Is the Pentagon's new Air Sea Battle operational concept a plan for war on China? The Pentagon says no, that the tactics embodied in the concept can be used in almost any operational situation against almost any enemy, even against narco-terrorists in Colombia. However, there's a growing chorus of criticism that warns that the concept is not only a war plan specifically aimed at China, but may even lead to a nuclear exchange. The latest of these is Amitai Etzioni, professor of international affairs at George Washington University who warns, in an article published in the current issue of the Yale Journal of International Affairs, that "The Pentagon has concluded that the time has come to prepare for war with China." He calls this a "momentous conclusion" that "will shape the United States' defense systems, force posture and overall strategy for dealing with the economically and militarily resurgent China." He warns that this "may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war."

Etzioni tries to cover for Obama's role in this by portraying him as oblivious to the war plan that is already in place, while merely accusing him of having no real strategy towards China. Etzioni traces the history of the Air Sea Battle concept back to Andrew Marshall, the 91-yr old director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment who has, for the past 20 years, been painting China as the military threat of the future, and his kindergarten of think tankers, notably Andrew Krepinevich, the head of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He quotes a number of critics on the escalatory nature of the concept, and that it is a package of tactics looking for a strategy. Etzioni points out, as have other critics, that ASB's threat is to defeat China, and is a "long cry from containment or any other strategies that were seriously considered in the context of confronting the USSR after it acquired nuclear arms." The Cold War, Etzioni notes, was characterized by mutual deterrence, and was structured around a series of red lines that each side knew they were not to cross. "In contrast, ASB requires that the United States be able to take the war to the mainland with the goal of defeating China, which quite likely would require striking first," Etzioni writes. "Such a strategy is nothing short of a hegemonic intervention."

USS George Washington transits the Pacific Ocean during a routine patrol.

Lyndon LaRouche responded to this report saying "this is why Obama is in deep trouble. Leading forces in the world want nothing to do with this insanity. A war with China would be the extinction of mankind. Nuclear war is not in the domain of rational proposals, but if there are madmen in charge, it could happen. Neither Russia nor China will simply allow this kind of attack - they'd respond. Andy Marshall qualifies as a leading psychotic."

But in Etzioni's mistaken view, the source of the danger is that the Pentagon is running away with its plans with little oversight from the civilian leadership. He cites a number of accounts of the development of Obama's China policy which don't even mention ASB. While he claims that Obama's "Asia pivot" is vague and open to interpretation, and doesn't openly claim to be an implementation of the AirSea Battle war policy, he acknowledges that many in Asia see the pivot exactly that way, and that it can lead to war.

Etzioni ends by calling for a comprehensive review by Congress and the White House of both the threat and the suggested response, noting the fact that there are new Secretaries of State and Defense, which provides that opportunity.