What we support and defend

[Bob's World]

Dayuhan,

I agree that neither side is aggressively pushing the other right now, but these things tend to happen in degrees, and both sides have increased the degree of chest bumping against each other, without increasing the degree of interaction with each other.

In no way should we "abandon" our allies in the region. Equally, in now way should we continue to define those relationships by perspectives overly shaped by a world that no longer exists. Is this pivot or shift the right flavor of change for the emerging world, or is it simply a move to put more energy into old concepts based on old perspectives?

Entropy asks what would an alternative to containment look like. A good friend of mine co-wrote a paper as "Mr. Y" that suggests a grand strategy of "sustainment," and it has some good ideas in it. I published a paper that took a slightly different tact and branded it "empowerment."

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...6jEINkzKIoQfuw

(If that link does not work, google "A Grand Strategy of Empowerment") Not intended to be the definitive answer, but merely to note that we need to make a major course change in terms of our strategic approach and to offer one new (old) concept to help shape that dialog.

[Dayuhan]

I agree that neither side is aggressively pushing the other right now, but these things tend to happen in degrees, and both sides have increased the degree of chest bumping against each other, without increasing the degree of interaction with each other.

I'd say interaction with China has increased quite a bit in the last few decades, particularly economic interaction.

Entropy asks what would an alternative to containment look like. A good friend of mine co-wrote a paper as "Mr. Y" that suggests a grand strategy of "sustainment," and it has some good ideas in it. I published a paper that took a slightly different tact and branded it "empowerment."

How would a grand strategy of empowerment be applied to today's Asia-Pacific region? Whom do you propose to empower? Certainly an empowered populace is less liable to embark on a Communist led revolution (I'd question the degree to which the US is actually capable of empowering anyone else's populace, but that's for another thread), but the Chinese aren't promoting revolution or subversion. Empowering the Chinese populace would be wonderful but it's not the most practical of objectives.

What exactly do you propose that we do in Asia?

I find the whole Asian pivot concept less than convincing, just because I don't see what assigning more ships to the Pacific is actually meant to accomplish, other than posing an assertive and Presidential-looking alternative to the withdrawal (some will say retreat) from Afghanistan. I don't necessarily see that as containment, but if you're going to propose an alternative, I'd be curious about what the alternative would look like in actual application.

[Ken White]

I find the whole Asian pivot concept less than convincing, just because I don't see what assigning more ships to the Pacific is actually meant to accomplish, other than posing an assertive and Presidential-looking alternative to the withdrawal (some will say retreat) from Afghanistan. I don't necessarily see that as containment, but if you're going to propose an alternative, I'd be curious about what the alternative would look like in actual application. (emphasis added / kw)

We've had up to 70% of the Fleet in the Pacific several times over the last 100 years. The preponderence of the ships go where they can best be used. This Admin wants to edge Europe into doing more for itself than most of the last few. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing earth shaking, either...

Not to mention an upcoming election and a need to look busy with some justification -- but with little to no probability of major malfunctions.

[Bob's World]

We can empower Japan and South Korea to take on greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than primarily expecting them to serve as bases for our own containment.

We can empower China to work with us to ensure the safe sailing of the commercial fleets of the region.

We can empower the Philippines to actually work to resolve the disconnect between their government and their many diverse, but equally dissatisfied, populaces.

There is no logical rationale for greater call to US military action in the Pacific, and to do so merely enables bad behavior by allies and competitors alike, rather than empowering positive actions.

Ken infers that our shift works to empower Europe to stand up more for their own interests, but we can do that by bringing capacity home and standing down excesses; it does not require we shift it to the Pacific to keep it at work where no extra work need be done. But Fuchs raises a good point earlier as well, that the Europeans may not field the force we wish the did so as to better be able to join us on our exaggerated adventures around the globe, but they are fielding the force they need for the actual threats they face to their own interests as they define them.

As America looks to the future, it needs to build that foundation on our pre-Cold War past. To build it upon the crumbled and irrelevant foundation of the remains of our Cold War posture is illogical at best, and sets the stage for the further decline of our national influence at worst.

[Dayuhan]

We can empower Japan and South Korea to take on greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than primarily expecting them to serve as bases for our own containment.

We can empower China to work with us to ensure the safe sailing of the commercial fleets of the region.

We can empower the Philippines to actually work to resolve the disconnect between their government and their many diverse, but equally dissatisfied, populaces.

How exactly do you propose to empower any of the above? Beyond generalities, what do you propose that we actually do.

All the nations you mention above are independent sovereign states, and they make their own decisions. They are going to do what they want to do, not what we want them to do; they will not ask our permission and they do not need us to empower them to do anything. If they aren't doing any given thing, it's because they don't want to do it, not because we haven't empowered them. The notion that we are in a position to "empower" the Chinese or Koreans or Japanese or Filipinos seems, in all honesty, a bit pretentious to me, and I don't see how exactly we're supposed to do it.

There is no logical rationale for greater call to US military action in the Pacific, and to do so merely enables bad behavior by allies and competitors alike, rather than empowering positive actions.

Agreed, but I haven't seen any proposal for military action, just for a military presence... and even there I'd say the program is more politically motivated talk than anything else.

[Bob's World]

military presence is military action. Particularly in times of peace such as our nation enjoys now.

Specific action?

Less presence and less bases on the far side of the Pacific, not more.

Renegotiate all of the defense treaties of the region to reflect the world as it exists today, but with a general trend of the US taking a much smaller direct role in the security events of the region, and China taking a larger role. With the US serving more as a distant reserve and counter-balance to prevent China from abusing the sovereignty of her neighbors.

Delegate. We want to be the "global leader" according to our NSS, well it is time for a more sophisticated form of leadership. Currently we abuse the sovereignty of China to accomplish that same task through containment strategy, Empowerment strategy recognizes China's status as the most powerful nation in East Asia, and India in South Asia and reinforces their sovereignty as it supports their lead in the regions of their issue. We also abuse the sovereignty of several nations in our efforts to contain AQ in the FATA and to defeat, disrupt, deny them in many nations elsewhere. A definition of global leadership that means US direct action on US terms for US interests regardless of the impact on the countries and populaces it impacts, that is no type of leadership we really want our "USA" brand applied to, IMO. It is time for the US government to learn delegated leadership.

Lead a major reorg of the UN to make it in fact what it is supposed to be in principle. Rebalance what and how countries have a voice to make it more equitable and better tuned to the post Cold War world. Consider regional groupings with regional leadership that have primary responsibility for security and disaster and economic relief in their respective regions. Couple this with a logical plan to keep such regional bodies within certain limits, and to reinforce them as necessary for larger events.

BLUF is we need to reassess the entire kit bag of programs, organizations, treaties, etc, etc, etc, designed by the West to contain the East, and convert them to things designed by the entire world for the entire world. The US may lose some control, but we will gain a whole lot of leadership and influence.

This is not retrenchment or isolationist at all. This is just being a smart leader for others without overstepping important boundaries that we demand for ourself, but too often ignore for others. Somethings will happen that we won't like or approve of. But when did anyone annoint the US as having to hit the "like" button on every action, or give other nations our approval to act??

[Dayuhan]

military presence is military action. Particularly in times of peace such as our nation enjoys now.

Specific action?

Less presence and less bases on the far side of the Pacific, not more.

Renegotiate all of the defense treaties of the region to reflect the world as it exists today, but with a general trend of the US taking a much smaller direct role in the security events of the region, and China taking a larger role. With the US serving more as a distant reserve and counter-balance to prevent China from abusing the sovereignty of her neighbors.

Delegate. We want to be the "global leader" according to our NSS, well it is time for a more sophisticated form of leadership. Currently we abuse the sovereignty of China to accomplish that same task through containment strategy, Empowerment strategy recognizes China's status as the most powerful nation in East Asia, and India in South Asia and reinforces their sovereignty as it supports their lead in the regions of their issue.

That's a little better, but still far from specific.

How exactly does the US "abuse the sovereignty of China"? The US at present seems to be doing exactly what you say, trying to be a "counter-balance to prevent China from abusing the sovereignty of her neighbors". It doesn't look like it's working. How does one respond if the idea of being a distant counterbalance is clearly ineffective? Move closer? Give up?

Going back to the previous...

We can empower Japan and South Korea to take on greater responsibility for their own defense, rather than primarily expecting them to serve as bases for our own containment.

We can certainly pull forces back from these countries if we decide that it's in our interest to do so. That's not "empowering" anyone to take more responsibility for their own defense, they already have the power to do that if they choose to do it. We'd be forcing a choice, not empowering: two entirely different things.

We can empower China to work with us to ensure the safe sailing of the commercial fleets of the region.

China already has that power; they don't need us to give it to them. In any event the commercial fleets of the region face no significant threat and don't need anyone to ensure safe sailing, except perhaps off Somalia, where the Chinese are already working with us. Can't see how there's any "empowerment" for us to do in that sphere.

We can empower the Philippines to actually work to resolve the disconnect between their government and their many diverse, but equally dissatisfied, populaces.

How do you propose to do that? Please don't think that a US withdrawal from the Philippines would force (oh, sorry, "empower") the Philippine government to "resolve the disconnect between their government and their many diverse, but equally dissatisfied, populaces". That would not happen. If we weren't around the Philippine government would revert to its previous methods and take more of a Sri Lanka-style approach to its various insurgencies, from which they've temporarily stepped back because going all touchy-feely pop centric is seen as the way into the US pocketbook. I suppose it could be said that we'd be empowering them to do that, but I'm not sure any of the dissatisfied populaces would thank us for it.

[Ken White]

Ken infers that our shift works to empower Europe to stand up more for their own interests, but we can do that by bringing capacity home and standing down excesses; it does not require we shift it to the Pacific to keep it at work where no extra work need be done. But Fuchs raises a good point earlier as well, that the Europeans may not field the force we wish the did so as to better be able to join us on our exaggerated adventures around the globe, but they are fielding the force they need for the actual threats they face to their own interests as they define them.

Ken didn't mean to infer that, Ken meant to say that's what the Admin would like. Not the same thing...

Like you I don't believe that will happen and for the same general reasons.

You are correct that no extra work needs to be done in the Pacific area -- but I think incorrect on the "require" aspect -- our system requires it; Congress, the National Security and Foreign Policy establishments Require it for self justification...

Dumbbb -- with three 'bs.' We have indeed lost the bubble.