rice, the weakness of the secretary of state is also obvious. According to one source, the US Middle East Command receives more than $50 billion a year, which is a very large amount. The U.S. State Department's annual spending is about $10 billion. The US State Department does not spend as much money on maintaining global diplomacy as a regional command, so public opinion in the United States says that it is difficult for the State Department to implement its policy on the Middle East issue. Why? Because there is not enough financial support. And the Ministry of Defense is very rich and can organize a very strong research force, study some reports on the Middle East issue, and draw conclusions favorable to it. Because it has so much more money than the State Department, it has a much greater influence at the Central Headquarters of the US military in the Middle East than the State Department.

With the expansion of military power, with the increase of conflict locations in the United States, of course, there have been casualties for American soldiers, but for the Pentagon, it is necessary to obtain more funds through the conflict and complete the expansion and expansion of the organization. This is also obvious.

The United States conducted an assessment of the military strength of other countries, which was mainly aimed at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and did not exist after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is because the United States makes such assessments, mainly targeting the strategic adversaries it identifies. For example, the United States will never evaluate Brunei, Pakistan, or India. It felt that these forces were not qualified and were not opponents. It was able to influence countries through effective methods, which it felt were not qualified.

At the end of the Cold War, because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States stopped assessing the military strength of a sovereign country for about 10 years. During this time, it is watching who will be the next strategic adversary of the United States. The United States initially set its eyes on Japan, and according to the development of the situation in the late 80s and early 90s of the 20 th century, it may be for a period of time that the United States will make an assessment of Japan's military strength. Later, the United States thought that it was not necessary, because through the United States military bases all over Japan, Japan was still firmly under the control of the United States, and Japan could not escape from the United States because of its dependence on the United States' military strength. Therefore, it believes that although Japan poses a great economic challenge to the United States, it is not enough to become a security adversary of the United States.

After 10 years of consideration, the more the United States thinks about it, the more it feels that China, which is developing faster and faster, may be the future adversary of the United States, and begins to publish an annual assessment of China's armed forces. This approach carries a great Cold War mentality, and the so-called Cold War mentality is a win-win mentality: if I win, you will inevitably lose, and if you win, I will inevitably lose, and only one family in this world can win.

Is this actually the case? We can see that the United States is conducting a comprehensive assessment of our military capabilities, and we are not doing it to the United States. Since the founding of New China, we have never taken the initiative to regard any country as an imaginary enemy, and we have never issued such a report on any country, because to a certain extent, this is interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

These views are not available in the United States. You think you're not its main adversary, it says yes, it evaluates it so. This is full of Cold War mentality, full of imperial mentality, full of win-win mentality, which is very obvious in the Bush administration, I can only win, my interests are above everything else, my interests are higher than the global interests.

The Cold War mentality, the win-win mentality, and the imperial mentality are the culmination of these ideas to produce such a report. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang once said that there is a ghost called the Cold War and a virus called the China threat theory abroad, and people possessed by the ghost of the Cold War carry the virus of the China threat theory from time to time. It's lively, humorous, and to the point.