Why does Robert Kaplan see in the US an impotent actor incapable of significantly altering outcomes and the best possible outcome another Cold War, where Chalmers Johnson sees in the US a potent actor significantly shaping the outcomes that could avoid hostile footings if it stopped insulting its banker. Kaplan draws up a lot of possible hostile provocations the Chinese could do, but comes up short as to what if anything they've actually done, so compare that to the list of US provacations in Chalmers' piece, which, as both writers make pretty clear, will likely work far more in China's favor than ours.
your turing test:
Oil for Nothing:US Holds On Humanitarian SuppliesIraq: 1997-2001
the good book
and other cultural