“We have allowed ourselves to get sucked into these wars in the Middle East, but all the while the Chinese are charging ahead.”

No longer profound but true nonetheless. In the long run, after passions cool the whole unhappy American adventure in Iraq and Afghanistan (and perhaps Iran) will be looked at as unfathomably stupid. The wasted lives and treasure will be seen as having accrued nothing of value to America’s long range strategic position but will be seen as possibly the culminating moment of American post-war power projection. Fukuyama is right in that we have become mesmerized with tactics at the expense of recognizing our true foreign policy challenges. One only needs to ask himself if we knew now what we knew when we entered these wars would we do it again? If the answer is no then we need to reflect on what we are asking the members of our armed forces and our allies to do.

Proclaiming a man who posited the "end of history" to be a "big thinker" requires a leap of faith. Why are these predictions always framed so that the person appears prescient without presenting any details? How bout some substance? What makes this conflict so inevitable? Is it global resource constraints? Is it different political cultures and political structures? Is it Chinese hegemonic aspirations? These grandiose ideas get etched in stone by Washignton's pseudo-intelligentsia--sweeping, facile prognostications like Huntington's Clash of Civilizations provide an intellectual umbrella to all kinds of power-hungry know-nothings eager for an excuse to blow shit up.

Regardless of how one thinks we ended up in the Middle East, the fact of the matter is that China is a rising power, and it will be the next great power to try and upset the current world order. That is what Fukuyama is saying. And he is right.

Pat Buchanan was talking this line BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, so was Steve Walt and other realists.

Why does Ricks love "smart" people like Fukuyama and Eliot Cohen who have been proven wrong? Why continue to listen to people that push stupid ideas?

There are limits to American power. Unfortunately, we had to learn the hard way and ignore wise men who truly hold American interests at heart.

China’s policies are no more “problematic” than anyone else’s, given a system where individuals, businesses, ethnic groups, and nations are expected to compete rather than cooperate. Conflict is a feature, not a bug.

Does anyone, including Doctor Fukyama really understand China?

As an example: The name Coca-Cola in China was first marketed there as "Ke-kou-ke-la." Unfortunately, it was discovered that the phrase means bite the wax tadpole. It was only after the Coca-Cola corporation then researched 40,000 Chinese characters and found a close phonetic equivalent, “ko-kou-ko-le,” which can be loosely translated as “happiness in the mouth."

Anyway, China believes the main cause of wars involving major powers comes from the competitive struggles over natural resources, i.e. oil, gas, and strategic minerals, etc., not miscalculations or misperceptions as many in the West lean toward.

Some say China sees a decline in American power which will bring about an eventual multipolar world, weakening our security alliances, and we'll decline to become only a regional power, in which the post-World War II rules and norms will give way to China's proposed rules, known as the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.

To understand this fully, one has to be familiar with Chinese ancient statecraft developed during their Warring States period. I've been trying for years to understand it, but than everything sound Greek to me? : )

1.) "You have these big issues with Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran -- and then China."

They are only issues because we made, and make, them so.

2.) "I have believed for some time that the much more difficult problem to deal with in the long run is going to be China."

Pure genius. And where was Fukayama's voice raised in concern about this in years past? Basically, Gareth Porter is right, the US is just a large, angry beast that reacts to stimuli. There is no thinking involved. Anybody with at least a basic understanding of economics, and who doesn't cower under their bed at night in fear of swarthy, bearded men, could have said this. Once again, though, China isn't the problem. Piss poor US leadership is the issue. It's starting to get a little annoying to hear China being blamed for everything going wrong in the US. Honestly, the pathetic excuses American "leaders" offer on a regular basis shouldn't be accepted from a 5 year old. China made us bum money off of them. Oh we might have done some bad things, but those other guys [insert nefarious foreigner] are way worse than we are [picture lower lip stuck out]. Why you got to be so mean [the anti-anti-Americanism tactic]?

3.) "We have allowed ourselves to get sucked into these wars in the Middle East, but all the while the Chinese are charging ahead."

No, no, no, no, no, and no. Some of us limp-wristed, blame America first surrender monkeys did not get sucked in. We got dragged in. There is no "we", Mr. Fukayama. Be honest and give names- the political leaders and wonks who called for this war, the Congress people who enabled it, and the apathetic, frightened citizenry who allowed it. This "we" stuff is tiresome, it is just a way of avoiding blame. If "we" were a 3rd rate country, you can bet your bottom dollar lots of "us" would be standing before the man at the Hague and not just because of what "we" did under Bush.
And what does Mr. Fukayama suggest the Chinese do? Engage in feel good aggression? Come on guys, join the coalition! What is this, are we miffed because they didn't come to our over-priced party and munch on some "freedom fries"?
Honestly, just because we've engaged in a whole bunch of stupid since 9/11 doesn't mean the Chinese are obliged to. Looking back, I'd argue it's the Chinese who have behaved in a rational, if immoral manner. It was immoral to lend the US money, in the same way it would be immoral to give cash to a drunk outside a bar or to loan money at interest to your slightly slow neighbor.
Outside of their black market in convict organs, and good above knows environmental policies, the Chinese aren't to be feared unless your country is being run by a bunch of con artists and your economy is in the tank.
There is nothing new under the sun. The red scare goes back to the Brits being frightened of Peter the Great and his Asiatic hordes, and this newest banter is just fear of the Yellow Tide on the part of the West. Well, deal with it, boys, "we" flubbed our dub.
But by all means, let's press ahead with this little "tactical" speed bump that is Iran. No point in stopping the game now.

people such as Ed Timperlake, from among the conservatives of the GOP, were writing books about the Chinese threat, Red Storm Rising, Year of the Rat, etc. They were given some soap box room among the Moonies at Washbucket Times...then they went silent especially during the Bush years and haven't heard much from them since.

Keep wondering if the threat horizon among that group was shifted by the new conservatives into dealing with election cycle only issues such as denying Darwin, creating a world without sharing or difference and keeping everyone in the spell of snake oil sales people or in slavery. No real foreign competition to be seen unless it can be extorted to bribe the Senate's coffers or flare fear and hate in the tea sipping crowd.

"The preservation of the republic no less than governing it-what a thankless task it is!" Cicero, Speech, 9 November 63 B.C. Governing is managing the clash of human appetites (applied chaos theory). China has over a billion to manage,we-300 million, but the spectrum of human appetite is the same and known. This presents both a clear danger and a real opportunity.for the people and leaders of both nations-build more pie factories or build the weapons to fight to control the existing ones. Our usual choice is to fight which leads to the loss of the life so eloquently and sadly portrayed in the thoughtful response to Mr.Ricks' Chaos post. Perhaps we and China could choose the unusual option?