Dovish Richard at the Peking Duck made a couple of statements I can agree with about a Washington Times item on China’s military buildup.:

This extremely tendentious screed from Bill Gertz in the beloved Moonie Times is going to raise a lot of eyebrows today. It’s practically a declaration of war against China. . .
Let me be blunt: This is incendiary propaganda. There is no balance to this piece, no consideration of other viewpoints and absolutely no sense of perspective. By that, I mean looking at it from the Chinese perspective — if they were to do any of the things the article makes us think are imminent, their economy would instantly go to hell in a handbasket. . .

In a couple of decades the WT article may make a fine basis for a Philip K Dick-style novel. Right now, it gravely misinterprets the goals of the Chinese leadership which is, simply put, to get rich. Further, it exaggerates the capability of the Chinese military vis-a-vis the United States. Jing notes.:

America’s military strength doesn’t rest on gadgetry, but rather on the strength of its personnel, the dedication to training, and the synergy of information and force. Warfare is a complex endeavour and the acquisition of newer equipment does not neccessarily provide advantange. Gertz would be better off in examining how the PLA as a whole is changing. What are the education levels of the officer corps? How effective is the PLA in retaining trained personnel that might otherwise head for the private sector? How quickly can decisions can be made and passed down the chain of command? How efficient is the general logistics department? How well can different combat units integrate their battlefield awareness? All of these are complicated questions that Gertz has not even addressed that are far more significant in the long term than simple hardware acquisitions.

All the hype about China is overblown. The WT item states:

The combination of a vibrant centralized economy, growing military and
increasingly fervent nationalism has transformed China into what many
defense officials view as a fascist state.

It disturbs me that a right-wing newspaper would buy into the concept of a "vibrant centralized economy," that should be an oxymoron. Growing military? Yes, but that’s based on a very low (and still low) base.

Gertz posits that China is preparing to attack Taiwan, I can’t doubt
that as it has been part of the CPC’s proclaimed policy for all of the
PRC’s existence. Still, he says this may possibly come within two
years. Barring provocative action from independence forces in Taiwan,
that won’t happen. The backlash from any attack would destroy China’s
growth, the continuation of which the CPC is dependent.

Moreover, the
balance of power still favors Taipei and its allies. The
CPC’s other main basis of support is that it united China. Many
overseas Chinese in Singapore and Hong Kong, people who would shudder at the prospect of being governed by the CPC, still give Mao credit for that, even though their grandparents fled the mainland because of the
CPC.

Should the party lose in an war to reunite Taiwan with the
mainland, while crashing its economy by launching that war, it would
surely lose both of its claims to legitimacy. Simply put, an attack on
Taiwan would likely mean an end of the nominally Communist Chinese state.

Provided that the US, Taiwan and possibly Japan continue military spending at their present clip, China will not militarily overtake Taiwan and its allies anytime soon.

On the hawkish side of the blogosphere, a place where I usually make myself at home, GOP Blogger Mark Noonan offers a relatively sensible and measured reaction to the WT piece:

I wont go so far as to predict a date for war between the United States
and China; indeed, my hope is that firm US military and diplomatic
efforts will convince the Chinese leadership that they simply should
not challenge US supremacy - but hope is just that; hope. As a realist,
I know that in situations like this, common-sense often does not
prevail. We’ll have to watch China, very carefully.

Meanwhile, Kate at Small Dead Animals says:

Not enough discussion is occurring in this country about the military
ambitions of China, the investment of the Chinese government (read
Chinese military) in our energy resources, and the implications of
widespread Chinese espionage in this country- not nearly enough.

As a Canadian I’ll discuss: China’s investment is energy projects is coming at a premium that benefits foreign (i.e., Canadian) shareholders and partners. It will also be a quicker way to get the oil sands projects off the ground. Oil prices are globally benchmarked, so when that happens it will bring down global prices including prices for Middle Eastern crude. That will happen whether or not China gets crude access or if its sold on the global market. That would be a great thing for the West and the world.

Further, if it was the Chinese military running listed China companies - most of which the state intends to fully privatize - Cnooc certainly wouldn’t have had its proposed bid for Unocal quashed by its own board.

Espionage is a problem, but I doubt the CPC will be kept awake at night knowing that spying and its military buildup is being discussed in Saskatchewan. (That, by the way, is not intended as an attack on you Kate; I blame other parties for the evisceration of the Canadian military and the country’s global influence.)

UPDATE: 21:50 Monday: And for people who talk about the scary size of the PLA, let’s remember that the army is not nearly combat ready. No, they also need to quash civil disturbances and protect fruit. (Danwei link via Simon World).

Simon also notes Bill of INDC Journal’s five-point plan on maintaining stability - sadly the lollipop space laser plan is likely more doable than social security reform.