A World without America

In accordance with my recent posts about the fate of America and the world if we don’t get out of our funk, this post is about the “World without America” that many people seem to think is the solution to all the world’s problems. Fareed Zakaria has an article in Newsweek about the trouble this is already causing and some warning about the future if it doesn’t stop. He mentions several issues that have already appeared, such as global trade talks are collapsing as France refuses to allow Europe to sign on to the agricultural subsidy cuts the US proposes in exchange for developing world fully opening its financial sector. Any possibility of reducing global pollution is gone as India and China demand the same per capita pollution levels as Europe. However, he only really covers those two problems that are the favorites of Western internationalists, globalization and global warming. Beyond these there are more pressing problems that are developing as the mice realize the cat will no longer wake up.

Absent US intervention, Darfur continues to be the scene of mass slaughter. Sri Lanka’s war with the LTTE has flared up again despite decades of Euro soft power intervention. As America’s resolve has slackened, Russian pressure on former Soviet Republics that we were helping like the Ukraine, Georgia, and Kazakhstan is increasing. Probably the most deleterious effect on future global stability is the loss of the Pax Americana that underpinned the low defense budgets and free trade that we saw in most of the world. The cause of the relative peace we’ve seen for the last 15 years was the reality that any country that attacked another would simply be destroyed by the US military. No matter how much money any country spent (Japan and Germany aside) they could never hope to match even a single American carrier and division. With zero chance of victory there was no reason to try. In a world without an active America that calculation changes drastically. There are still national hatreds and disputed territories to fight over around the world. Places like Arica, Kashmir, the Crimea, Taiwan, Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, and the Fergana Valley are potential scenes of centuries old grudge matches. This can also be seen by the growing defense budgets and the purchases of advanced military weapons by countries around the world. Just because Alsace-Lorraine, Silesia, the Skane, and Tirol are not at the moment disputed and Euro defense budgets are presently inadequate doesn’t mean conflict is a thing of the past. Zakaria ends his article by quoting Niall Ferguson about what may be in store for the “World without America”,

“In a provocative essay in Foreign Policy three years ago, the British historian Niall Ferguson speculated that the end of American hegemony might not fuel an orderly shift to a multipolar system but a descent into a world of highly fragmented powers, with no one exercising any global leadership. He called this "apolarity." "Apolarity could turn out to mean an anarchic new Dark Age," Ferguson wrote, "an era of waning empires and religious fanaticism, of economic plunder and pillage in the world's forgotten regions, of economic stagnation, and civilization's retreat into a few fortified enclaves."”

Something for Americans should remember, even if we aren’t exposed to the sort of depravations that Europe, Africa, and much of Asia will be, we’ll still be part of that world and it will far worse for us than anything Iraq can be imagined as. This is something that I've written about since the earliest days of this blog (all of 8 months ago). The earliest being my 8th post back in May 2006 about that contrary to what the left says we will have to fight and win this struggle and contrary to what some on the right say this isn’t the last great conflict, we’ll have to do it again and again. This post from June covers my general agreement with the top British strategist who warned the West is looking mightily like the Roman Empire at its end these days. Also from June are two posts, one dealing with how the insistence on treating every “nation” equally is creating many of the world’s problems that are then being fanned by the fatigue we are now showing in spades, and the other dealing with the problem of relying on Europe for our alliances in the future as the Democrats desire. There are other ones that deal tangentially with this topic but that should show that isn't something recent or surprising.

I should add that one of my quibbles with the article is that he states the power of the US and Europe in the world is declining. In my view there are two types of power, theoretical and real. Theoretical power is the total potential power of a nation realized or not while real power is that power which a nation is willing to use. Europe’s power, however you define it, is on the decline so I don’t dispute that point. As for us it is true that our real power is on the decline as we seem intent on no longer exercising the full breadth of our capabilities. However, our theoretical power is essentially unchanged. Our economy grows at roughly the world average so there isn’t much change there. Our population is growing at near the world average and will actually likely be above the world rate soon. Our military holds as big if not a bigger share of global military power than ever before, as we are the only nation with a fully combat experienced force, our weapons and tactics are proven in combat, and we dominate global R&D spending (both military and civilian). This is what is so disheartening about the current mood in America, we have the power of Britain in 1870 at the height of the Pax Britannica, yet we are behaving and electing politicians like the Britain of 1970 at the ebb of her power (when even France and Italy! were richer than England, may that never be said about us).

Defeat Has a Price as Well- Cont.

To follow up on my previous post, there is a short article by Michael Barone that notes some of the reasons for the softness the American public is showing. He also links to an editorial on the website for Der Spiegel, which is here also, about how much worse things are in Europe. The one consolation for concerned Americans whenever we consider the dark waters the American people are allowing our nation to drift to is that Europe is much further along than we are in almost all respects of weakness (economic, military, demographic, cultural, etc.). There will always be the final hope that Europe going into the abyss will at last wake up the American people just before we fall in.

On the political side, the wife of wannabe First Lady William Clinton Rodham is continuing the Democrats strategery of trying to bring about defeat in Iraq, like they did with Vietnam, while not being blamed for it, like they did with Vietnam. Her comments that it’s Bush’s job to extricate us from Iraq are classic liberalism, all political maneuver no substance. If it’s Bush’s job then she needs to prevail on her party to get out of his way and let him handle it. If however, she doesn’t think Bush is making the right choices and needs to be told to then it isn’t his job and she shares responsibility for the outcome. Again, though the Democrats want neither of those things. The Democrats want to hide the fact the jaws of defeat we are struggling to pull victory from are their own. Then if Bush can manage to pull victory from their jaws of defeat they can still claim they were in favor of it all along, they just had some “constructive criticism”, but if Bush cannot then they can step aside and let Bush take the blame. Either way, politically they win; our soldiers and our nation will always be second to that.

Defeat Has a Price as Well

I apologize for the week with no posts. I was caught off guard by two midterms that were scheduled in the third week of class.

Daniel Henninger has an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal, which can be found online, about the fatalism gripping America today. He discusses how this fatalism in America is on almost everything, justified or not.

“Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.”

I think the second to last sentence is the key one there, we will not be able to mosey back into our current position in the world if we give up in Iraq and elsewhere. I’ve written about this several times since I think it is the most troubling part of the media and Democrat’s endless pessimism (here is a general one and here is one when I was more optimistic about the voters' ability to see the left for what it is). The days when we could choose to be isolationist and then instantly restore our place in the world are over. The old Euro-centric great power system that we couldn't help but lead no longer exists. Although the Democrat’s either don’t know or don’t care, there are real penalties for losing our top spot in world affairs. We would live in a world where like Europe we have to suffer Russia and the Arab’s energy politics, like Japan the price of our imports would vary wildly on the basis of someone else’s currency, and like China foreign trade is conducted according to another culture’s standards.

Our lack of resolve over Iraq is also sending a terrible signal to our allies. If a nation of 300 million can’t endure 3,000 dead in Iraq then what are the odds that it will suffer more to protect Japan from China, Ethiopia from the Arabs, or the Ukraine from Russia? Not very likely some countries will decide leading them to take the best deal they can from these countries. Even the most powerful nation requires a handful of allies to operate effectively. We don't need many but we don't need to scare off potential real allies either. Henninger quotes the Australian Foreign Minister who is for obvious reasons worried,

“What concerns me about this," he said, "is that it's sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world's problems aren't theirs.”

The Aussie FM mentions another point, the world’s problems will still be our problems. The only difference will be our ability to do anything about them. As with other issues we’ll be left to hoping others keep them from becoming problems for us (fat chance) or simply living with them.

Power will always exist and be exercised. If the nation who holds it doesn’t then someone else will in their place. If we decide that we aren’t up to the responsibility our power entails then others will do it for us. The Europeans are desperate for the Euro to replace the Dollar which would place our import prices at the whims of the European Central Bank and Europe’s creaking economy. Russia and China are maneuvering to corner the global production of various raw materials so they can be used to their and not the world’s advantage. China is especially making moves to relocate the various global trading boards from New York and London to Shanghai so China can have a greater role in determining the value of raw materials to benefit herself. Problems like international terrorism, Lebanon, and Taiwan would be left to the witless UN and EU and would be handled by them much as they dealt with international communism, Bosnia, and Rwanda. There is no denying that many benefits accrue to us as the world’s superpower, but along with them comes responsibility and duty, we cannot have one without the other. The American people should be aware that the decision to ignore our responsibilities comes with a great and possibly irreversible price.

My last worry about this focuses on the US military. The American military is about the only part of the US government and probably the only global institution that still functions properly. Our soldiers are very proud of their country and their duty to her (I certainly was and am), much more so than the civilian population. I believe this is one of the key aspects that make America a great country and the main problem for most other countries. An Iraqi soldier was quoted in a news story (it’s several years old so I can’t find it) saying that after serving with American soldiers he can see that Iraq’s main problem is that not enough Iraqis love their country enough to die for it. However, this is one of the increasingly large gaps between the military and the public at large. The military is of course very worried that its 5 years of hard work and sacrifice will soon be thrown down the drain by an American public and establishment apparently not up to the task of supporting their armed forces. Former Army Vice Chief of Staff Jack Keane is quotes as saying in exasperation,

“My God, this is the United States. We are the world's No. 1 superpower. This isn't about arrogance. This is about capability and applying ourselves to a problem that is at its essence a human problem."

It’s not likely or something near term, but I just wonder if longer-term we are heading to a point where our military could no longer tolerate a public not worthy of its sacrifices.

When Leaders Follow Diplomats Who Want to Talk at any Price

To continue with my last post on American diplomacy, there are a group of news stories that deal with the troubles that stem from using the diplomacy-ueber-alles policy with every international problem. Yahoo News had a story a few days ago about the Democrats seeking to block any military action against Iran unless Bush gives Iran advance notice and time to prepare by first going to the Democrat Congress for approval. Usually this would be worth a long post about how the Democrats are only reinforcing Iran’s opinion that we won’t do anything to stop them so they can push as far as they like. However, barring any major attacks by Iran (apparently killing American soldiers in Iraq isn’t major enough) it doesn’t seem likely Bush will actively move to stop Iran in his last 2 years. It would be a very tough decision even in the best case, but since the American people clearly don’t want anything done that would risk raising gas prices even a penny and voted in the left to run Congress this is not the best of cases. Ultimately, it is up to Bush but since the American people would either rather deal with Iran at much greater expense later or live in a world in which a nuclear Iran dictates oil prices and extorts tribute from America to keep terrorism to a lower level then I would expect Bush to go along (though I hope I’m wrong). Of course the people will blame Bush when the bill comes due for their current demands. I’ll instead focus on another issue this story brings up, the seeming inability for members of modern leftists and diplomats to understand that negotiating with dictators and terrorists for the sake of negotiating, or worse giving them concessions for the privilege, is not to our advantage and only makes the problem worse when we do decide to deal with it.

What grabbed my interest in the Yahoo story was the comments at the end by Lee Hamilton. He was the Democrat co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, which definitely makes him prime fodder like his co-chair James Baker (whom I covered over his plan to deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq and his plan to sell out Israel to stabilize Iraq). Mr. Hamilton, along with the ISG, believes the solution to the Iran and Iraq issues is… dialogue. What a surprise. He tries to flip the issue in a way so that if you criticize talks then you’re criticizing US diplomats by saying, “Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" The problem is not so much American diplomats but the “somebody we disagree with”. American diplomats are fine professionals who are capable of advancing America’s interests in the world when they don’t fall for the left-wing-no-bad-peace-we’re-so-smart-we-can-solve-any-problem-null-think. The problem is they usually do and this gives the advantage to the “somebody we disagree with.” This kind of muddled thinking can be seen in Hamilton’s statement, Iran is a country that has on many occasions killed Americans, violates diplomatic norms whenever they want, is currently doing everything they can to see to it that Iraq is as bloody as possible, and is starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and possibly beyond (for those who would blame Israel, she’s had nukes for some 30 years, Arab countries are only now talking about starting nuclear programs). This is not a country with which we merely “disagree”. It doesn’t take much rational thinking about the world to realize that.

We can see what happens when diplomats win and attempt to reason with the unreasonable in other recent news. Mario Loyola over at the National Review has a recap of recent news regarding talks with North Korea. In short it’s the same as it’s always been. Talk, talk, talk, nothing happens except North Korea continues advancing their nuclear and missile programs. Given that the Iranians are visiting, they are also likely sharing their knowledge. Or if we do give in and give them goodies to behave, as Clinton did, they simply take the goodies and continue as before. Either way talk alone accomplishes nothing and only allows the situation to degrade. In Columbia, President Uribe offered talks with Marxist rebels last month. Uribe has generally done a great job fighting the Marxists so at least he is entering talks from a position of strength. Nevertheless, his offer of talks was still met with bombing in the capital city. The Marxist rebels are also demanding the military offensive against them be called off in exchange for talks. Can’t imagine why they’d want that (hint to lefties, it’s because they’re losing). Can't mention failed talks without mentioning the endless round of Israeli concession followed by Palestinian (or other Arab) backtracking that has been the 50 year Arab-Israeli "Peace Process". Nothing particularly new here though, Hezbollah is quietly and quickly rebuilding after last Summer's fighting despite UN "mandates" to the contrary. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert at least hasn't been foolish enough yet to enter into talks with Hezbollah, but we'll see.

Lastly, and most relevantly (hence its own paragraph), from Spain comes news that the far left Prime Minister Zapatero is under pressure because his 9 month long peace talks with the Basque ETA terrorist group resulted in a car bombing at the Madrid airport. One of the surprising things is the shock that the Prime Minister displays about the bombing, “It (ETA) made the worst decision — a criminal, mistaken and useless one. It chose the path of terror." Fancy that, a criminal terror group choosing the criminal path of terror. Unlike Zapatero and other lefties, that decision doesn’t throw my entire perception of reality out the window. As for mistaken and useless, ETA got the peace talks despite its bombings, Al-Qaeda made Spain retreat from Iraq with bombings, so whether it in facts turns out to be a mistake there is certainly reason for ETA to not see it as one. The Prime Minister then makes a Chamberlain-esque mea culpa, “I want to recognize the clear mistake I made before all Spanish citizens.” What I don’t understand is why does all of become so clear of a mistake to the left afterwards? The right and non-diplomats seem to be capable of understanding it beforehand. I know the left hates hearing the words Hitler, Chamberlain, and Munich together, but that was simply the most well known and egregious example of the error of their policies regarding dictators, terrorists, and other assorted thugs (I know, that’s why they hate to hear it).

Bush would be wise to note what has happened to Zapatero’s fortunes since the bombing. Zapatero was elected following a major terror attack promising to talk. He has been popular and followed through with his talks even though it should have been expected to do nothing but give the terrorists breathing room. Now his poll numbers have collapsed and Spaniards say things such as, "What is your word worth after all this? You have been fooled by a pack of murderers." Sadly, it doesn’t work with voters, as Zapatero tried, to point out that you were merely doing what they wanted at the time, “I did what most Spaniards wanted, try to use the truce to end the violence.” Now he is discredited, ETA is as strong as ever, several Spaniards died, and the electorate is up in arms. Sometimes being a leader means leading where others need to go, but don’t want to. I hope Bush is watching and learning.

China Acts, America Whines, Something Isn't Right Here

The news that the Chinese have apparently successfully tested an anti-satellite weapon is an opportunity to mention something that bothers me about the US national security apparatus, its whiny responses to any challenge from other powers. My personal favorite being the State Department official who responded to Russia’s hardball energy politics a year ago by saying, “they’re acting like it’s the 19th Century.” I certainly hope they were able to find that official a ba-ba and a blankey quickly since Russia isn't playing by his rules. We’ve also seen it with the moaning over China’s rapidly increasing military budget, Russia helping Iran, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and others not wanting to join the “community of nations”, and so forth. Sadly, ther one of the few serious voices in US diplomacy is now former representative to the UN Bolton. Ah well, that's the price a US diplomat pays these days for not going along with the Democrat/State Dept. policy of coddling kleptocrats at the UN and murderous tyrants abroad.

The newest case obviously involves China developing the technology to shoot down satellites. The way a grown-up serious nation would deal with is by looking at 1) if we need that ability, 2) if yes then what is the possibility of a treaty banning it working with the power in question, 3) if yes to 1 and not likely to 2 (almost always the case) then can we in other ways make it not worth it to the power to possess these weapons, and lastly 4) regardless of the answer to 3, what counter-measures can we develop to the technology. Instead Washington seems to deal with international problems today by 1) whine, 2) cry to the UN or do nothing (same thing though the second is somewhat more dignified). Regarding the anti-sat we’ve quickly completed step 1 and are presumably well onto step 2. According to National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, “The United States believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area… We and other countries have expressed our concern to the Chinese."

This is an absurd statement because every weapon system is “inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire” in any field. Our large fleet of warships and subs that is increasingly weighted towards the Pacific is not exactly in the “spirit of cooperation”; ditto for our expansion of facilities in Japan and Guam. Our anti-ballistic missile systems are designed specifically to limit China and other countries’ ability to threaten our forces with missiles, one of our major weaknesses. The anti-sat weapons are themselves meant to bring down our satellites that make us much more effective at destroying Chinese targets in a war. Yet again we are not being very consistent with the spirit of cooperation. It would seem obvious then that just as we want to make it as difficult for other powers to hurt our interests that China and others would likewise want to limit the ability of powers to harm their interests.

Yet for some reason it doesn’t seem to be obvious enough to Washington. The concept that nations behave in a way that benefits themselves and not necessarily the United States seems to be an alien one outside of the Pentagon. Maybe it’s because of the “kumbaya we are the world” trash they’ve taught in colleges for the last 40 years. Whatever the cause, the world’s super power needs to act like an adult and realize that isn’t wrong for countries to look out for their own interests first. If it conflicts with our interests then we need to make it not in their interest to continue with their behavior. Granted in this case we are likely doing something to counter (I hope) China's new anti-sat capability but we need to do it in a more dignified manner. Since perception matters as much as, if not more than, reality in power politics a superpower that whines like a little kid who isn’t getting his way is not long for superpower-dom. Since superpower transitions rarely go smoothly we will pay dearly in the future if we don’t start understanding this reality.

Israel Offers Many Important Lessons, We Should Pay Attention

Strategypage.com has a story about how Israeli tanks performed against Hezbollah last summer in Lebanon. That the Israeli tanks generally performed well despite a few hiccups is as I expected at the time (and can be seen in my July/August posts about the conflict), and isn’t really anything noteworthy. However, I think this story conveniently ties together three other common themes of this blog along with an important point. The first is the conversion of Western media outlets into propaganda way stations for the Islamists. The next is the importance of properly funding militaries so they can deal with both counter-insurgency and conventional operations. The third theme is the importance of learning from history, even very recent history, and other countries. Lastly, this further reinforces the fact that the tank is far from dead on the modern battlefield.

From the beginning of this war the media has to at least some extent been a propaganda organ for the Islamists. Even prior to the Afghan invasion we were fed a constant series of stories about the “Graveyard of Empires”, the “Invincible Afghan Super-Tribesman”, the “Ferocious Afghan Winter”, etc (all of which is highly inaccurate by the way). The media could contain its collective glee for all of three weeks before jumping to label the operation a “quagmire”. It is not then unexpected that the media leapt at the opportunity to do some cheerleading for the Islamists last summer. Hardly a news story was written that didn’t include some item about Hezbollah “gutting” the Israeli Defense Force or “unexpected/exceptional Hezbollah resistance”. We have a media today that takes the Islamist line about Hezbollah supermen who with their novel tactics and wonder missiles were destroying the IDF and runs with it without bothering with such a trifle thing as checking its veracity. Now it is becoming clearer as many like myself said last summer that Israeli thrashed Hezbollah militarily. As I pointed out in a post, despite Hezbollah having better training and weapons than past Arab opponents, excellent fortified defensive terrain, and a hamstrung IDF that wasn’t as ready as it should have been, Hezbollah still did no better than past Arab armies. During World War II the media did not fall for the similar German propaganda about the “Nazi Supermen” or with “Nazi Wonder Weapons”. The media ignored it even though it was technically correct if inflated. Many divisions of the Waffen-SS, along with some regular army divisions (the Paras, Groess Deutschland, Panzer Lehr, etc.) were a head and shoulders above any allied division in capability. Germany also had superior weapons in many areas like Panther and Tiger tanks, Me-262 jet fighter, V-2 rockets, SG-44 assault rifles and so on. Somehow the media managed to resist propagandizing this to the home front for the Nazis. Our media by comparison cannot muster the same strength (I know it takes a lot) to ignore the flat-out false propaganda of the enemy. Had the World War II media fallen for Nazi propaganda it would have been a tragedy, but the media falling for Islamist propaganda is simply a farce; one we could well do without.

Another problem this report reveals is what happens when a military is forced to fight a long counter-insurgency operation without a requisite increase in defense spending. Many of Israel's problems can be traced to the IDF simply being unfit for conventional operations due to years of reduced funding for training. Tank crews were utilized as security soldiers for Palestinian areas and thus were not riding around practicing in their tanks. According to the CIA World Factbooks, from 1999 (prior to the second intifadah) to 2003 Israeli military spending declined from 9.4% to 8.75% of GDP despite increased military operations. Between 2003 and 2005, as the intifadah was largely suppressed, defense spending declined much more rapidly from 8.75% to 7.7%. A shrinking defense share of the economy, increased operational tempo, and a focus on counter-insurgency combined to create a situation where the Israelis were not as ready as they should have been for Hezbollah’s challenge. The price for that was paid last summer, is being paid in the large increases now required in defense spending, and will be paid when a revamped Hezbollah returns (possibly controlling Lebanon). A further lesson being taught is that when you elect a leftist to run your country they will not take national security seriously. The rank military incompetence displayed during the actual fighting by Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is continuing after the war. Despite the obvious need to increase the defense budget following last summer's war, Olmert has decided against properly funding the IDF. The soldiers dying to keep Israel safe and free won’t get the extra money they need but the education colleges have had their cuts reduced (note how protective the Labor MK is over education spending, if only they were as concerned with mending the damage low budgets have done to the IDF). Despite claims by the leftist politicians that they take defense issues seriously, when it comes to defense or social spending they will always go for the latter regardless the situation.

A favorite theme of mine is the importance of learning from historical and current mistakes of other countries. Otto von Bismarck made one of my favorite quotes regarding this, “fools learn from their own mistakes, I learn from others’ mistakes.” It’s not like we haven’t ignored Israeli's dearly paid for lessons before. Prior to the Iraq war, if I recall correctly, Israeli officers went to the Pentagon to teach us what they learned about modern counter-insurgency operations. I had expected this since Israel had mountains of information to share and we would need it in post-war Iraq. The program was ended and we didn’t adopt any of Israel's tactics in Iraq since as one of Fox News’ rent-a-generals so astutely counseled, "we’ll rightly ignore the Israelis, we don’t want to turn Iraq into the West Bank" (I paraphrase). A year and a half and scores of dead Americans later we were rushing to learn about the use of armored bulldozers, shoulder fired rockets, house clearing techniques and so forth from Israel. We improved these tactics and used them to great effect in cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, and Tal Afar (the Israelis repaid the favor and didn’t pay attention to our lessons when they attacked Bent Jbail). This story is a very important one indeed for Americans as the Democrat Congress races to repeat Israel’s mistake regarding defense spending. As of right now the military is managing somewhat to pay for both counter-insurgency operations while also maintaining its conventional war fighting capacity. There is a debate brewing over the need to fund both counter-insurgency and conventional capabilities at this time (here's an example, and my view regarding the Air Force at least). The argument for the Israeli-style policy is that the only fighting at the moment is counter-insurgency so that’s all we need to worry about. The fact that we won’t always be fighting counter-insurgencies and that the money being pledged today will take effect years from now when the world situation may be different are disregarded. The Democrats will likely find the billions they could free up for domestic spending by eliminating conventional weapons programs and training too appealing to pass up (my pre-election concern can be seen here). Like Israel, we will find it easier to do this for many years. Also like Israel the price of this policy will far outweigh the benefits and will have to be paid eventually.

My last point is a small one and is only generally related to the others. We have seen yet again that the tank still has a vital role on the modern battlefield. Relearning this is nothing new as the tank has been discounted since its inception in 1916. Part of the reason France and Britain did not focus on tank warfare prior to WWII was because they had learned the wrong lesson from the Spanish Civil War, that the tank was very limited since it could easily be destroyed by anti-tank guns. Then the light tank-destroyer was supposed to kill the tank, then the anti-tank guided missile, and then more advanced anti-tank missiles. Various advanced militaries around the world have at various times proposed getting rid of tanks. The US military did under Gen. Eric Shinseki and then briefly under Rumsfeld. The Canadian military tried at one point to get rid of its few tank units. Britain is presently on a Shinseki-style craze to transform her army into a hi-tech medium weight peacekeeping force without tanks. Even Israel has been reducing her tank fleet for some time. With the exception of Britain, each country has learned through combat operations that the tank is still very valuable. It is true that we have to watch that we don’t allow generals and politicians to hold onto their relics from prior wars, but we also have to see that they don’t get rid of valuable weapons because they incorrectly view them as “relics”.

The Rising Sun Continues its Ascent

There’s a host of news stories out of Japan that indicate the country is continuing normalization at a decent clip. As I’ve mentioned in many posts, I believe whether Japan becomes a normal country is the most important factor in determining how the first half of the 21st Century plays out. Due to their influence on India, they will also play a key role in encouraging that nation to join the US and Japan in keeping the second half of the 21st Century as peaceful and prosperous as possible.

The most important story is the upgrading of the Defense Agency to a full-fledged ministry. This editorial by the Japanese newspaper Yomiuri goes over the advantages this brings. The Defense Minister will now be able to directly call meetings and propose bills, instead of having to go through the Cabinet Office to do so. As the head of a ministry he will also have greater stature and be able to more effectively present the national security side of debates to the government. The upgrade will also see new sections added to the military such as a strategic planning section and a section to handle US-Japan military cooperation. This ends phase 1 of the necessary military expansion by Japan. Phase 2 and 3 will need to end the proscription of offensive military weapons and the 1% of GDP defense spending cap. Japan is simply too powerful of a country to not be helping us keep the secure global environment their economy heavily depends on secure.

The next important story is tied to the first. When the Japanese Diet past the bill to create the Defense Ministry, it also passed a bill that will have Japanese schools teach patriotism again. This will, over time, help to instill a level of confidence and willpower in the Japanese people that being an active global power requires. This is very important militarily as the amount of support from home has a major role in the effectiveness of the operation and diplomatically as an assertive willful nation needs to have a public that will stand by the government’s decisions. As more and more of our old allies, and perhaps even America herself, lose their national confidence and thereby their capability to do anything (only really Australia is left these days), this bill in Japan will become ever more important.

There are a group of stories that indicate Japan is becoming more active and assertive diplomatically and strategically. Since there are so many of them I’ll just list them in no particular order:

1) The ruling Liberal Democrat Party has made supporting visits to the Yasukuni Was Shrine part of its party platform. This is a signal to the East Asian countries, primarily China and South Korea, that Japan will not allow them to humiliate her over World War II and the Japanese Empire anymore. Japan will honor her war dead as she sees fit and if China or others have a problem with it then that’s their problem.
2) According to the China Daily (not sure how reputable they are) Japan will pass a law soon that opens an undersea gas field to Japanese development. The gas field is also claimed by China. Japan and China have been arguing over this gas field for some time. If the Japanese do pass the law and develop the gas field it would be another sign that Japan isn’t going to be pushed around anymore.
3) The government of Japan is doing more diplomatically than just reacting. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is currently on a diplomatic tour of Europe. He is in Europe to expand Japanese ties with the EU and NATO. The overall importance of the EU as a positive factor may be nil but its negative impact can be large as was seen a few years back French President Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder attempted to end the arms ban imposed on China after Tiananmen Square in 1989. This would have allowed China access to some of the latest military technology and would have been very problematic for Japan. It’s important for Japan to have a voice at the EU if only to persuade the EU not to do anything bad. Having contacts with NATO has more obvious positive results for Japan. Abe will be the first Japanese Prime Minister to address the North Atlantic Council.
4) Japan is no longer handing out foreign aid based primarily on World War II. It is being re-oriented to line up with strategic interests instead. Prior foreign aid was predominately given to countries like China, South Korea, the Philippines, etc. who were occupied by Japan at one time or another. Now it will be focused on shoring up the Middle East and competing with Chinese foreign aid.
5) According to news reports a few days ago, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun proposed renaming the Sea of Japan to, ahem, “the Sea of Peace”. The Japanese government publicly rejected renaming the Sea of Japan. Later news stories have the South Korean President claiming to have informally offered several names like “Sea of Friendship” as a confidence building measure between Japan and South Korea. Either way, this is another sign that Japan will not be pushed around. I’d say China has two seas, Korea should ask to name one of those (yeah I know that won’t go anywhere).
6) Almost a month old, but Japan and India are developing a strategic partnership. The two countries have pledged to work together to maintain regional peace and security. This would include economic, military, and diplomatic cooperation. This is critical for us and the world since the ruling Congress Party in India was born and bred with anti-Americanism during the Cold War it makes it somewhat more difficult for us to make headway with India. When the Hindu nationalist BJP, which is much more pro-American, is in office we can work more closely with India. However, Japanese contact allows for continual alliance building with India even when the Congress Party is in power.
7) Japan continues to direct a large amount of her savings and investment to the US with the latest example being a plan to finance nuclear power plant construction in the US. Probably the most critical relationship in the global economy is between aging wealthy Japan and young growing America. As the only developed nation with a growing population and quickly growing economy, America needs large amounts of capital for investment. The Japanese need somewhere to put their massive pile of savings that will both earn a good return and be safe. This deal shows that this economic relationship will continue. We need large amounts of new power generation, Japan needs the profits they will generate, and we both need the close relationship it will develop.

A strong confident country with active diplomacy and a powerful military requires a strong economy to back it up (fukoku kyôhei for any Japanese readers out there). Japan has been a little weak in economic growth from 1990 to 2002 or so. The last few years have seen the Japanese economy grow around 2% a year. That sounds low but is pretty good for a country with a slowly shrinking workforce. The government expects the growth to continue into 2007. Renewed economic growth is important since it is the basis of all the things above. It helps the Japanese people feel proud and confident about their nation. It allows for active “Yen diplomacy” and makes access to the Japanese market more of an incentive. A powerful military needs a government with the tax revenue to properly fund it.

These news stories are mostly no more than 3 days old. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been setting a fairly hectic pace in his efforts to normalize Japan. So far he has been successful. He has some major challenges ahead such as adjusting the Japanese Constitution to reflect the reality of the world today. Hopefully for Japan, for the US, and for the world he will continue being as successful as he has.

Enter Hu Jin-Tirpitz and the Sino-American Naval Race

China’s President Hu Jintao recently gave a speech stating that, “The navy force should be strengthened and modernized... to serve the country and its people more effectively.” This doesn’t quite have the symbolic or real world impact of “a fleet second to none” or “a place in the sun” but it also isn’t something we can blithely ignore. Even though China will not be able to challenge the US and Japan on the seas for some time, they are preparing for that day. They are building modern ships, submarines, and power projection capabilities at a decent rate. This buildup will soon place China third in the world in modern and semi-modern vessels (2005: China-25 ships/19 subs, US-123/52, Japan-44/16, Russia-27/36 poorly maintained, UK-27/9, France-18/6, and India-17/13). This naval expansion is nothing new or evil. The Franco-English and Anglo-German naval races of years past were very similar in many respects. The players have changed but the game is the same. A new great power arises and discovers that a first-class great power requires a powerful fleet to protect its security. This powerful fleet invariably threatens the security of already existing great powers. At this point one of 4 things happen (example naval race from history, my guesstimate of it happening today):

1) Current great power accepts the hit to its security and gives up (Anglo-US, possible but not likely I would think/hope),
2) New great power does the same and gives up (US-USSR, not happening),
3) New great power doesn’t want to wait the 30 or so years it takes to build a powerful fleet, so they develop “risk theories” that they think allows them to mount an early challenge the current great power with the superior fleet (Anglo-German & US-Japan, most likely given China's actions and moves).
4) New great power does wait 30 years while it builds up its fleet (Anglo-Dutch, China's best choice, depends on if Beijing can hold off on Taiwan for the next 20 years, given that and the fact that this is somewhat rare historically I don't think it's too likely but we'll see).

It is very easy to dismiss China’s naval growth, as the Chinese would like us to, because it pales in comparison to the strength of the mighty US Navy. Also, there is the excellent Japanese navy to consider. However, China’s naval buildup should be closely observed and if need be countered for two reasons. Firstly China doesn’t need to match the American and Japanese navies ship for ship and crew for crew. China, like von Tirpitz’s Germany, understands that all they need to do is raise the risk of confronting China to an unacceptable level for us and Japan. This only requires close approximation and not full parity or superiority between the Chinese navy and the US Pacific Fleet and Japanese navy. The second reason follows from the fact that it will be the US Pacific Fleet and not the US Navy as China’s opponent. What this means is that while China’s entire navy will be used in a conflict, we will only be able to send a portion of ours due to global commitments and distance from our main ports. Unless we increase the size of our fleet we will have to steadily weaken ourselves elsewhere to provide the margin we need against China. Unfortunately, with the exception of India in the Indian Ocean, there are not many good nations to take our place in their region if we withdraw. Britain was forced to withdraw from the Americas and East Asia to deal with Germany in 1914. She at least was able to hand power over to like-minded countries. Although even with like-minded countries this would turn out badly for Britain since Japan turned violent with the Royal Navy absent.

The overall growth of the Chinese surface fleet does not at first glance look impressive. Its total strength is expected to grow from 19 destroyers and 40 frigates in 2000 to 28 destroyers and 42 frigates in 2015. However, all but one of the ships in 2000 was obsolescent and most would have been little more than target hulks for the US Navy in the event of a conflict. By 2005 China’s count of modern ships had grown to 6 destroyers and 2 frigates. This is expected to grow to 14 destroyers and 8 frigates by 2015. At the same time China is adding semi-modern vessels that could still pack a punch when paired with modern ships. This intermediate category will likely grow from 2 destroyers and 6 frigates to 3 destroyers and 14 frigates in 2015. At some point, globalsecurity.org says 2010 but others say after 2020, the Chinese fleet will receive its first aircraft carrier. It’s expected to be about half the size of a US carrier at around 48,000 tons displacement and 24 fighters. These estimates are from before Hintao’s speech calling for more navy funding so the real figures will likely be higher.

More critical to China’s ability to simply damage the US Navy severely enough that we won’t challenge them are submarines. In 2000, China actually possessed more attack subs than the US, though again most were obsolete (Chinese copies of Soviet copies of German WWII designs). Of China’s 64 attack subs in 2000, 5 were semi-modern nuclear attack subs (the Han-class) and 5 were modern conventional attack subs (Kilo-class and a Song-class). In 2005 China had 1 modern and 5 semi-modern nuclear attack subs, and 13 modern conventional attack subs. According to older estimates these numbers should be 6 modern and 5 semi-modern nuclear attack subs, and 29 modern conventional attack subs in 2015. The growth of the modern conventional attack sub force is perhaps the most worrisome aspect for the US Navy. Modern conventional attack subs are extraordinarily difficult to find and track. Japanese, Australian, and Swedish conventional subs regularly manage to get within strike distance of a US carrier in wargames without being discovered. Any thoughts that this was a feat that only well trained crews in the most advanced subs could perform were dispelled a few months ago when a Chinese sub trailed a US carrier from 5 miles away without being noticed. The fact that this incident took place near Okinawa further shows the greater ranges at which the Chinese sub force is capable of operating.

The Chinese are not focusing on glamorous new ships and subs while neglecting the more mundane aspects of naval power projection. Their amphibious fleet has undergone a radical improvement in its capabilities. Prior to 2000 most of China’s amphibious vessels were WWII American designs. The 26 large amphibious ships they had in 2000 could carry a max load of 15,600 soldiers (although they would carry less than that depending on the supplies they would need to take with them). In 2005 this has expanded to 33 ships with a 21,600 soldier capacity and will be at least 52 ships and 31,200 soldier capacity by 2015. No fleet can operate far from home without underway replenishment vessels accompanying them. This area of the Chinese navy will see its 2000 total of 3 ships and 34,200 tons of cargo capacity grow to 5 ships with a cargo capacity of 57,000 tons in the near future. There don’t appear to be any further plans for expansion beyond that, but again these are only estimates and something like a cargo vessel could be ordered up fairly quickly. Officially, this side of the navy modernization is chalked up to Taiwan. The ships are only needed to move soldiers and supplies for operations against the Taiwanese “separatists”. It shouldn’t take much mental power to realize that those ships will be just as capable of moving soldiers and supplies to other places.

Barring any disruptions from the Democrats gaining control of Congress, the US Navy is projected to grow from 123 ships and 52 subs to 161 ships and 50 subs. Due to our other global commitments it’ll be difficult to send more than half of our fleet to the western Pacific unless we wished to invite more trouble by reducing those commitments. Adding in the Japanese Navy, this would yield a force of approximately 100 ships and 40 subs today and 110 ships and 40 subs in 2015. Impressively larger that may be, but the ratio of ships will decline from 4:1 to 2.75:1 and of subs from 2:1 to 1:1. It has to be noted though that 22 of these new US ships are the smaller and less capable Littoral Combat Ships. Since the final design of the LCS hasn’t been determined yet, it’s difficult at this time to say if they would have much use against China. At the moment it would seem that they wouldn’t since they are mainly for operations in shallow waters against less capable countries like Iran or North Korea; but who knows until the design and procurement schedules are finalized. The effect of the US Navy’s 12 aircraft carriers is also somewhat difficult to gauge. On the one hand each has more theoretical firepower than just about any navy on the planet. On the other their anti-submarine capabilities are not proportional to their greater firepower and their prohibitive cost would likely cause them to see more limited usage than is normal (especially in light of the sub part). Exactly how much this would limit their tremendous firepower can only be known when the war happens.

Not to sound like a broken record, but the Chinese fleet is not going to be a force that can clear the oceans of US Navy ships anytime soon. The trouble is that it could still pose a major threat to the US Navy and the Pax Americana even in a smaller state. The problem is that the Chinese are not preparing for a stand up fight, and we would likely shirk from one anyways (their preferred result). Unlike Germany in their naval race, the Chinese understand that their sub force is their major threat. Admittedly, it will be much more difficult in war-time for a Chinese sub to get within 5 miles of a US carrier than it was last October. However, in less than a decade China will have at least 40 subs trying to do just that, not just one. The US Navy has been trying to develop new tactics to counter the new super-quiet conventional subs, but we of course don’t know if the Navy is having any success (a potentially hostile sub being able to shadow a carrier until the sub chose to reveal itself doesn't exactly inspire confidence).

These Chinese subs would be looking for one of the 4-8 carriers we send to the western Pacific. The more carriers we send does increase the odds of Chinese subs being found, but it would likely increase the odds of a carrier being sunk even more. With only a couple dozen each of subs and ships free the US Navy will be hard pressed to search the sea lanes across the breadth of the Pacific for them. Like the dreadnaughts of WWI, modern supercarriers are so prohibitively expensive and imbued with so much national pride that the loss of one would be a tremendous blow to America. Losing 2 or 3 would simply have unthinkable consequences to America’s position in the world.

The Chinese surface fleet would have its opportunities to do damage as well. While America’s carriers, along with around 30-50 escort ships, are desperately trying to avoid Chinese subs hundreds and maybe thousands of miles east of Taiwan, the surface ships of the Chinese navy would be well positioned for rapid sorties against smaller American/Japanese task forces. In this way they would play a role similar to Germany's Battlecruiser Squadron during WWI. The goal would be to sink enough American ships that we give up, regardless of how many ships and subs China loses. China also has various “assassins’ mace” weapons that they hope will be able to exploit weaknesses in the US Navy’s capabilities. These include weapons like lasers, anti-satellite devices, ballistic missiles capable of hitting a moving target, and so forth. What impact they would have is unknown. At the very least they would add to the US Navy’s worries and force the carriers to operate in an even more limited capacity. Most importantly is if the Chinese think these weapons will be tremendously effective. That’s all the more reason for them to create a situation where they could be.

However, this is not the scenario the Chinese wish to occur. Rather it is the scenario they hope America so fears that she won’t even dare to challenge them. Germany wagered in 1914 that Britain would rather keep her dreadnaughts and thus her empire than risk both to stop Germany’s goals in Europe, they were wrong. China is wagering that America would rather keep her supercarriers and maintain her position in the rest of the world than stop China’s moves in East Asia, I wish I could say they are wrong. However, the buckling of American resolve in Iraq under 3,000 dead in almost 4 years does not offer hope. How quickly will Americans be demanding and end to conflict and the return of cheap toys and kitchen appliances when 3,000 sailors go down with a carrier? America and Japan cannot rest easy even if the Chinese are not megalomaniacally willing to risk their small fleet by starting a war whose success depends on weak American resolve. Longer-term this initial fleet is providing China with industrial and military know-how that is necessary to build and operate a large fleet along with the experience they will require to actually fight the far more experienced US Navy. With their growing economy, ship building industry, and cadre of trained sailors, it would not be difficult for China to launch into a sudden massive shipbuilding program in the near future.

Either way, this is a development that should be closely watched and replied to by both the United States and Japan. Chinese protestations aside, it is not their declared intentions but their capabilities and our interests on which we must base our own policies. Aircraft carriers, underway replenishment ships, and vast numbers of modern conventional attack subs are not needed to conquer Taiwan, they are needed to fight the US and Japanese navies. At the least, they are preparing the capability to fight us, we must make sure we maintain and if need be expand ours.

Note: I consider a modern warship to be one with a) anti-aircraft capabilities beyond 10 miles, b) a close in weapons system to defend against missiles, c) either less than 20 years old or extensively upgraded in the last 20 years, d) capability in more than 2 areas (anti-air, anti-surface, anti-sub, and land attack). A semi-modern ship would be one that has at least 2 of the above. Subs are a little more difficult, but aside from the Chinese Han-class I consider the rest modern. The Han-class isn’t only because it’s a very noisy sub even by nuclear standards. The conventional subs show a clear break between older and modern designs in capability (as witnessed by the aforementioned Chinese Song-class exploit) so they are either counted or not.

"Sic Semper Tyrannis", Regardless How Sick the Sic

The execution of Saddam has caused the expected complaints from the left along with some unexpected unease amongst the right. As has been well publicized, the complaints and unease center around the taunts and jeers leveled at Saddam by the Shiite members of the execution crew and the speed with which the execution occurred. Even my favorite columnist Mark Steyn is a bit unhappy with the behavior during the execution. While I agree the execution could have been better managed, I don’t agree that there was anything particularly wrong with the execution.

When a people are tyrannized so ruthlessly and for so long, it is difficult for them to contain their rapturous joy at the demise of their former tormentor. This is not a cultural thing but human nature. The handling of Mussolini by an Italian mob is perhaps the most famous such incident. In the off chance you don’t know that he was hung up on a meat hook along with his mistress, here’s a picture. To further compound the crass spectacle, Mussolini was then posed dead with a scepter. Hitler decided to kill himself after seeing how Mussolini was dealt with to prevent the same from happening to himself. As an example of how regicide was handled in European history, King Louis XVI of France was beheaded in front of a cheering and certainly jeering crowd in 1793. Though Western Europe has been bereft of such executions since 1945 it’s simply because it’s been bereft of tyrannous leaders who deserve it.

The other complaint has focused on the "rushed" execution. Since it’s been 3 years since Saddam was captured this is primarily about the quickness from his conviction and sentencing or from the scheduling of the execution to the actual execution (about 7 weeks and 3 days respectively). Whichever standard is used it is still ages compared with the swiftness that Iraqi leaders King Faisal II and Col. Qassim were executed (less than a day for both). In recent European history there is the execution of the Ceausescu’s that took place mere days after his overthrow. Unlike Saddam, none of these leaders received a regular trial or any appeals. We also didn't hang Saddam's wife along with him. I'm not quite sure why Europeans and Arabs saw a need to kill the women around the dictator along with the dictator but that is definitely going too far.

Despite the fact that I think Saddam should be considered lucky to have gotten off with only a few insults prior to his execution, it still could have been managed better by us. I agree with Mark Steyn that our inability to comprehend the importance of the execution goes hand in hand with our declining ability to comprehend power politics and the world beyond America and Europe. I thought Saddam should have been executed within months of his capture. His trial should have consisted of no more than a very, very long reading of the names of everyone killed during his reign concluding with his conviction and sentence of death. Instead we had him treated like some common criminal. When it became apparent that this approach was going to be dragged out ad infinitum by Saddam’s American lawyers (how did we allow that one to happen?), they decided to do a rush job and end the problem in a way that left a bad taste in many people’s mouths.

Steyn writes that the execution should have said "Time to move on, says Government of Free Iraq", not "Payback's a bitch, says local enforcer." That’s all well and good, and but for our post-modernist peacenik null-think we could have managed to send a better signal. Nevertheless, I’m satisfied with the region’s despots simply hearing, "Payback's a bitch, says local enforcer."

SPQA's 2006 in Review

One hopeful sign from 2006 that all is not lost in the world, my blog had a decent first year (well part of it anyways). Since I’m a very part-time blogger I’m happy with the smallish numbers. My blog has been up for 223 days including various vacation, college, and injury related breaks. In these 223 days SPQA has had:

Posts - 91
Words – 66,900
Visitors – 10,007

Hopefully next year's numbers will show even more is right with the world.