Future Peer Competitor?

[FascistLibertarian]

The British kept their financial house in order! Only in WW1 did they end up spending all their money, cashing in all their chips, and becoming indebted to the US and on the hook for bad debts. In WW1 they had no choice.
In the US the British did not allow the Americans to produce certain goods (you Americans probably know a lot more about this than me, I have a feeling they limited printing presses or something like that).
India was able to pay for a lot of British troops and supply lots of Indian Army soldiers. The British supressed Indian manufacturing so India became a net importer of textiles.
When the British had a trade deficit with China (ie China had lots of stuff to sell but only really wanted gold). The British sold them opium and got HK in the war. Britain had to adapt.
These types of economic warfare doesnt seem viable today as the war will be more expensive than any benefits.
The US has to adapt today, they need to cut spending, get their fiscal house in order, and encourage savings at the national and family level. They can still expand their military but have to do it in a smart manner. Expensive projects NEVER seem to be cut. Rumsfeld cut what, one program, the future artillery something, in his time as defense secretary.
The US economic situation worries me far more than any future peer competitor. In Iraq they wanted (and prepared for) an Ashanti campaign and they got a Boer War.
The US is much more dominated in the Naval field than the British ever was. Would it really hurt to shift some of that funding into a larger and better equipped army?

[Rob Thornton]

Hey LV,
On one of the posts on the site from some Chinese folks (the one about the riots)- there was a link to another vision for China (I have not read it yet - lots on my list these days) about the Chinese transforming their government to pursue a type of modernization that would help it reach its potential. Also there was a piece on the BBC and NPR about Chinese Christians and how the Chinese government is pushing its own brand of Christianity because the moral and ethical values are congruent with getting the most out of a population.
Directly this may seem like white noise to their military spending, but nothing happens in and of its self on that scale. What happens when a Communist state starts to look like a Christian pseudo-democracy with a capitalist theme? I'm not sure, but I think its worthwhile to consider. Lets say instead of invading Taiwan, they just pursued aggressive capitalism ventures to buy out Taiwan - they already own allot of it.
I think the Chinese are cognizant that there are easier ways to get what they desire in regards to the things we'd consider a major catalyst. Consider if China never provokes the U.S., but continues to build its Navy and other military forces while its economic policy puts it at the forefront of regional and perhaps global (way down the road) economics. Was then the right decision to counter growing Chinese influence military one up-manship? Or should we have taken some of our $$$$ and invested them in Diplomacy, Information and Economics.

I'm not sure, but I am sure the right answer is not always the first one we turn to. A future peer competitor will be smart and robust enough that it will not rely on a single element on national power. Consider that the premier Chinese military philosopher might not be Clausewitz, but Sun Tzu who recognized the apogee of art in warfare is to win without destroying your enemy. Now why would that old Chinese guy say that? Well, in destroying somebody else you risk destroying yourself, and in our case - the consumers who fuel a large part of their economy. China is smart, and it is patient. Their military is only one instrument of their military power, and one they will not hazard lightly.

I'm an Infantryman so this is going to sound funny coming from me, but an economically competitive China may be much better then China as an adversary. Checks and balances yes, but one up-manship - maybe not. These days require a balanced policy, our immediate answer should not be diMe, until after we understand the consequences. As others have pointed out, if China were to become a military threat – means and will that portray intent (not only a build up) on the world scene, then it will not be a threat to only the U.S., but to the other states in the region – Japan, Australia, India. Diplomacy in regards to building lasting relations and like policy objectives in the region, an Information plan that strategically communicates to our allies and neutrals the benefits of working with the United States, and an Economic Policy that invests world wide in order to change the conditions that make states weak and unstable, create victims, breeed anti-Americanism, and keep the US economy strong. From a military perspective we need to be strong enough to meet our commitments and be judicial in the use of force while expressig our national ideals abroad (freedom, justice, equality, compassion).

I understand our role is the “M”, but it must be understood in the context of the whole d-i-m-e. Extremists and terrorists though are a scourge and have no desire or logical reason to pursue a course that avoids conflict. They reflect the worst of human nature (yes there are like people who influence states – just look at Iran), and will not respond to anything but force – they are the threat of our time and dealing with them will require both military force and the use of the other elements of military power to change the environment from which they spawn.

[LawVol]

Rob: you may be absolutely right and I hope you are. An economically competitive China vs having China as an adversary is clearly preferable. I would dearly love to see us all out of a job and simply have the various countries compete solely in the marketplace. However, I don't think that will be the case. If not China, someone else will rise. After WWI, many thought Germany would no longer be a threat. They failed to consider what could happen and instead focused on what expert said would most likely happen. It sort of like the Iraq preplanning, complete focus on the rosy picture rather than what if-ing the plan. I'm the what if I guess.

I know that I've mentioned China as the next possible peer competitor and it's only because that tends to be the norm. But what if someone else rises up? A resurgent Russia maybe (perhaps it's my Cold War military service, but I'm still leary about them)? All I'm saying is that we need to be ready. I just read something yesterday about China developing a 5th generation aircraft and collaborating with Russia. Who knows what will happen? I just don't want to be caught with our pants down.

[Rob Thornton]

You know I got to thinking about the different reasons why state's invest in militaries (or anything else for that matter). I think that it is important - what allows for an investment in one area over another? With stable states we can at least assume there is some methodology driving the train, even if we don't understand it or can empathize with it. Unstable states such as N.Korea are driven pretty much by the fears and goals of dictators, but stable states tend to have bodies of one flavor or another. Bodies lead to objectives considered from multiple angles.

China is interesting in that its motives for modernizing its military are not entirely clear. However, if you were going to modernize today, what model would you use? What model would others look to and say their military power reflects their potential as a state? The military is also an effective tool of policy in being - that is the existance of a demonstratable, qulifiable military capability can enhance prestige, or influence decisions without having to do much. China seem to have a knack for using indirect methods to achieve its goals. I would also argue that China understands our strategic culture at least as well as we understand theirs - in fact as global players for the last century, their is a larger body of evidence for them to evaluate. While we concentrate on what has been our most visible role in the world - that of world policemen, they are employing soft power to advance their prestige and influence while also strengthening their economic ties and broadening their opportunities by opening new markets. I would also say that China has learned from us that if you wish to take global risks you can only mitigate them by having the ability to project global security.

If China's goals stay aligned with those United States - within the bounds of peaceful economic competition - then they could actually ease some of our commitments. If they do not- then they could result in an adversarial relationship, and increase our commitments (and requirements).

That's the real challenge, knowing where to accept risk in one area while applying resources in another - since resources are finite. Hopefully we take a balanced approac where even if we're wron, we won't be so wrong from which we cannot recover quickly enough to restore balance.

[120mm]

The British kept their financial house in order! Only in WW1 did they end up spending all their money, cashing in all their chips, and becoming indebted to the US and on the hook for bad debts. In WW1 they had no choice.
In the US the British did not allow the Americans to produce certain goods (you Americans probably know a lot more about this than me, I have a feeling they limited printing presses or something like that).
India was able to pay for a lot of British troops and supply lots of Indian Army soldiers. The British supressed Indian manufacturing so India became a net importer of textiles.
When the British had a trade deficit with China (ie China had lots of stuff to sell but only really wanted gold). The British sold them opium and got HK in the war. Britain had to adapt.
These types of economic warfare doesnt seem viable today as the war will be more expensive than any benefits.
The US has to adapt today, they need to cut spending, get their fiscal house in order, and encourage savings at the national and family level. They can still expand their military but have to do it in a smart manner. Expensive projects NEVER seem to be cut. Rumsfeld cut what, one program, the future artillery something, in his time as defense secretary.
The US economic situation worries me far more than any future peer competitor. In Iraq they wanted (and prepared for) an Ashanti campaign and they got a Boer War.
The US is much more dominated in the Naval field than the British ever was. Would it really hurt to shift some of that funding into a larger and better equipped army?

I have a friend who is a medieval British historian. He routinely asserts that Britain is STILL paying off notes from the 1500s. If this is true, floating debt for eternity is NOT keeping one's financial house in order.

[tequila]

Defense Officials Tried to Reverse China Policy, says Powell aide. Congressional Quarterly.

The same top Bush administration neoconservatives who leap-frogged Washington’s foreign policy establishment to topple Saddam Hussein nearly pulled off a similar coup in U.S.-China relations—creating the potential of a nuclear war over Taiwan, a top aide to former Secretary of State Colin Powell says.

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, the U.S. Army colonel who was Powell’s chief of staff through two administrations, said in little-noted remarks early last month that “neocons” in the top rungs of the administration quietly encouraged Taiwanese politicians to move toward a declaration of independence from mainland China — an act that the communist regime has repeatedly warned would provoke a military strike.
The top U.S. diplomat in Taiwan at the time, Douglas Paal, backs up Wilkerson’s account, which is being hotly disputed by key former defense officials.

Under the deliberately fuzzy diplomatic formula hammered out between former President Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong in 1971, the United States agreed that there is only “one China” —with its capital in Beijing.

But right-wing Republicans in particular continued to embrace Taiwan as an anticommunist bastion 125 miles off the Chinese coast, long after their own party leaders and U.S. big business embraced the communist regime ...

[Rob Thornton]

LV,
Have you read (or listened to on CD) Friedman's book - The World is Flat? He has a chapter in there that deals almost entirely with Chinese Economic strategy. Its important I think. It talks about moving from being a consumer of western goods, to a producer (out sourcer of western goods), to designer of goods (note the lack of designating the West as Chinese consumerism is also targeted) to the conceptual end of the spectrum which really closes the loop. In this model economics becme the driving force (CoG) of new Chinese power. They have a long term plan which starts by recognizing the changing world and preparing their children to succeed better then anyone else's kids. We must recognize the limitations to pursuing a strategy limited to countering gorwing chinese military capability - we must account for how that power is generated and to what ends it might be used. The chinese military is important, but we must not see the problem from the physical manifestation side of it alone, we must consider the parts that are more subtle and lasting. Peer competitor means allot more then military peer competitor.
Regards, Rob

[Firestaller]

Hey LV,
the Chinese transforming their government to pursue a type of modernization that would help it reach its potential. Also there was a piece on the BBC and NPR about Chinese Christians and how the Chinese government is pushing its own brand of Christianity because the moral and ethical values are congruent with getting the most out of a population.
What happens when a Communist state starts to look like a Christian pseudo-democracy with a capitalist theme?

I doubt that you will see pervasive Christianity in China. The government is actually pushing the Chinese the be more Chinese (Confusianism, Toaism, Buddhisim and other traditional thoughts were banned and are now making a revival in China.)

Buddhism can contribute better than Christianity and Islam to healing community divisions and help believers deal with major changes in Chinese society, this according to State Administration for Religious Affairs director Ye Xiaowen

Other religions such as Christianity and Islam can also contribute to the building of a harmonious society (e pet project of Chinese President Hu Jintao), but Buddhism can make a "distinctive contribution" because its pursuit of harmony is closer to the Chinese outlook.

"As a responsible country, China has a distinctive thinking and forward-looking policy in promoting world harmony. Religious power is one of the social forces China can draw support from," he said.

Mr Ye said Buddhism can help believers cope with a fast-changing society, now plagued by a huge wealth gap and increasing social unrest. Buddhism is China's most important religion in numerical terms, and has been persecuted by the Communist regime like other religions.

What is more, the central government is at ease with Buddhism because the latter has less contact with outside forces, which the authorities often see as meddling in China's internal affairs.

Ties between the faithful and the Holy See are one of the reasons relations between China and the Vatican are difficult since Beijing considers the latter a foreign power.

http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2006/4/11_5.html

[goesh]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10779158/

It's going to be interesting to see how well it sells, its reliability and durability and all those factors that go into successful marketing. The price certainly is right