What we support and defend

[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.

[Bill Moore]

This was one method attempted, I'm not sure it worked as planned, but our presence in East Asia probably prevented some states from falling to communism, but again we'll never know. It is like deterence, our forward presence may have deterred, or maybe the USSR didn't act for other reasons. Like most things in the world there are multiple factors that influence the behavoir/decisions that states make.

http://www.pearsonschoolsandfecolleg...75Chapter2.pdf

One fundamental strategy used by successive US administrations was to attempt to create model states in Asia, to show that democracy and capitalism would bring economic prosperity, freedom and happiness. The USA felt that their political system was the best in the world, and that no country would choose communism when they saw the benefits democracy had brought to these model states. They began with their own ex-colony of the
Philippines. This artificial imposition of western culture onto another country is an example of cultural imperialism.

President Truman used Filipino independence as a means of ensuring US dominance in the PaciŸfic and so strengthening the Pacific Rim Defensive Perimeter Strategy. However, he resisted any suggestion that the USA was in
fact treating it as a colony, in case this provoked a revival of European imperialism. Instead, he emphasised two features of the newly-independent state:
1. Its measures to prevent European dominance of its markets and materials
2. Its democratic values of freedom and liberty. It was intended to be a shining example of capitalist prosperity and democracy to encourage other states in the area to resist the spread of communism.

Break, Bob, our war nor our containment policy was directed at China:

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dat...y.cfm?HHID=488

In mid-October, the first of 300,000 Chinese soldiers slipped into North Korea. When U.S. forces began what they expected to be their final assault in late November, they ran into the Chinese army. There was a danger that the U.S. Army might be overrun. The Chinese intervention ended any hope of reunifying Korea by force of arms.

General MacArthur called for the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff to unleash American air and naval power against China. But the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Omar Bradley, said a clash with China would be "the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy."

Emphasis is mine.

[Bob's World]

Bill - Containment and war are two different things. We absolutely worked every bit as hard to contain China as Russia; which has nothing to do with Mac being told not to go to war with China over Korea. His mission was to contain, he wanted to do more and got fired.

Dayuhan, you apply, intentionally I believe far too narrow a definition on "empower." To empower does not mean that one was powerless previously, just that they felt no need to do what they already know they should be doing. Like a 24 year old son still living with his parents. He knows he should be paying for his own place, cooking his own food, and doing his own laundry, but he is enabled to take the easy way out. Is it "abandonment" of such a son to tell them it is time to move out and get a job? No, to do so is to empower them to stand up and be a man. To continue the status quo is to enable behavior that isn't good for anyone in the long run. This is where we are with many of our Pacific Allies.

We are like a mother who is afraid to let them go, and they are happy to allow us to keep subsidizing a comfortable status quo. It is time for everyone to move on. We do not abandon allies when we do this, we empower them. Same when we share regional power duties with China. We do not give up power to them when we do this, we actually make our situation stronger, as we share onerous duties that profit everyone, and at the same time take away much of the rationale China employs currently to justify much the current military buildup that we in turn build up to match. End the arms race, it serves no (good) purpose. Sure it strengthens Chinese politicians position as they stand up to this affront, sure it keeps US defense contractors churning on tactical fighters and "A2/AD" systems that we really don't need. Those are purposes, but they are not good purposes, and they make our nation weaker, not stronger.

[Bill Moore]

Containment and war are two different things. We absolutely worked every bit as hard to contain China as Russia; which has nothing to do with Mac being told not to go to war with China over Korea. His mission was to contain, he wanted to do more and got fired.

The containment policy was directed at the USSR, we tried to pull China into our sphere to help contain the USSR. The USSR did aggressively expand (using force), and continued to do so, so our containment policy was appropriate. Where exactly did China try to expand to that we needed to contain it? China is expanding its influence far beyond its borders now, and an argument could be made that China is trying to contain us.

War and containment may be different, or it war may be a sequential step to implement containment, the point of the quote was that U.S. leaders didn't view China as an enemy. China's actions in North Korea and North Vietnam were in response to U.S. actions, they were not expanding in those situations.

Red China was immoral, it murdered millions of its own citizens, it was bankrupt, there is nothing good to say about it, but I can't find any evidence that were containing it, and the only reason is it wasn't expanding.

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan, you apply, intentionally I believe far too narrow a definition on "empower." To empower does not mean that one was powerless previously, just that they felt no need to do what they already know they should be doing. Like a 24 year old son still living with his parents. He knows he should be paying for his own place, cooking his own food, and doing his own laundry, but he is enabled to take the easy way out. Is it "abandonment" of such a son to tell them it is time to move out and get a job? No, to do so is to empower them to stand up and be a man. To continue the status quo is to enable behavior that isn't good for anyone in the long run. This is where we are with many of our Pacific Allies.

I do tend to define terms narrowly: rigorous definition is needed for precision and for keeping discussion on track.

I don't think any of our Asian allies are even remotely analogous to a 24 year old son living with his parents. For one thing, none of them are economically dependent on us. If we choose to station military forces on their soil we do so for our own reasons, with their consent. If our assessment of our interests changes, certainly we can place those forces anywhere, but again we'd be doing it for our own reasons and I see no point is dragging terms like "empowerment" into the picture.

Same when we share regional power duties with China. We do not give up power to them when we do this, we actually make our situation stronger, as we share onerous duties that profit everyone, and at the same time take away much of the rationale China employs currently to justify much the current military buildup that we in turn build up to match.

What "regional power duties" do you propose to share with China? Neither China nor the US has any duty to defend regional commerce, which is under no real threat, excpt possibly from conflicts involving China and/or the US.

I don't see that either the Chinese or the Americans have any particular interest in "regional power duties": they are pursuing their own strategic objectives. They may try to spin these objectives as duties, but there's no need to buy into that.

[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.