Who Lost China?

Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was as corrupt as they come.  Both General Stilwell and FDR knew it.  Privately, FDR called Chiang that little Generalissimo.  (Only a megalomaniac would give himself the “Generalissimo” title.)  But the US State Department stuck with the Generalissimo for two reasons: fear of Communism and the concept of “Stability.”  Furthermore, the US Intelligence Community had ordained that with America’s support, Chiang could easily defeat that rag-tag band of peasants led by a man named Mao.

After WW II, the State Department and the CIA was controlled by the Dulles brothers: John Foster and Allen, both hard-line anti-communists.  Both supported the known dictator Chiang, rather than the unknown Mao.  Unfortunately, their concept of stability lasted until 1949 when Mao won the revolution.  So much for the Intelligence Community’s assessment of the situation in China.  

Mao’s ascendancy to power clearly disturbed the “stability” of the global geo-political arena.  

And the first thing to be de-stabilized was the thinking in DC.  Nearly everyone in Washington asked:  Who lost China to the Communists?  Why didn’t Intelligence detect this disturbance when nearly every intelligent person in China knew that Mao would win?   

Did America “lose” China because the State Department chose to overlook Chiang’s corrupt government in favor of stability?

Unfortunately, the "Intelligence" community was not able to recognize the social symptoms exhibited by the people of a foreign culture.  (If your government threw you off your land without just compensation, what would you do?)  The Dulles boys failed to understand communism because they saw it as an emotion issue, meaning that they were fearful of it because Capitalism was what kept them rich.  They could not analyze the situation at the peasant level in China because they had no experience whatsoever with that lifestyle.  How could you when you live a rich pampered life in DC?  (Even today: can you imagine how 200 million Chinese peasants live on a Dollar a day?  Just try to imagine that.)

So, what did the Dulles Brothers do?  They came forth with a policy to Contain Communism.  There was no other alternative in their minds.  And the rationale for this Policy was the “Domino Effect.”   Since China went Communist, then the next would be Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan and so on down the line.  Clearly history proved the Dulles boys wrong when the Berlin wall came down.  Communism doesn't work.  So much for the Domino Theory that ruled CIA thinking in DC for four decades.

The American Intelligence Bureaucracy is still controlled by a few people with definite ideas of their own.  And if they don't or won't recognize what's going on in a foreign country, then they are not going to believe the one smart analyst who does.  Consequently, the CIA missed the collapse of Communist Russia just as they had missed seeing the "loss of China" back in '49. 

So, nothing has changed since WW II.  It would appear that our leaders are incapable of recognizing the people who think out of the box and who's analysis appear to be too different or difficult to accept.  Clearly, intellectual courage is outside of our leaders' mindsets.

Stability is still the catch word for what's happening in the mideast today.  Mubarak repeated the same refrain that the King of France Louis XV exclaimed 15 years before the French Revolution:  apre moi le deluge  (after me, the deluge).  Colonel Gadhafi is also repeating that same refrain about Libya: It’s me or chaos.  They play the stability card because they know it worked in the past.  But, it appears that the price for “stability” is prohibitively high, especially for the average citizen living in the mideast.

Does anybody inside the US "Intelligence Community" understand what's going on in the mideast?  Isn't a CIA operative like Raymond Davis, who clearly thinks with his guns rather then his brains, is a mirror image of the thinkers in DC?  Shoot first, talk later?  If Ray Davis doesn't reflect the DC image of the world, then why is he running amok over there?  Indeed, why are we running amok around the world with guns blazing?  This is a question being asked by our friends and foes, alike.  

Picture this: a Pakistani driving down Fifth Avenue in New York with a Glock handgun, a pocket telescope and sophisticated electronics equipment.  He’s stopped by two Homeland Security Agents.  The Pakistani shoots and kills both men.  The Pakistani is a terrorist and murderer, right?

Now think about this: Raymond Davis was driving in Lahore, Pakistan with a Glock, a telescope and sophisticated electronics equipment.  He’s stopped by two Pakistanis and Davis kills both of them.  Same story, different location.  Is Davis a terrorist and murderer, too?

Presumably, Agent Davis was going to use his telescope to see when the Pakistanis will overthrow their latest dictator.

Meanwhile we wait to hear:  Who lost Saudi Arabia?  

According to the CIA World Factbook, the average Saudi makes $24,200 a year while the people in Qatar, its smaller neighbor, makes $145,300.  Both countries are rich in gas and oil.

There are 7,000 princes in Saudi Arabia.  The King and Princes have Trillions of Dollars; live in HUGE palaces; own homes (palaces) in London, New York; Paris.  And that’s not counting the trillions of dollars in gas and oil buried under the sand.

Why should a handful of Royalty own so much and the average person so little?  Is this just or fair?  You don't have to be a socialist or communist to ask such a basic human fairness question. 

Recently, the King rented the entire floor of a famous New York Hospital for himself and his family.  Clearly this extravagance was seen by the poor Saudis who live in tents in the desert.

So, who is going to lose Saudi Arabia?  Local Dictators with their unique set of dictatorial mindsets, that’s who.