Comments
Robert C. Jones:
My following comments are in regard to your post of 0804 and they are also in regard to a Chinese attempt to take Taiwan through violence or the threat of violence.
I read you as making five points. Plainly stated, they are:
1. Taiwan is already part of China so they ain't go a legitimate beef so we can ignore our commitment as an ally.
2. Well what about Japan? They're worse.
3. Really Big Boys don't worry about their word or their commitments, just what is the easiest course at the time. Sort of like the movie mafia, "It's just business."
4. How bad could it be anyway? Look at Hong Kong, they're not all in the gulag.
5. Not enough people there to worry about. We got bigger fish to fry. That point was plainly stated.
To me, those five points are just trite rationalizations for bugging out on an ally if the going gets rough. They have been made before. They are always made when this sort of decision must be made. We may be the strongest nation in the world, but if we were to yield to arguments like those above, we wouldn't be for long, nor would we be the greatest.
<q><i>the Roosevelt Administration enacted the oil embargo as a punitive measure short of military action. Unfortunately, President Roosevelt and his team failed to understand such a debilitating sanction was tantamount to an act of war. Indeed, the embargo highlighted the nations vulnerability arising from the economic relationship and persuaded them military action was imperative.</Q></i>
Mr. Prescott does not adequately emphasize that Japan was already well involved since 1937 in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War, which was why it was being punished with an oil embargo.
It's also unlikely that Asian cultures of the mid 1900s are anything like that of today. After what Japan endured as the sole nation ever to be bombed with atomic weapons, plus the fire-bombing...it's highly unlikely it would seek another war. Instead, allies like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia are the very reason why we need not fear war with China.
Big adversaries like China also are deterred by MAD and the prospects of an oil blockade that otherwise would never occur were it to remain non-aggressive as advertised by President Hu.
No such deterrent is readily recognized by some Islamic leaders/extremists who could mistakely believe that a terrorist or state-sponsored-but-disguised nuclear attack could go unpunished or benefit their religion by restoring a Caliphate and returning a perceived prophet savior.
That's why places like Afghanistan are important. Adjacent Pakistan and India continue as nuclear-capable adversaries, such technology could be exported/compromised, and terrorists could hide there preparing terrorist attacks to include small scale WMD attack.
<q><i> the elderly population aged 60-64 will increase from 72.8 million to 112.8 million between 2023 and 2032, while the younger population aged 35-39 will decrease from 109.6 million to 94.6 million during the same period.</Q></i>
Don't believe Mr. Prescott is reading his cited Chart 1 correctly. He appears to be adding age groups together from the charts adding the 80-94 group to the 60-64...and further adding all the 60-94 group to the 35-39 group.
In any event, not sure the 35-39 age group is a good measure of potential warfighters but is a good barometer of the manual and factory labor force.
As a result, the young and middle-aged available to work to support the elderly and the country's growth are unlikely to be seen as readily squandered by fighting a war. It is smarter to import young wives rather than encourage emmigration of increasingly scarce Chinese young men or wasting them in unnecessary and costly warfare.
If China invaded Taiwan, it would devastate their growing economy due to lost:
* exports to the U.S. and other countries
* cooperative production with U.S. firms such as Boeing
* productivity by having its factories and infrastructure bombed
* ability to support the elderly
* value of its owned U.S. debt
* oil reserves and future oil shipments due to embargoes and blockades
Believe some continue to downplay the differences we have with the oppressive governments of countries like China and Iran that have nothing to do with our warm feelings toward their citizenry. It is the governments of these countries that will keep them as adversaries while the democratic and/or non-adversarial nature of other allied governments is what keeps them as perpetual friends/allies.
Do believe a case exists that Taiwan is already increasing ties with the mainland on its own. The prospect of peaceful reunification may call into question our continued export of arms to Taiwan...allowing technology eventually to be provided the mainland.
Backwards,
Yours is arguably the most salient post yet.
Just a couple points:
1. Taiwan is recognized by both the US and China as being part of China. None of the other states are recognized as such. They all know it, we all know it, and it makes a difference.
2. Japan will be every bit as globally aggressive as China in the pursuit of resources. Their economies are the same size, but Japan has absolutely no resources. My take from my time in the Pacific is that more people there feared a hungry Japan more than a hungry China. And Japan is the one with a powerful navy.
3. Todd spoke of grown up nations. I really don't think the US is as grown up as Bill gives us credit for. We are still too impetuous, emotional and testosterone driven to have that status. Grown up nations have no enduring friends or foes, only enduring interests. We tend to cling to both of the former to our detriment on the latter.
This is one of the gates the US must get through on our own path to maturity and security, is to gain a greater strategic awareness of what our enduring interests truly are, where/how they are best served, and focus on that. Who we work with or against will always change over time.
Looked at another way, it is convenient for Japan to work with the US now, that will not always be the case as inevitiably at some point our agreement as to the ways and means to serve our interests will diverge. It is highly forseeable that someday China and the US may well ally to contain Japan. It's happened before as I recall.
So, no, I don't see an enduring interest in committing our national influence and honor to an obsolete mission in Taiwan. Mission accomplished, we have allowed Taiwan to emerge as a great success. Just as a modern PRC did nothing to disrupt the success of Hong Kong, it is highly unlikely they would do anything to disrupt the success that is Taiwan. By holding our nose to this old issue it blinds us from seeing the bigger picture.
The US is the most powerful nation on earth, we owe it to ourselves and everyone else to step back from the ankle biters like Taiwan, Afghanistan, etc and focus on the big picture.
It's what a grown up nation would do.
An ABC (American-born Chinese) 'banana' (yellow outside, white inside) in Los Angeles shared this bit of humour:
What are the four best things in life?
*American way of life
*English home and garden
*Chinese cooking
*Japanese wife
What are the four worst things in life?
*Chinese way of life
*English cooking
*Japanese home and garden
*American wife
I realise this comment adds nothing to the discussion. Thanks.
I'm a proud card carrying member of the "Cold War" warrior club, but I don't confuse our policy towards China as a relic of the Cold War as some above indicate. We still have national interests even though the Cold War is over, and stability and continued economic development in the PACOM AOR is clearly in our national interests, because it will be a large part of our economic growth with due to their growing middle classes throughout the region.
We are not a young bull, far from it, compared to China we're much more strategic in our approach to regional stability and do not welcome a coflict with China. We would prefer to ultimately partner with China, but until they respect human rights and quit flexing their muscles in the region that isn't fully possible yet. China is exerting influence far beyond the Taiwan issue. What Taiwan represents to U.S. interests is a commitment to the entire region to prevent and counter Chinese aggression. Failure to do so could result in the bamboo nations (bend with the prevailing wind) to side with a belligerent China if they do not believe the U.S. will assist them. I really don't think China will attempt to take Taiwan militarily, but the fact that they continue to threaten to do so illuminates the fact that China is an immature and clumsy actor on the world stage.
I suspect China will become increasingly aggressive in the pursuit of natural resources over tim, and Taiwan is a relatively small issue compared to others.
I've always considered China as one of the "grown up" nations. In other words, they have a mature foreign policy and can be reasoned and negotiated with - unlike nations such as North Korea or Iran.
With the right diplomacy, I believe China and the US can resolve pretty much any disagreements - even Taiwan.
v/r
Todd
Robert C. Jones:
"Nothing drives a bigger wedge between the US and all of the allies you just mentioned than our Taiwan policy. Fact."
Could be. Could also be RCJ's opinion. Could also be that those nations would look at abandoning Taiwan in the face of a violent threat as predictive of their fate whenever China got around to looking their way, especially Japan.
I don't know why it made sense in the past but doesn't now. In the decades you mentioned China wanted to take over Taiwan. The Taiwanese didn't want that and we said we'd stand by them. It seems to me the only things that have changed are that Taiwan is a pretty good facsimile of a western type liberal democracy (complete with occasional fistfights in the assembly) and because of China's growth, it might be harder to for us to stand by them, harder, not impossible.
We could negotiate it away I suppose, if we didn't give up the herd to the rustlers. That was tried with the Sudetenland and it didn't work out so good.
I think you have rather an inflated view of China's capacity to accept defeat with equanimity. Given their political system there may be rather grave consequences. Strategic victory? Maybe, probably not. We can always replace those carriers and fighters and the Taiwanese would be happy and all those other countries would heave a great sigh of relief that China wouldn't be looking their way soon. Of strategic benefit to us I think.
I'll see your Washington and raise you a Roosevelt. He'd probably say "Bully!"
So, you think that Australia, the Phillipines and China enjoy conversations with US diplomats when they ask "oh, and by the way, we would like a commitment from you to help us fight a war with China in case they ever make a move to reunify with Taiwan"?
Talk about a fart in church.
Nothing drives a bigger wedge between the US and all of the allies you just mentioned than our Taiwan policy. Fact.
Meanwhile the Air Force and the Navy clammor for Billions each budget cycle for capabilities that have little application to the missions we need to those services to focus on most, but so long as they are missioned with the geographically problematic Taiwan they have no choice but to attempt to prepare for the worst.
No, this is a tail that wags the dog, and while it made sense in the 50s and 60s, that was fading in the 70s and expired by the end of the 80s.
We must priortize, and the sheer enormity of this problem gives it a priority far exceeding its actual importance. This is a good problem to negotiate away. China and the US both have bigger issues to focus on.
Besides, the very best case for the US is to merely reset the conditions of failure. There is no upside. China could lose a tactical fight, sink a carrier or two and down a couple dozen of our top end fighters in the process and gain a major strategic victory. They have no downside and we have no upside. This is a sucker's bet. Particularly when we don't control our own destiny.
If George Washington came back to life and was briefed on this he'd probably choke on his dentures, sputtering "You have got to be F'n kidding me!"
Robert C. Jones:
To answer the last question '"what does it gain the US to commit to war with China to defend Taiwan"?' first; we gain the the China's certainty that we will assist small countries that are threatened with violent takeover. That may affect their calculations. We also gain the certainty of other small, Australia, and not so small countries, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam that we will stand by them if a giant country tries to push them around. This will affect those countries calculations also which will redound to our benefit in that they will be more willing to stand by us if we need it.
That may indeed be a 3rd grade playground position but sometimes 3rd graders see the sun in the sky when adults don't. If the 3rd graders don't want the biggest kid in the grade to kick the little kid in the stomach and take his lunch money, it is probably because they don't want to be without lunch for the rest of the year either.
The original article is about demographics pushing China to international violence. If they can re-unify with Taiwan peacefully, without the threat of violence, that is just fine. No problem.
Thank you for calling me a good cold warrior. I know it was meant as an attempt to discredit my position as archaic and rooted in the past; but since the cold war was about preventing a repressive, expansionist police state from taking things over without getting into an all out war-I'll take it as complimenting me in recognizing that basic phenomena and problems don't change much.
I am glad China has studied the struggle between the US and the USSR that lasted so many years. They will recognize that one side was fundamentally and fatally crippled by and inferior economic system. They will also recognize the problems the USSR had with their internal political system. Maybe it will prompt internal reforms in China.
I don't know if, concerning service budgets, amateurs argue programs and professionals argue policy. I do know that without the tools to do so neither will be able to implement policy.
Nym's comment about empire maintenance being a waste of capital is on the mark. The British East India Company's influence brought nothing but trouble to England due to the expenses of having so many troops abroad. The sun may have never set on the British Empire but the expanse of that empire was a terrible drain on the UK. Our own posting of troops in upwards of 100 stations around the world is yet another example of a species of capital drain that needs to be scrutinized for similar reasons.
From 2004:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/23/content_402713.htm
"The "Taiwan Relations Act" requires the United States to keep sufficient force in the Pacific to be able to deter attack, but "we are not required to defend. And these are questions that actually reside with the U.S. Congress, who has to declare an act of war."
"We all agree that there is but one China, and Taiwan is part of China," he said. "We are guided in our own relationship with China by three communiques, which have been negotiated by successive administrations, and the Taiwan Relations Act."
Media reports say Taiwan is somewhat upset about Deputy Secretary Armitage's remarks and is seeking clarifications, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Armitages remarks reflect the US policy.
"We would tell them (Taiwan) that all he's done is restate U.S. policy in very familiar terms," Boucher said at press briefing in Washington on December 22. "
The Navy and the Air Force hang many of the requirements for their budgets from this one thin thread. Without the support of those services and corporations beneath, I am sure it would quickly break.
When it comes to service budgets, I have come to believe that ametures argue programs, but professionals argue policies. During QDR we mostly argured programs. Kill or reform 2-3 dated policies and Billions fall of the budget.
Carl,
How is Mainland China working to reunite with Taiwan China "aggression on the U.S."??
Is it wise for the US, or the PRC for that matter, to put two powerful countries in a position to potentially have to square off over the actions of a third party, Taiwan?
You are a good Cold Warrior, I give you that. But the Cold War ended 20 years ago, and most of the world is moving forward, and the U.S. grows weary in our efforts to freeze in time an era that no longer exists.
As I said, the PRC gets this, and I believe have no intentions to attempt to regain through war what they know will happen naturally over time. This does not keep them from playing the US over the issue. The PRC has studied the US-USSR struggle carefully, and admires the way the US used our economy and asymmetric approaches to break the USSR. They apply the same to us today.
They spend a million on some capability vic Taiwan and drive us to spend a billion to counter. As I said, it is up to us to break the cycle.
But I will ask you the same question I asked my PACOM brothers for 4 years: "what does it gain the US to commit to war with China to defend Taiwan"? Typically the answer was a lame "we just can't let someone do what we don't want them to do." It always seemed a bit of a 3rd grade playground position to me.
Bob
Robert C. Jones:
When you say "It is not China's determination to reunify Taiwan into the fold that threatens US influence and interests in the region, it is the US's commitment to prevent such a reunion that puts us at risk.", what you are saying is that aggression upon the US is only a threat if we choose to resist. Or, to go along with the bovine metaphor, rustling is a problem only because ranchers are so attached to their cattle.
The point of the article is a very good one, the demographic problem confronting China may result in a war initiated by China. We can probably avoid getting involved if we move the State Department from DC to Beijing and install a direct line back to the States so we know what we should do. If we choose to do that though we should probably let Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, etc, etc know so they can make other arrangements. But short of that, it might do to start thinking about the consequences of China's demographic problem.
It is not China's determination to reunify Taiwan into the fold that threatens US influence and interests in the region, it is the US's commitment to prevent such a reunion that puts us at risk.
I think the PRC understands that very well and plays our Pavlovian responses to their every action on this topic very well. I don't think the US gets it at all.
This is like a great bull fight. The PRC is the Matador, small but wise. The US is the bull, young and strong. Taiwan is the red cape, and all the nations of the region and even the globe are the crowd in the arena. Some cheer the matador, some cheer the bull, but all know what the bull does not; that his youth and stregth are not apt to win this contest.
The matador needs the bull, and needs the cape as well to gain the bull's attention. The matador is playing to the crowd, and will continue to play until he has won them to his cause. Meanwhile the bull is compelled to stomp, snort and charge. Yet each charge leaves him a little weaker from both the exertion and the small cuts of the matador.
For the US there will come a day when the matador believes he no longer needs the bull, and that is when the bull is finally killed and the matador tucks the cape (that was his all along) under his arm, receives the approval of the crowd and goes on with his business.
It is up to the bull to break this cycle. To learn to ignore the attraction of the cape and the irritation of the Matador. To be a wise old bull, rather than a rash young one. I suspect bulls are like pilots, in that there are old ones and bold ones, but very few that are both.
China (PRC) has yet to figure out that empire is a wasted capital expenditure. There's never any good reason to rule some border state as long as they are no threat, and are on a path to independent success. The ROC is it's own country, and their desire to reunify via threats is both a liability and self defeating. They're natural allies if they could get past a culture of bellicose threats. Both countries would lose in any conflict, and notions of manifest destiny are both childish and obsolete.