Yes, even more now that China is likely to become a 'peer' threat. It's really the U.S.'s only use for a high-end Navy.
Also, I agree that War is Boring is sensationalized and ignorant in general. It's heartening to see others have noticed.
Eh... why? In 1950, with the Soviets bankrolling rebel groups and invasions all over the world you could make the argument countries needed alliances to counterbalance the threat. But today... is it really unreasonable to expect wealthy countries like Japan and Korea to see to their own defense?
While I agree at some point China is likely to be just as strong, militarily, as the US, I don't see a compelling US interest in using warships to defend, say, Japan's claim to groups of uninhabited islands in the middle of the South China Sea.
To paraphrase Pournelle, I'm happy to be a friend of freedom everywhere, but a guarantor only of my own.
In terms of access to the Western Pacific, all the sorts of threats faced by a US fleet would be faced by a Chinese fleet attempting to operate outside the range of Chinese land-based aircraft. The least useful role for carriers is anti-surface warfare, and if the goal is just to keep the sea lanes open we don't need them. A dozen modern submarines could play hell with any country's ability to maintain trading routes.
If Japan and Taiwan allowed China to base its navy or air force on their territory, the US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii. If China chose to threaten Vietnam, South Korea, Australia.. there would not be much we could do about it.
You forgot about Guam, a US Naval/Air base 6000 km west of Hawaii:
Yes, and...? If they're happy with China guaranteeing their security, then I don't see the big problem. As to the other countries... how is this my problem? Did we help Vietnam the last time China invaded in 1979? Is first-world island nation Australia incapable of defending itself?
China does not guarantee their security or offer to, and they wouldn't be happy with it. In contrast, the U.S. has treaties to defend them, on which they heavily rely and which have maintained peace in the region for over 50 years.
I think we both know that we are re-enacting the classic debate between isolationists and those who want to be more engaged. I think your questions are important - the U.S. shouldn't follow these policies out of inertia - but I think there are very good answers:
* Japan and S. Korea can't protect themselves against China. They can today, but not in 10-20 years, and geopolitics moves very slowly: What happens now determines the outcomes in 10 years and 100 years. As one example, what happened way back in the 1940s and 50s determines those future outcomes: That's why the U.S. now has bases in S. Korea, Japan, and all the Pacific islands. 19th century events may figure even larger: The U.S. became a Pacific power, and China's encounters with the West resulted in a semi-independent city in China's south (Hong Kong), in much of China's current distrust of the West, in the rise of Communism in China, allowed Japan and Korea to become major independent powers (instead of weak tributary states to China), resulted in Russia having more southern Pacific ports, etc. etc.
* It's widely believed that if the U.S. doesn't guarantee security in the western Pacific, chaos and war will break out. The nations there don't trust each other at all, but they (sufficiently) trust the U.S. and they trust U.S. power to maintain order. If they become concerned they are trapped in an anarchic environment with enemies, with their existence at stake and no means of restoring order, they will arm up and attack before they are attacked, etc. Not only would that cost millions upon millions of lives and trillions of dollars, but in the heart of the world's biggest and fastest-growing economic region it would create a world-wide economic calamity.
* Finally, it costs much less to influence events abroad than to live in a Chinese-dominated world. If China belligerence isn't stopped there, it could easily spread further, and then rolling it back would be almost impossible. In addition, Americans and the West are accustomed to living in a world where they write the rules and establish the norms - so accustomed, many Americans don't even realize it. Living in a world led or dominated by a Communist dictatorship would be a very unhappy experience.
> To paraphrase Pournelle, I'm happy to be a friend of freedom everywhere, but a guarantor only of my own.
Personally, I don't like this statement at all. Everyone believes in freedom for themselves; IMHO, the word hardly means anything in that context. Freedom, to be meaningful, almost necessarily means freedom for others.
(And I'd add that if everyone else had that attitude then nobody would have freedom. The U.S. wouldn't be able to make it on its own; if it doesn't help others, then nobody will help it.)
Chinese nationalism is based on its historical heritage more than anything else, and certainly is not likely to invade Iraq over rumours of WMD any of these days, nor trash Panama city after breaking up with a Noriega equivalent.
An international court is about to rule on a dispute between the Philippines and China. China has said ahead of time that it will ignore the court's ruling and furthermore, AFAIK, will accept no outside authority. They insist it's only between them and the Philippines - a 'negotiation' that the Chinese can dominate through sheer power and coercion.
> there is no obvious reason why they should switch to a US style expeditionary military with world wide ambitions.
There are many obvious reasons: China has global interests and therefore needs global power, and desires to be the world's dominant power. Regardless of the reasoning, it's already happening:
* China has become highly aggressive and is threatening many of its neighbors and their territories, including Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam, India, and South Korea (indirectly via their ally in North Korea). They also threaten the United States and other nations from Europe to Africa to Australia with retaliation if China's wishes aren't complied with.
* China already is building military infrastructure from Djibouti in the Horn of Africa to the Indian Ocean (the 'String of Pearls' bases) to the South China Sea.
* China is building economic infrastructure (which can have as much influence as military) throughout Eurasia (Silk Road), Africa, and even the Americas.
Historically China has been too weak to do anything but fight over its borders. There's nothing special about the Chinese character that would lead one to be comfortable assuming China won't become expansionist when it has the capability.
Everyone wants to be safe at home. People want friendly neighbors. If neighbors declare themselves as enemies, you prepare for a fight. Diplomacy is useful. Nations can become friends by seeking common objectives.
America wasn't born as 50 states, the EU was recently formed, Russia has grown and shrunk and grown, and the same goes for China. The same metaphor works for your home or your body. Be good to various parts of it and the whole will be more capable. You can remove a gangrenous foot, or do your best to care for your body. Everyone dies. Life is a journey.