I suspect some US "leaders" actually want Asian territorial disputes turn into wars. And "hopefully" US may benefit from them. It's a very dangerous idea. I don't really see how US can benefit from Asian wars.

uh... Hey, Prestowitz: He's the secretary of defense; his job has nothing to do with making economic moves in Asia and everything to do with keeping a military upper hand in Asia. Why is this an article? I want my SECDEF to be nice and paranoid about other nations military capabilities, that's how it should be.

. . is an all-purpose, empty suit hack available for any and all jobs that require the ability to read memos prepared by the staff and to "speak for the building."

We will pay for his aircraft carriers with money borrowed from China?

we are those allies..

If all you have is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail.

All the USA has left is its military might, so every problem looks like it can be solved by going BANG! on it.

Let's be honest here, part of Panetta's job is to speak out on behalf of the defense industry. After all, tax revenues are finite. If you invest more in butter to boost the infrastructure and domestic economy, it means less money to invest in weapons and military ventures. The US military is already far ahead of China by decades. Its real competitor isn't even China but the domestic institutions which desire to use the tax revenues to fund other more worthwhile projects.

For the most part I think we the world have already move beyond the age of military conquests. It's far easier to influence other nations via economic policies. The only reason why I think the US is taking a hardline on military rather than say trade policy is because politicians have been bought off by defense lobbyists.

I agree with some of the commenters who've mentioned that Panetta, as the SECDEF, does not need to balance economic concerns with his mission of pure defense. In defense of the article, however, the first sentence does read that Obama needs to direct him to change his rhetoric.

I disagree with the article for other reasons.

First and foremost: I think Mr. Prestowitz may be inferring too much from Panetta's comments. To me, a rebalancing could easily mean the use of existing assets w/o the surplus wartime budget currently used in the Middle East. It's important to remember that actual military occupations are far more expensive than the redistribution of existing forces into a (relatively) peaceful region like the Pacific. An increased military presence there will could come at the expense of fewer assets in other places across the globe and will not warrant hazard pay, munitions etc all the costs that come with actualy military war-time campaigns. In summary: a rebalancing could be effected without an increase in costs and could very well happen with a decrease in military spending as we will be leaving actual conflicts to maintain a peacetime force.

Second, I believe that military protection can and will provide important benifits for the US in Asia that will include economic benifits. Any way you look at it, China is a burgeoning power that is exploring its newfound economic and military prowess. It's neighbors, some of whom have had existing territorial conflicts with it, are decidedly worried and - despite being the so called "big boys" - do not have the size or means to adequately defend themselves from even low level aggression by China as it expands its influence. By giving them the backing of our defense machine, we gain stability in the region in the form of a sphere of influence to hold China in check as well as all the increased economic ties that inevitably flow from mutual defense agreements.

Third, China is not the enemy and I think the odds are good that their growth will result in further prosperity for both of our countries. However, what happens if China's real estate bubble bursts? What if fomenting social tensions finally bubble to the surface and result in an overthrow of the current government? What if the numerous environmental issues in the country become to heavy a load for the economy to heft and it begins to weaken? A country's intentions can change as quickly as their circumstances. The practical, logical, and rational government existing in China now may not be the same one we face 10 or even 5 years from now. Rebalancing our military is not an act of war, but it is a nod to the unknown future and a sign that the US will be prepared for whatever comes.

Finally, I dont find the "commitment fatigue" argument to be valid. The US and it's people are undoubtedly tired of conflict and war. We're tired of losing soldiers in seemingly neverending and increasingly pointless campaigns. This same fatigue will not follow aircraft carriers to the peaceful Pacific region. We are not sending our fighting men to Asia to die in failed government building exercises. There is an ENORMOUS difference between sending soldiers to peaceful bases in friendly countries and sending them to ongoing conflicts and while people may be almost fatally exhausted by the latter, there is no problem with the former.

Conveniently this article totally ignores the recent North Korean attacks on South Korea resulting in dozens of dead South Korean allies. Didn't we fight a war over Korea with CHINA?

This kind of thinking is exactly what builds confidence in Chinese and North Korean minds. Not that he cares what they are thinking about.

Please stop helping the enemy confuse us.

I'm more inclined to think that we should build up our forces in the Pacific. The reason isn't oil or territorial disputes between China and its neighbors....rather it's Taiwan. A successful invasion of Taiwan by mainland China would end the self-determination the Taiwanese currently have, therefore we have a moral obligation to defend Taiwan. Given Taiwan's proximity to China, China has every advantage if we get into a shooting war with them, so unfortunately we have to make up for it with numbers.

When Clyde Prestowitz preaches U. S. to make wealth, not war in Asia, he really is trying to varnish China’s unabashed mercantilism.

Can U. S. really make wealth in Asia?

Does China really need U. S. investment at this point?

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.

Now China has US by the tail - US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Home Depot, Sears and Macy’s filled with Chinese goods prove and US government is hooked to huge investments that China makes in US governmental securities from the sales of cheap Chinese products to US businesses.

Clyde Prestowitz is hallucinating if he thinks U. S. can make wealth in Asia, i.e. China.

Free trade with China has been an unmitigated disaster with China keep piling up ever higher trade surpluses with U. S. year in and year out as Mr. Prestowitz has to know.

No amount of peace offerings to Beijing is going to turn that around any time soon.

Ultimately U. S. would have to say ’enough is enough and no more’ and draw a proverbial line in the sand.

Ultimately U. S. would have to resort to old-fashioned trade protectionism to arrest this one way trade in China‘s favor.

One can only hope that it won’t be too late by then.

The Panetta’s visit to Japan is timely as the Obama administration aggressively continues to tilt its diplomatic weight towards the Asia-Pacific region after a decade of policies bogged down by counterterrorism and nation building in the Middle East and Central Asia. Japan is especially sensitive to Washington’s retrenchment from Asia as it watches an Welsh Metal increasingly assertive China looking to dictate the strategic course of the continent’s future.

Make wealth not war in Asia A successful invasion of Taiwan by mainland China would end the self-determination the Taiwanese currently have, therefore we have a moral obligation to defend Taiwan. Not only is this good training for their navy - a training ground for their xbox 360 dealsmerchant marine after naval service - but it increases good will among all who encounter their navy, and this could translate into more sales.