Back in June 13, I was talking to my friends about how much I enjoy the writing style of Banyan, a columnist for The Economist. (Here) While I don't know much about Mahan and his notion as argued by Banyan but I like how he writes and the way he frames his arguments. I would be grateful to Confucius if I can write 10% as well. To support his main argument of a Mahanian revival in Asia, Banyan cited Jim Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara of the United States Naval War College’s and Robert Kaplan’s “Center Stage for the Twenty-first Century” published in the March/April 2009’s issue of Foreign Affairs (here) Being a long time readers of Holmes and Yoshihara’s work, I believe they were somewhat misquoted.
In no time, the real debate started; first Holmes and Yoshihara wrote an indirect response in the current issue of The Jamestown Foundation’s China Brief titled "A Chinese Turn to Mahan?" (here) to “clarified” their view on the Mahanian notion to both Kaplan and “A columnist for The Economist”. In due course , Andrew Erickson and Thomas Culora of Naval War College wrote a rebuttal titled "Arms and Influence at Sea" to Kaplan (here)
A coordinated effort by the USNWC boys? most likely not. Both sides made some good points and I am not educated enough to take sides, but it is always wonderful to see professionals debate in public, I feel like I am getting an education because of it. I am anxious to read Banyan and Kaplan’s response.