Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
we're not the hegemon in the Pacific, and we are barely an independent player militarily in Europe. The ME is debatable, but lets not debate that here.

We certainly are the Hegemon in the Pacific- we are the only ones with a masive Navy capable of controlling the seas. We have 100,000 troops in the region plus. That is a huge commitment.

We also have about 80,000 troops in Europe, and again, command of the seas. Looks at what ended up happening in the Balkans.

Cause we're trying to maintain kinds of capabilities others are not. Yet that 49% doesnt allow us to assert our will without regard to alliances, or even with alliances in many places. And its spread around the world - in any locality theres a limit to what we can bring to bear.

Of course we can ssert our will regardless of allies- we could have easily asserted our will in Iraq withou ANY ALLIES, including Kuwait, which we could have invaded, secured, and then used as a jumping block. Having allies makes all the operations infinately easier and cheaper, and hence politically feasable, but the US has the capability to do it without allies, even if it would be politically impossible.

As for the spread around the world part, we spend 49% of it, and 190 other states spend the other 51%- whcih means that while the US might not the able to bring its full power against anyone in a single theater, in the theaters I have mentioned we can certainly bring more firepower to bears than any other single power.

All that says is that no one else can project power globally in the same way - but regional powers can still overawe is in given regions, depending on the local diplomatic balance. We beat Iraq, but then NO ONE, not even those who most opposed us, came to Iraqs aid.

We would have won Iraq even if others had theoretically come to Iraqs aid, given that the only ones capable of at that point brining any forces to bear on Iraq besides us would probably not been able to get them to the theater in time.

Scenarios that show us winning, or even just matching China in the straights assume no one else on Chinas side, and that Japan provides at least logistical support. If say, Japan AND China were to oppose the US, in response to US overreaching, the US could not act. Carriers and all, theyd be defeated by local land based air, subs, etc. Thats not a hegemon.

Then "in theory" regional hegimon is impossible. I seriously doubt Mearshimer means of hegimon only states capable of complete contro, since if this were the case, Rome in Europe would be about the only historical hegimon, and that would make the notion meaningless.

NO, the US is the Hegimon the the Pacific theater- certainly NOT on mainland East Asia, or South Asia, or the Indian Ocean, nor South-East Asia, but in the Pacific, certainly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Do you think Washington does not think that a war with China is a serious possibility? That's not the impression I'm getting.

Plenty of people in Washington do see war with China as a serious threat and hence, as you said, opposed helping China aim better.

My point is that instead of trying to make sure China can;t aim well, why not try to make sure this war never happens??

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap
My point is that instead of trying to make sure China can;t aim well, why not try to make sure this war never happens??

Why not try both?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




As for the Hang-up on formal annexation, return to the crux of this thread- that China is an agrgesive power- most issued mentioned, like teh Spratleys, any other islands, and territorial disputes of land with India and China would all mean territorial expasion and the direct annexation of lands (even if not entire states)- heck, Western Sahara was a land grab, NO? So was Kuwait, or the attack by Iraq on Iran, so looking for examples of one nation state seeking to expand territorially by war was the first issue brought up, prior to your arrival.

By oerdin, after youd started ranting.

Why should immediate and relatively minor border disputes not be pursued in tandem with informal empire? USSR annexed the baltics, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia before going on to establish dominance over east central europe without annexations. Concern over the Spratleys and even Taiwan is largely important as an indicator of informal empire building.


As for US privileging US dominance, you ever hear of "the devil you know"? I invite the Euros to look at US behavior since 1989 - including what we did under the first Bush and under Clinton as well as under Dubya - and what we've done under Dubya including Iraq, and think if you really feel threatened. Sure China as number one may not be worse - but is it possible it would be? Do you KNOW what it would be like? What are the indicators? Are internal systems relevant? Is democracy a restraint on US behavior? Would China always be similarly restrained? How would China be restrained if necessary, and at what cost? Is it better to hold China to certain standards before selling them advanced military tech, and if so, what should those standards be?

[lord of the mark]

Also, side 2 should also keep Nepal out of it. [/QUOTE]

mea culpa.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Why not try both?

Because the US is not really in control of one, and is doing little about the other.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


Because the US is not really in control of one, and is doing little about the other.

The US is decreasing the risk of a PRC attack on Taiwan by it's very presence in the region and by supplying the Taiwanese army. It could also bring alot more pressure to bear on the Europeans not to scrap the embargo.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
By oerdin, after youd started ranting.

Nah, by the OP.

Why should immediate and relatively minor border disputes not be pursued in tandem with informal empire? USSR annexed the baltics, eastern Poland, and Bessarabia before going on to establish dominance over east central europe without annexations. Concern over the Spratleys and even Taiwan is largely important as an indicator of informal empire building.

Annexing 3 states and taking large populated chuncks of three more is ahrdly just persuing "minor territorial claims"

Taiwan is a political issue, as everyone accepts it to be part of China. and as the CIA world factbok states the five [arties dealing with the Spratleys have begun to take actions to resolve the issue peacefully.

As for US privileging US dominance, you ever hear of "the devil you know"? I invite the Euros to look at US behavior since 1989 - including what we did under the first Bush and under Clinton as well as under Dubya - and what we've done under Dubya including Iraq, and think if you really feel threatened.

Well, under BUsh one and Clinton, fine. BUt its obvious from world opinion that people do feel threatened by US actions since Bush 2 came into office. The idea that the US should use if global military hegemony to "spread freedom" is not a popular one around the world.

Sure China as number one may not be worse - but is it possible it would be? Do you KNOW what it would be like? What are the indicators? Are internal systems relevant? Is democracy a restraint on US behavior? Would China always be similarly restrained? How would China be restrained if necessary, and at what cost? Is it better to hold China to certain standards before selling them advanced military tech, and if so, what should those standards be?

China is no more repressive than plenty of other states that Europe and the US already sell weapons to, like the Arab dictatorships.

And of course, China, while a "new player", can at least be brought INTO a system, and that perhaps is what Europe is trying to do, influence how China comes into the system to limit its possible range of actions.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

We certainly are the Hegemon in the Pacific- we are the only ones with a masive Navy capable of controlling the seas. We have 100,000 troops in the region plus. That is a huge commitment.

We also have about 80,000 troops in Europe, and again, command of the seas. Looks at what ended up happening in the Balkans.

in the balkans we relied entirely on logistics and airbases in Italy, Germany, and elsewhere.

Try wargaming France and Germany against the US. I wouldnt want to be a US soldier in Rammstein in those circumstances.

Cause we're trying to maintain kinds of capabilities others are not. Yet that 49% doesnt allow us to assert our will without regard to alliances, or even with alliances in many places. And its spread around the world - in any locality theres a limit to what we can bring to bear.

Of course we can ssert our will regardless of allies- we could have easily asserted our will in Iraq withou ANY ALLIES, including Kuwait, which we could have invaded, secured, and then used as a jumping block.

The locals would have destroyed the port. It would have been a logistics nightmare.

Having allies makes all the operations infinately easier and cheaper, and hence politically feasable, but the US has the capability to do it without allies, even if it would be politically impossible.

As for the spread around the world part, we spend 49% of it, and 190 other states spend the other 51%- whcih means that while the US might not the able to bring its full power against anyone in a single theater, in the theaters I have mentioned we can certainly bring more firepower to bears than any other single power.


We would have won Iraq even if others had theoretically come to Iraqs aid, given that the only ones capable of at that point brining any forces to bear on Iraq besides us would probably not been able to get them to the theater in time.

it took us months to build up. Others could have managed it., esp as they didnt have to prepare for offensive operations.

Then "in theory" regional hegimon is impossible. I seriously doubt Mearshimer means of hegimon only states capable of complete contro, since if this were the case, Rome in Europe would be about the only historical hegimon, and that would make the notion meaningless.

Its in the latest issue of Foreign Policy, the one on China. Global hegemon WOULD be almost impossible. The notion would still be meaningful - as something that states have ASPIRED to. Even if its impossible.

NO, the US is the Hegimon the the Pacific theater- certainly NOT on mainland East Asia, or South Asia, or the Indian Ocean, nor South-East Asia, but in the Pacific, certainly.

I think by region, he meant a large group of countries, not a body of water. (oh and there is no Pacific THEATER now, as the Pacific is at peace - Pacific Theater is short for Pacific Theater of Operations - unless youre looking to see a show in San Fransisco ) But if you want to consider the Pacific Ocean, minus the Asian mainland, as a region, go for it man. You have a fine future studying Talmud

[Zulu Elephant]

Just thought I'd throw this into the mix.
Prospect Magazine

Interesting food for thought for both sides

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

Taiwan is a political issue, as everyone accepts it to be part of China.

A technical point of international law, and some ironies of history. Taiwan has been de facto out of Beijings control for 55 years, and has been in Beijings control for only about 5 if the last 110 years. If they HAD declared de jure independence in 1951 there was nothing Beijing could have done, and theyd be independent under international law. They didnt, first cause the KMT thought they could retake the mainland, and later caus the KMT legitimized its dictatorship by the fiction of being the govt of all China, which obviously shouldnt be chose by the people of one province. In 1979, while the KMT still maintained its dictatorship, the US recognized Beijing for the first time, as a power balance move against the USSR. When Taiwan became a democracy the question of Taiwan independence came up. Now IF Taiwan were to declare independence, and China were to do nothing, Taiwans independence would become dejure under int law, so China would have no choice but to attack. As a result of which we all tell Taiwan NOT to declare, to avoid war. Which we certainly dont want. But the reality is that Taiwan as a distinct society - the destruction of which by force would be a matter of INTERNATIONAL concern, not soley a Chinese internal matter.

Well, under BUsh one and Clinton, fine. BUt its obvious from world opinion that people do feel threatened by US actions since Bush 2 came into office.

I suggest that any euros still reading this, consult their own sense of threat. If you need to read opinion polls to do that, so be it.

The idea that the US should use if global military hegemony to "spread freedom" is not a popular one around the world.

Good thing its explicitly not Bushs policy than.

China is no more repressive than plenty of other states that Europe and the US already sell weapons to, like the Arab dictatorships.

None of whom are as large and potentially threatening.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix.
Prospect Magazine

Interesting food for thought for both sides

In early 2004, the Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra announced that he was overhauling foreign policy: the long-time US and British ally would now make China (and India) "the most important countries for Thailand's diplomacy."

good balance.

In 2004, China signed 24 new economic and political agreements with Burma,

well no surprise there.

and it has invested so much in Mongolia that it is almost a Chinese satellite

ah, the pity of being landlocked.

. India, which once fought a bloody border war with China, has established trade and security ties with Beijing.

and still doesnt trust them, i dont think. Perhaps Nepal wasnt off topic.

Russia has signed a treaty of friendship.

Vlads playing his own game of balance.

Even South Korea, where US troops are stationed, now looks to China to broker a deal on North Korea's nuclear weapons programme.

well so is the US. Does that mean we're bowing to Beijing?


[q]Outside Asia, once-staunch US allies have started to bend to Beijing. When the new Chinese president Hu Jintao visited Australia in October 2003, he was allowed to address parliament, the first Asian leader to do so. The Australian government even blocked protests—though they had been allowed for George W Bush's visit the same week.[q/]


This article came out before Australia announced more troops for Iraq, sent specifically to protect JAPANESE engineering units, at the request of Tokyo.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I suggest that any euros still reading this, consult their own sense of threat. If you need to read opinion polls to do that, so be it.

Few if any Europeans fear Bush is going to attack us directly. A great many think that Bush's behaviour is making the world less secure for us.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

and it has invested so much in Mongolia that it is almost a Chinese satellite

ah, the pity of being landlocked.

Mongolia has spent almost all the time since it's independence as a Soviet satellite (remember the joke about Ulan Bator being closer to Moscow than Kiev was?). I'm sure Being a Chinese satellite for a while is a welcome change.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
Just thought I'd throw this into the mix.
Prospect Magazine

Interesting food for thought for both sides

Good article: what the author misses thought is just why the Chinese approach to lets get rich, who cares about HR wins out: because all in all, people crave fiscal stability more than freedom.

Just look at Latin America: democracy spread in the early 90's, but it failed to bring greater prosperity to most states, so support for democracy remains weak.