The China question
America's military should continue interactions with Chinese forces that enhance safety and security, particularly at sea. But it must never let such interactions weaken U.S. national security.
When it comes to China, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, worries most about its buildup of ballistic and cruise missiles that can hit land and sea targets and do so at greater range, The Washington Free Beacon reports. And as China works toward making its first aircraft carrier fully operational and building a second, it has a new cruise missile designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers.
Chinese military leaders' requests to tour U.S. aircraft carriers so far have been denied. Mr. Greenert has indicated he's open to the idea. But the notion of allowing such Chinese spying should be rejected. Flatly.
Writing in The American Spectator, Gerald D. Skoning, a Vietnam-era aircraft carrier officer, suggests the sort of balance that U.S. military leaders must strike in dealings with their Chinese counterparts: “A proper level of cooperation should be designed to reduce misunderstanding and prevent miscalculations in international waters, not to share technology, training or tactical planning.”
Yes, we need to know our enemies. But we know the Chinese well enough already to know that inviting them aboard our aircraft carriers is a very bad idea indeed.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement