What we support and defend

**Entropy** · 06-11-2012

Bob,

The thing is, we don't have a containment strategy anymore, but we still have the system of global military alliances which is, only in part, a legacy of containment. But the alliances aren't and weren't simply about defending against the Soviets and they serve a lot of other purposes. Again, the point I would make is that if one is going to have a global system of active military alliances (for whatever purpose), then one needs ready forces to give those alliances credibility. This isn't to suggest we are stuck with a large military - rather, we need to be cognizant of the likely effects of a reduced military force and plan our foreign policy and change our alliances accordingly.

Fuchs,

I get that you don't think intervention in Yugoslavia was necessary. Most of your neighbors in Europe disagree with you.

**Bob's World** · 06-11-2012

I wish you were correct, but the fact is we are running on about "Containment 6.0" and have never made a serious effort to do more than slap an occasional patch on that dated product(yes, this strategy is now old enough to draw full Social Security benefits...ironically, as the funding of this strategy will likely prevent any of us from some day doing the same).

Hell, we even attempt to contain AQ in the FATA (ideologies and networked, non-state actors do not "contain" well), Russia, Iran and China influence ("We don't recognize spheres of influence - Sec Clinton) to name but a few examples. The recent shift to the Pacific may not be a physical containment in name, but it is certainly being approached as a defacto physical containment by the US and China alike. We employ a very controlling approach to foreign policy, where the US freely imposes strict red lines on others, but refuses to recognize any long established by others that we either disagree with or simply find to be inconvenient to our actions in a particular time and place.

As to the adequacy of our force, one must first come to grips with the reality of their mission before they can acurately assess their capacity for the same. We seek to sustain our military "Means" because our Policy and Strategy "Ends" and "Ways" are growing increasingly irrelvant, inappropriate, and unsupportable. When all Generals and Admrials feel they can do is salute and execute, they have little choice but to ask for more capacity. If we were to apply design theory to assessing the situation it would allow the military to come back with a more pramatic and helpful response than a simple "Yes sir!"

**Bill Moore** · 06-12-2012

Bob,

The shift to the Pacific is not about containment and great efforts are being made to prevent that perception. It isn't in our interest to contain, and as you pointed out it isn't possible. Detering aggression, protecting the commons, both enable economic growth which is in ours and other nations' interests.

I agree we have stated multiple times we are trying to contain AQ, which as you correctly pointed out is impossible. We won't deny safehaven, we won't easily, if ever, "counter" their ideology, etc., but in lieu of a better construct (help requested) we'll continue to default to those terms and the associated mentality. For AQ what are your recommendations? Defeat? Disrupt?

**Fuchs** · 06-12-2012

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

For AQ what are your recommendations? Defeat? Disrupt?

Grow up.

NATO boasts more than 600 million population and whatever AQ can do isn't even a real scratch on our surface.
It's at most a microscopic and temporary scratch on the surface, next to real cratches and even deep cuts.

We should begin to ignore them and everytime they actually succeed to kill some people we should take notice of it as a crime and put it into perspective. For example, we could report on a bus accident or the last month's influenza death statistic or the death rate from smoking before mentioning -ONCE- in the news that some criminals killed someone or a few people because of political hate.

Treat them as they deserve and they have already lost.

Meanwhile, everytime some fool suggests some expensive adventure or budget, make a counter-proposal, compare how many lives can be saved by investing in actual safety measures or medical research and then spend the money EVERY TIME on the more rational choice. Don't forget to expose and reprimand the fools who wanted to squander taxpayer money afterwards.

**Bob's World** · 06-12-2012

Bill,

Perception is fact, and the perception inside the PACOM headquarters is not the one that matters most.

Any US strategy in the Pacific that is designed to work against China rather than with China is a form of containment, in fact if not in name.

Just type a simple Google search of "Containment, Pacific, China" and see what comes up. We've been applying some form of containment (or regime change to spice it up a bit) to virtually every problem since 1947. We have come to see the lesser forms of it as just doing business as usual and not being containment at all, but as I said, our perception is not the one that matters most.

I understand the President's decision to refocus America from Europe toward Asia; but he was talking primarily commerce, not threats. How do we shed the inertia of decades of containing China as part of the Cold War, to a future of working with China as the primary security and trading partner to keep the future of that region vibrant? I don't know. Just as old allies in the Middle East keep us spun up about Iran, old allies in the Pacific keep us spun up about China. Time for the US to reach out to both on our many shared interests, rather than simply fixating on the 2-3 issues we will agree to disagree about.

If the US is the global leader we claim to be, we should be taking lead on diplomatic solutions to the sharing of duties and rights in the South China Sea; or the timeline for peaceful reintegration of China-Taiwan. Ramping up a light version of containment seems to me to be more of an obstacle than a help in getting at resolution of such points of friction and potential conflict.

China is the trading partner of choice in the region. That will not change.

The US is the security partner of choice in the region. That will not change either.

All of our partners are playing that balancing game, with their economic future tied to China, and their security future tied to the US. This is reasonable and logical. But they also fear being caught in the middle of two super powers bumping chests over matters that are not of their interest. Taiwan independence is surely a keen issue for Taiwan, but for every other state that would be affected by a conflict over that issue it is not an issue they would risk fighting over or spoiling their relationship with China over. We too need to learn how to play a balancing game, and how to recognize that our global influence is trumped in certain places by the regional influence of others, and that that can be a good thing.

Truth is, we never stopped containing China, and the latest changes increases the energy and focus behind that effort. Call it what you want at PACOM, but it walks and quacks like a duck.