History is replete with squandered opportunities. Consider a few examples:
Pearl Harbor – We knew, almost to the day, that an
attack was coming and squandered the opportunity to prevent it or effectively
defend against it.
Twin Towers/11-Sep-2001 Terrorist Attack – We had all
the information required to anticipate the attack but squandered the
opportunity to put the pieces together.
Hitler – The Allies had endless opportunities to forcefully
confront and halt Hitler in the run up to WWII but squandered the opportunity to
prevent or limit the scope of the war.
Russia – After the collapse of the Soviet Union and
the end of the Cold War, we had a chance to bring Russia into the international
community as, if not a friend, at least not an enemy but squandered the
opportunity to integrate them into the rest of the world.
Now, some argue that those opportunities were evident only
in hindsight but that’s simply not true.
We had all the information we needed to recognize each instance but we
failed to take advantage of the opportunity.
This raises the question … what opportunities are we
squandering, right now, that some misguided idiot in the future is going to
attempt to claim were not evident right now?
Sticking with military related topics, here’s a few that are
glaringly obvious and yet we’re in the process of squandering the opportunities.
Weapons Production – The Ukraine situation is bashing
us across the head with a 2”x4” warning that our weapon production capacity is
woefully insufficient to wage a war with China.
If we can’t supply Ukraine, we certainly can’t supply a war with
China. Now, during whatever years we
have left before the war with China, we should be desperately ramping up
weapons production and yet we’re squandering the opportunity.
Fleet Size – It is painfully evident that war with
China is inevitable (or, to pacify you optimists, it’s at least a very real
possibility, if not a sure thing) and we should be desperately building up our
fleet size. Instead, we’re squandering
the opportunity and actually doing the exact opposite by retiring more ships
than we’re building with many of them being early retired. We’re also squandering the opportunity to
build a reserve fleet.
Raw Materials – It is a fact that many of our
critical raw materials are outside our control.
For example, our supply of rare earths, critical for the manufacture of so
many weapons and sensors, comes from China!
We should be desperately building mining, refining, and manufacturing
facilities to become self-sufficient in every strategically critical raw
material but we’re squandering the opportunity.
Nuclear Iran – Iran is not even pretending to hide its
nuclear weapons production efforts. Now
is the time to strike and strike hard to prevent this. Instead, unbelievably, we’re not only squandering
the opportunity to stop Iran, we’re actually shipping them money to finance
their nuclear ambitions!
Africa – China and terrorists (is there a
difference?) are taking over Africa.
Now, before either are irrevocably established, is the time to prevent
this. Instead, we’re but we’re
squandering the opportunity.
Containing China – It’s obvious that China is on a collision
course with the US/West. We’ve had
endless opportunities to contain China but continue to squander the
opportunities.
Internal Terrorism – With the unregulated southern
border admitting all manner of terrorists and unfriendly state actors, it’s
only a matter of when, not if, we’ll suffer an attack similar to the Hamas
attack on Israel. We’re blatantly squandering
the opportunity to seal the border and prevent a future attack.
And the list goes on. History will not be kind to us, nor
should it, when the squandered opportunities are recognized and documented on
some tragic day in the future.
One of your best posts ever, and I have enjoyed many. Normalcy bias is a real and dangerous thing, and it is a huge problem in this country. Large numbers of citizens as well as politicians have absolutely no idea what is happening or ignore the obvious because it is uncomfortable. The lack of leadership is going to lead to eye opening events that are going to shock many in this country as well as our allies.
ReplyDeleteCentcom blasting all those Tomahawks against the Houthis sure isn't helping.
ReplyDeleteThe combatant command system has its valid merits, but right now as the combatant commands aren't owner-operators of their combat assets, just customers making orders, they aren't incentivised to marshal or take care of their resources. PACCOM cares not that the ships are worn down, only that there are ships for the missions it demands. CENTCOM cares not that there are no Tomahawks for use against china, only that there are Tomahawks for use against the Houthis now.
I assume some targets are along the coast and could be hit with 5-inch guns, but I've heard no reports.
DeleteEven if there were inland targets out of range of 5 inch, surely you could just drop JDAMs on them...
DeletePart of the problem is that we simply don'y have that many 5-inch tubes any more--and no 8-inch or 16-inch.
Delete"Russia – After the collapse of the Soviet Union....."
ReplyDeleteRussia applied to join NATO several times but were rejected by US. Elites in the nation want to further split Russia into small nations to remove (or drastically reduce) its nuclear weapons in seeking absolute security. Problem is that there are plenty angry "patriotic" people but INABILITY to fulfill this goal.
After Soviet Union collapsed, not just elites, almost all citizens simply despised China. Today, they criticized others on overlooked China as her technical competency is surpassing us, especially in high end military gears.
If you cannot foresee, criticize others cannot is NOT a good behave.
"Russia applied to join NATO several times"
DeleteI am aware of one or more attempts to join NATO before the formation of the Warsaw Pact but I've not heard of any attempts after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Supposedly, Putin broached the subject but that's more of a rumor than a confirmed fact.
Putin confirmed these during his recent interview with Tucker Carlson.
Delete"Putin confirmed these during his recent interview"
DeleteAnd I believe everything Putin says because he never lies.
If it walks and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If it sounds like propaganda, it probably is propaganda.
That aside, we did have an opportunity to turn Russia into at least a neutral, if not a friend.
Former SOD Gates (under Bush Jr.) had said that China would not have any stealth fighter before 2020. J-20's first test flight just happened in his trip to China in 2011.
DeleteInitially, media had plenty negative comments on J-20 such as inferior to F-22, poor performance, .... Now, after encounters and more information release from China, Pentagon were shocked thus cut F-35 procurements, plan to retire F-22, ... to speed up NGAD.
Media now concern on J-20 as a terrible threat.
Americans, from ruling elites to average Joe should respect Russia's role on mutual destruction with US than unrealistic "patriotic" thinking. Only on this basis, relation with Putin can be mended. We can discuss Ukraine's integrity together with Russia's reasonable security concerns. Putin concerns most is Russia's survival in current form, not more territory.
DeletePeople also need to understand, from Russia's perspective and security concern, they need buffer in Europe and NO confrontation with China as they border China and their economy is complimentary with Chinese economy.
Pursuing wishful thinking without ability is not patriotic.
This is not a geopolitical blog so we won't go any further with this.
Delete“Sticking with military related topics, here’s a few that are glaringly obvious and yet we’re in the process of squandering the opportunities.
ReplyDeleteWeapons Production
Fleet Size
Raw Materials
Nuclear Iran
Africa
Containing China
Internal Terrorism”
Agree with every one of these. But at the risk of venturing into the political, I must ask the question: Does any USA military or civilian leader seem to have a clue about addressing any of these? I have my own ideas about how to address each of them, but I don’t see any proposed actions coming from any of our leaders.
Of that list, Trump did take actions to decrease our dependence on China for strategic raw materials. Unfortunately, that effort has now been abandoned, as far as I can tell.
DeleteShortly after Pearl Harbor FDR took a civilian - a Danish exec with GM called Knudsen - and appointed him directly to 3-Star general rank in the US Army. His brief was to do whatever was necessary to shift the US economy straight out of peacetime mode using the executive authority of the President through the mechanism of the War Production Board, and the rest - as they say - is history. In 1940 U.S. factories churned out 3 million cars - during the whole remaining period of the war a total of less than 150 civilian cars were produced, but we built tanks, trucks and jeeps by the millions.
ReplyDeleteBut that was then - when we had a largely self-contained economy with an enormous manufacturing base. That economy, along with the tens of millions of skilled American tradesmen who made it work, is long gone and won’t be coming back.
Today, kids who leave school - maybe before they graduate - to work in a machine shop, or learn welding, or come home with dirty hands after pulling apart a heavy diesel engine, get little credit or respect, and there’s few pathways to a promotion, to home ownership or a reasonably comfortable lifestyle.
In WW2 company boardrooms weren’t very diverse, but they were - by and large - occupied by loyal and patriotic Americans. Today? Not so much I think.
How to fix these problems? Hate to be negative, but it’s too late - these are problems that can’t be fixed. I doubt that many Americans even see them as being problems. Sorry!
"these are problems that can’t be fixed."
DeleteOf course they can be fixed! Simple tariffs and regulatory reform to make manufacturing in the US more profitable than outside the US would be a quick and easy thing to do.
Re-establishing vocational ed in the high schools would quickly catch on and increase our skilled trades.
And so on.
What it requires is an administration that WANTS to do those things and that will present a PR campaign to persuade people to support it.
Hitler – The Allies had endless opportunities to forcefully confront and halt Hitler in the run up to WWII but squandered the opportunity to prevent or limit the scope of the war.
ReplyDeleteWho and when? The Soviet Union and the USA weren't interested in war till they where attacked and France wasn't interested in fighting at any point.
The UK? the UK had a navy but had a small nearly irrelevant army (only small numbers of useless tanks till 1939/40) while the RAF didn't get a modern fighter till 18 months after Germany had the BF-109 in service.
Holding off on fighting Germany till it historically started was beneficial to the UK at least and probably France not that I can imagine them losing any faster than they did.
Unless the US was going to join in, in 1938 against Germany I doubt the UK or France could do much.
"Who and when? The Soviet Union and the USA weren't interested in war"
DeleteThat's the very definition of a squandered opportunity!!!! They saw the problem and opted to do nothing about it!!!!
Having no interest in a problem is the definition of squandered opportunity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"purposely allowed them to happen"
ReplyDeleteComment deleted. This is not a conspiracy site.
Interesting post as always.
ReplyDeleteIs there any reasons why "Helping Ukraine" has been left out of the list of current missed opportunities ?
Does this reflect a"China-centric / Europe must live by itself" opinion ?
As an european, when trying to adopt the view of an american, I totally understand the frustration caused by the shameful lack of defense preparation of Europe. I can also understand the view that US and Europe fates can be decoupled (that the US can prosper even if Europe face alone Russian threat and economic decay). But it seems to me a pretty big gamble from the isolationnist/right wing US politicians, and I think the "decoupling" view is a mistake for the US.
Weapons production/Raw Materials/China containment are no brainers. But how can you contain China if you abandon Ukraine ? Does it even make sense ?
For a Nuclear Iran..well... I am afraid the US is not all-powerful, and the US has simply no way to prevent it by sheer force alone. And I think negotiations will fail also. But Iranian seems to be pretty cautious people, and an nuclear Iran does not scare me particularly (note that I do not live in Tel Aviv.. but I am sure fear of MAD will work there as it as worked everywhere before).
When the US decided to attack Iraq on false premises in 2003..well (and France has warned the US several times).. they opened a pandora box still not closed yet. I totally understand the iranians, and If I were Iranian, I will make sure to become a nuclear power asap.
Africa : well there again.. I think military solution are only a bandage and cannot solve anything. The real deal is developpement, and there again, US policy has been inconsistent to say the least (remember when USAID under Bush presidency defundend birth control program..).
To paraphrase Clausewitz : before any military action, be sure that your policy are aligned with your interests.
Before I say anything else, let me say that I enjoyed your comment. I do not agree with some of it but it was well written and logical within your frame of reasoning. That said, here's some thoughts for you to consider:
Delete"Is there any reasons why "Helping Ukraine" has been left out"
I have only a few paragraphs to work with so many possible candidates were left out. That said, while there is an obvious benefit to draining Russian resources with no casualties for the US, it is not clear to me that Ukraine is worth saving. People forget that, before the war, Ukraine was a heavily corrupt country with aims and actions counter to many US/European interests.
" I think the "decoupling" view is a mistake for the US."
You may have acquired a mistaken view of the US position on this. Much of the US wants to pull our active defense support (both money and troops) out of Europe, believing that they can stand on their own) but very few want to 'decouple' from Europe in terms of trade, economy, culture, etc. We want to remain fully engaged with Europe but just not pay its defense bill. Hopefully, that clarifies things for you?
"how can you contain China if you abandon Ukraine ?"
I'm missing the connection you seem to see between the two. Explain further?
"US has simply no way to prevent it by sheer force alone."
Of course we do! We know where the various nuclear related facilities are. A handful of cruise missile strikes and Iran's nuclear ambitions are permanently finished.
"an nuclear Iran does not scare me particularly"
Given Iran's stated goal of wiping out Israel and their continual support for terrorism around the world, a nuclear Iran scares the pudding out of me!
"Africa ... I think military solution are only a bandage and cannot solve anything."
Of course it can! Military strikes are highly effective at killing terrorists and destroying their infrastructure. That eliminates the immediate problem. The longer term solution involves supporting and developing African countries using agriculture, infrastructure, financial tools, etc. This is also the way to squeeze out China from the region. Unfortunately, we are doing next to nothing.
Thank you for your answer.
DeleteTo focus on the link between Chinese containment and Ukraine , my opinion is :
Key aspects of containment are :
a) the ability to deter China from any military action (Taiwan, Spartleys, Guam, you name it). As in any country, I imagine China politburo not as a "monolith" but as an arena where different groups jostles for influence. A Russian victory in Ukraine will only embolden the hardliners/warmongers. They will say "look, Russia dared and Russia achieved". On the contrary, a massive Russian failure (such as Russia ending up worse than before Feb 2022) will give ammunitions to the cautious people, the one that thinks China rise will be completed by "peaceful" means (incl. coercion, pressure, trade war, IP theft, but NO war).
b) containment is the ability to convince third parties (other Asian countries) that aligning with the US is in their best interest. If they look at Ukraine, and see that in spite of good words ("for how long as it takes, ..."), the US has left Ukraine to its own fate, "pro-China" parties in their political landscape will certainly rise.
c) I will add that I also think "being on the good side" matters. In Vietnam, in Iraq, and other places, US actions were far from ideal, and the moral height of the USA was diminished. On the contrary in Ukraine, the US is helping a people that rose to fight against a much superior agressor, without (so far) comiting any wrongful actions (war crimes). Standing with Ukraine heigthens US moral status and , even if "realpolitik people" may dismiss "moral status" as a void concept, I think it matters a lot in the long run.
I hope it is a bit clearer, thank you for your blog.
In my conversations with Europeans (having lived in Germany and Hungary off/on for 5 years), it seems there is often a feeling that the US wants Europe to be beholden to it for security, as if we get something out of it. I frequently hear that we won't "let" the Europeans achieve security independence. I'm also sometimes told that Europeans are more civilized than the war-loving Americans, taking pride in having moved beyond the need for barbaric weapons and warriors.
DeleteIn the end, (most) Europeans choose not to invest in their militaries because they are expensive and they don't need to. But this is about burden sharing! I remember reading that for the first time since the 1930's, the collective GDP of authoritarian countries is larger than that of democracies. That's scary. The world is a dangerous place and it's not sustainable or desirable for the US to act as the world's policeman on its own. The world needs the Europeans (larger collective population and GDP than the US) to be able to stand on their own militarily, and ideally contribute to maintaining a global rules based order.
One simple and relevant example: The US is supposed to be pivoting to face the threat from China. Instead, the US still invests considerable resources in Europe and the Middle East. Imagine if the US could truly focus its military in the Pacific, knowing Europe (and ideally the Middle East) were secure without a sizeable US presence. That frees up ships, subs, planes, air defense systems, logistics, etc that are sorely needed in the Pacific. It creates a military industrial base in Europe that the US might access in case of a conflict (a dispersed Arsenal of Democracy, although the US would never feel comfortable depending on that.) The world would be a safer place. Americans are rightfully pissed off at the current arrangement.
Separately, I agree with the comments on Ukraine!
Re: Ukraine
DeleteHere are some questions I'd like answered by those who think the US should prop Ukraine up indefinitely.
1. What does victory for Ukraine look like?
2. Is there any realistic plan for Ukraine to achieve victory?
3. Is there any amount of money that can make Ukraine achieve victory?
4. If there is an amount of money that can make Ukraine win, why hasn't it been proposed that we give it to them?
5. If there isn't any amount of money that we can give to achieve victory, what are the alternatives?
6. Are you willing to accept any end to the war that results Ukraine losing land? If not, why not?
-Huskers1995
One last reply :
DeleteTo Anonymous - my opinion only :
0. Indefinitely does not mean "forever", it means "for as long as necessary to obtain an outcome that is deem satisfying.
1 & 6. A realistic Ukraine victory is a) keep a sovereign and democratic government with a westward inclination (ie : not Belarus) ; b) limit the size of Russian land grab to some parts of Donetsk & Luhansk oblast, which means trying to reconquer the "land bridge" to Crimea across Melitopol/Zaporijia oblast. c) try to limit as much as possible human losses in Ukraine. d) devise a future for Ukraine where financial help from the European Union is conditioned by very strict requirements of good public management and anticorruption efforts.
2. I don't know, and I think it is not written "yet". The only path for victory I see includes Ukraine shifting back to a strong defense and ceasing wasting men across minefields. Try to bleed white Russians attack waves (artillery, drones, mines). And execute continuous tactical strikes in the depth of Russian lines (3-400km): striking command posts, logistic areas, barracks, airfields.. you need SCALP/Storm Shadows, ATCAMS, Taurus, JASSM, HARM, drones etc.
The hardest part is to reconquer Melitopol area, maybe push to Berdiansk while leaving Marioupol to Russia. For this Ukraine needs to take at lease one or two year of building back armored brigades, with appropriate training and logistical tail.
3.4.5 : All of this will cost a lot … maybe 100B/year for 2 – 3 more years of war ?
But let me ask you the question back : what is your alternative, and what is the cost of this alternative in the long run ?
To Son of a Sailor and the author of this blog :
We could not agree more on the need for Europe to grow up and invest on its own defense. And I by Europe I mean above all western Europe: Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Unfortunately, a collective choice has been made to favor leisure, work time reduction and consumption over investment in defense, energy security and prep for Climate Change. A very sad choice indeed. I had hope in 2022 that the Ukraine war was going to be a wake-up call but seeing the pettiness of my own country reaction makes me very pessimistic.
[Sorry for the typo , will do better next time]
Delete@JNX75
DeleteThank you for your answer. You provided far more specificity than anyone else I've heard on this topic.
My personal view is that Ukraine cannot win with any reasonable amount of funding. Even your proposal lacked confidence despite its large amount of funding. Ukraine has less manpower, industrial capacity, has no air force, and lacks the ability to meaningfully strike Russian territory. Russia has superior manpower, industrial capacity, can strike almost anywhere in Ukrainian territory, and appears to have the resolve to simply wait for Ukraine to break.
In my view, the only way Ukraine can win is if western countries join combat directly to push the Russians out.
I do not support the US or its allies joining the war, and I don't believe most Americans have the appetite for that either. The Europeans certainly lack that will, as most countries have made no meaningful changes to their military since the beginning of this conflict. As such, I see no point in continuing the death for no reason.
The most strident Ukraine-supporters like to paint this war like WWII, one of clear good vs. evil. However, from my perspective, this looks like WWI, a war that has developed into a pointless slog that should be ended at the earliest opportunity.
-Huskers1995
"Here are some questions I'd like answered"
DeleteYour comment raised good questions. An even better comment would have been if you had offered your answers.
I would offer you a different perspective. You seem quite willing to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia. Would you be as willing if an enemy had seized several US states? Would you gladly give up some states? Now, try looking at your questions with that perspective in mind as you offer your answers to your own questions.
"Here are some questions I'd like answered"
DeleteYou seem to be ignoring possible US perspectives. For example, with nothing more than the expenditure of money (no lives), we're bleeding Russia militarily. Russia did the same to us in Vietnam, you'll recall. This decimation of their military is setting their future military ambitions back by many decades that will be required for them to rebuild and repopulate their war age, male population. There's a definite benefit to that.
The decimation of the Russian military also makes them a less effective and less likely active ally to China when that war comes to the US. Again, another benefit.
And so on. You might consider expanding your perspective(s) a bit.
@ComNavOps
Delete1. I offered my answer, which is that Ukraine is of little import to the United States and that there is no amount of funding that can be provided that will push Russia out of Ukraine. Continuing this war serves to distract us from far more important issues, both foreign and domestic, including the security of our border, China's military and diplomatic growth, and the security of important sea lanes in the Middle East.
2. I'm an American, which means that American interests dwarf those of Ukraine for me. I would not expect every country in the world to pay for my country's defense, nor send troops to help. I'd invite you to look at this conflict from an actual American perspective. If Ukraine's position is that not a single square foot of it's territory should be ceded, that's fine. But it doesn't get to indefinitely drain the coffers of the American taxpayer, let alone the taxpayer's children, and unborn grandchildren to achieve that aim.
3. I just don't agree that it's worth bleeding Russia's military. You speak as if spending hundreds of billions of dollars is nothing. I just don't share that view. Perhaps I am much younger and will actually have to suffer the consequences of these decisions.
-Huskers1995
" no amount of funding that can be provided that will push Russia out of Ukraine."
DeleteFactually false. The longer the war drags on, the more Putin faces severe and every-growing internal unrest. He's already faced one mutiny/coup attempt and factions within Russia are extremely critical of the war and Putin's execution of the war. As time goes on, the internal (and international) pressure on Putin to end the war will drastically increase. He will, at some not too distant point, be forced to cease operations. If spending money brings about that end then, yes, there most definitely is an amount of money that can end the war and end it well for Ukraine and the US (a badly depleted Russian military).
Consider the Vietnam war. Russia kept the war going with money (supplies) until the internal pressures on the US forced us to cease operations. Turnabout is fair play, perhaps?
Consider Russia's incursion into Afghanistan. The pressure built until they were forced to withdraw.
"But it doesn't get to indefinitely drain the coffers of the American taxpayer,"
Ukraine has no automatic claim on US funds. We've AGREED to provide funding and weapons, believing that we're gaining something in return. You can debate the value of the benefits but there are, clearly, benefits to be had. Whether we choose to continue supporting Ukraine is up to us.
"Perhaps I am much younger and will actually have to suffer the consequences of these decisions."
There are consequences for all courses of action. The opposite course of action also contains consequences which you seem not to want to consider. Should we cease our support and leave Ukraine to fall, an emboldened Russia with an intact military will, at some point in the future, continue its expansionistic actions and you'll bear the brunt of that and it may not be as 'clean' a war as merely providing money and weapons. You may wind up spending US lives. I already mentioned that a weakened Russia would make them a less likely and less formidable ally with China when that war comes.
"I'm an American, which means that American interests dwarf those of Ukraine for me. "
And yet you've utterly failed to recognize and enumerate what America's interests are in this affair. I've pointed out some benefits, which you seem to refuse to even consider. You can't claim to value American interests if you don't even know what our interests and benefits in Ukraine are!
There are good arguments to be made for and against supporting Ukraine, however, the good arguments take into consideration all aspects and factors. You seem to be ignoring the benefits of continued support and there clearly are such benefits. It's one thing to have considered the drawbacks AND BENEFITS and then decide not to continue but it's irresponsible and short-sighted to not consider the benefits and simply engage in a knee-jerk reaction.
You should attempt to logically and objectively evaluate ALL the factors, drawbacks, and benefits and let the facts and logic dictate the conclusion rather than making an emotional decision.
You'll note, by the way, that I have not offered an opinion on continued support one way or the other and have, in fact, pointed in various posts and comments that Ukraine was hardly a model of democracy and light prior the war.
" I offered my answer"
DeleteJust a caution and reminder. This is not a political blog and we're not going to engage in political debates. Politics and military matters are inextricably linked so a certain amount of political discussion is unavoidable but we're getting dangerously close to the line. Be warned!
I'd add the National Debt to this list of squandered opportunities. It impacts our ability to address all the other items on the list and is rapidly becoming a crisis in its own right.
ReplyDeleteNational Debt is an existential crisis, without a doubt. However, in this post I tried to limit items to those more directly related to military matters. Yes, I know that the debt ultimately impacts the military but in a less direct manner. If I opened to scope to all areas, there are many sociological, financial, infrastructure, religious, etc. opportunities that we are squandering but then I'd have to write a book. The challenge in blogging is not deciding what to include in a post but, rather, what to exclude. I've got a few paragraphs to work with and I can't include everything!
Delete"But Iranian seems to be pretty cautious people..."
ReplyDeleteThe people might be, but the leadership? I think blatantly continuing to arm and support terrorists and proxies when the whole world knows it , and is opening their nation and population up to being attacked (by someone who can clearly crush them if truly provoked) is pretty irresponsible. I think they care more about disrupting the West than they do their people. That makes a nuclear capable Iran terrifying!! Sure, their first weapons might actually go to their military to be paraded around, but how long before nuclear material starts being fed to terrorist groups and proxies?? Im not a fan of the US being the world police, but a nuclear Iran is somthing that shouldnt be allowed. And if we don't stop it, who will?? This is ABSOLUTELY somthing that will be in the category of "judged harshly by history"!!!
The core issue here is that, unlike China, USA has no coherent, continued long-term geopolitical strategy (the only real exception being love for Israel, although even the implications of that seem to be misunderstood).
ReplyDeleteFor example, regarding China the range of theoretically possible options ranges from mass extermination to complete surrender with literally everything in between: where does the USA stand now, beyond Generic Platitudes? What about next year?
The original squander was the British losing the American War, due to French interference.
ReplyDeleteIf the Dominion of America had remained in the British Empire,
the sun would have never have set on the Empire.
The 20th century would have been much more peaceful.
The again.
If the English Civil War had a Washington instead of a Cromwell, Britain would have been a Republic in 1651
and the American War would have never happened.
Be careful - Biases work BOTH ways. Look at the biased view of the US starting with the Dulles Brothers. Everyone saw the USSR as a giant boogey man that was out arming the US. Remember the bomber squadron that flew around on the May Day Parade and we took that to mean they had many bombers than they ever did. Look at how the mistaken domino theory got us into Vietnam. All at a time when the USSR couldn't produce enough concrete to build apartment buildings, China was suffering from culture revolutions and other of Mao's economic great ideas (back yard iron production?). How many trillons of dollars did the West spend to defend against collapsing systems?
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong Putin and Xi are real threats but we can make situations unrealistically fearful if we are not careful.
"we can make situations unrealistically fearful if we are not careful."
DeleteOf course! On the other hand, we can underappreciate the threat and engage in appeasement, leading to world wars that could have been prevented or mitigated.
The Navy had 57 flight ready recon seaplanes in Hawaii on Dec 7th. Three were on patrol near Oahu, and one sunk a Japanese midget sub a mile from the harbor entrance. Somehow, it took an hour for that report to reach Navy headquarters, which was too late. Despite the recent war warning, no seaplanes were dispatched to patrol north of Hawaii early each day. The USS Ward also sunk a midget sub in the harbor entrance an hour before the attack.
ReplyDeleteMy short video about this and other Dec 7th topics will appear on Friday. Here are two earlier ones in my series:
"The Attack on Pearl Harbor Was No Surprise":
https://youtu.be/1niZil4lNjU?t=22
https://youtu.be/KXHnXaNjr3M?t=22
"Containing China – "
ReplyDeleteAfter stunning victory of 90-91 Gulf War, Soviet Union's collapse, 2003 Iraq War, .... national leaders think counter regional powers is main mission of Pentagon.
Republican SOD Rumsfeld's reform was typical - killed many weapon projects and started heaps of **** which we lament now - LCS, Zumwalt, insist F-35 to be "the" fighter for ALL, ...to transfer armed force from counter superpower to regional powers.
Worse, on top of strategic blunder, R&D competency has dropped alarmingly. Weapons developed for LCS and Zumwalt generally ended in failure (XM501, Cyberfire, 155mm gun of Zumwalt, hypersonic missiles, ......).
At the same time, advanced Chinese weapons - J-20, J-10, J-16, hypersonic weapons(DF-17), type 055 destroyer, anti stealthy radar, advanced drones .....
What can I say?
"R&D competency has dropped alarmingly"
DeleteI don't see it that way. What I see is that expectations have risen ridiculously and reality has taken a back seat to marketing promises. I don't see any drop in our actual R&D capabilities. Our expectations have just become absurd and industry is not willing to say so to the military for fear of losing contracts. Thus, the military asks for fantasy and industry promises anything to get the contract. The poor scientists are left holding the bag with an impossible task.
"generally ended in failure"
No, they ended in remarkable achievements that simply couldn't match fantasy level expectations. The Zumwalt gun, for example, was quite an achievement but it couldn't match the absurd expectations.
The world's first jet plane was a remarkable achievement. The fact that it couldn't go Mach 5 did not make it a failure.
"advanced Chinese weapons"
This is just utterly absurd. To think that Chinese weapons are flawless defies all reality and what little reporting we get on their performance. The Chinese have as many or more problems and failures as we do. We just don't hear about them.
How about doing endless R&D on wonder weapons instead of arming ourselves for the wars that are right around the corner?
ReplyDeleteLutefisk
Perhaps one of the first things we should do, to get ourselves into the right frame of mind is this:
ReplyDeleteGiven that there is a large and rapidly increasing near term threat, we should ban any future use of the phrase "divest to invest" and fire anyone who uses it!
Another phrase we should ban is "72 hour war".
ReplyDelete"...we should ban any future use of the phrase "divest to invest" and fire anyone who uses it!"
ReplyDeleteThis...!!! Id absolutely agree- and add/tie it to the lack of a reserve . While we ARE struggling to meet recruitment and retention goals, and would probably struggle a bit manning them- having the Spruances, Perrys, even the early arm-launcher Ticos sitting around would be a convenient (and powerful) way to rebuild numbers quickly. Shedding ships right now is almost criminally foolish. While Im no technical expert, I dont believe the Admirals one bit when they explain how an older Tico isnt capable on "todays battlefield", and frankly, I think theyre full of it.
Those old Ticos & Burkes could bolster air defenses of Guam for example.
Delete"Those old Ticos & Burkes could bolster air defenses of Guam for example."
DeleteThe Burkes, perhaps, when they begin retiring. The Ticos have been left to rot by the Navy and are in no shape to operate.
Further, the ships would have to be kept tied up to a dock. At sea, they'd be sitting ducks for Chinese torpedoes unless we implement a strong ASW defense in the area.
"Further, the ships would have to be kept tied up to a dock."
DeleteIt would probably be easier to take all the equipment off of the ships and just mount it on a slab of concrete in Guam.
Lutefisk
I understand that you are viewing this through the lens of military affairs but I think we all know that the key for a revitalized weapons industry, fleet size, containing China is to have a strong industrial base (defense or not). I think that's a bigger problem and actually something that both sides of the aisle agree with each other. I think it's more towards how are we looking to implement this idea that we are different on. I know this is unpopular but reversing nation trend has to be a strong government response, increasing tariffs, sponsor production and create small business loans and tax breaks. There are also taking on large industrial projects like upgrading the rail system in the US, implement nuclear power plants with massive hire in the trades sector (sponsoring trades education and school) and etc. This is very much difficult with how big our national debt has become. I honestly have not the slightest clue how to fix the national debt problem but so far, this laissez faire industrial foreign policy is helping everyone but us.
ReplyDelete"I know this is unpopular"
Delete??? I don't think anyone has disagreed with this!
We have no strategic interests in Africa (except for Liberia, which we have done, literally, nothing for since the W years).
ReplyDeleteOur strategic interests (raw material supplies) are supposed to be in South America (where we have also done nothing for decades). Europe is supposed to get there raw materials from Africa. THEY need to handle it, not us.
"We have no strategic interests in Africa"
DeleteOf course we do! At the very least, we have an intense national strategic interest in terrorism and Africa is becoming a source of terrorism - a breeding ground. It is in our direct strategic interest to deal with terrorism at its roots before it can grow and impact us in our homeland.
We also have a strategic interest in denying Africa's raw materials and geographic positioning to China.
Africa is a source of global disease and possible bio weapon raw materials (various viruses and bacteria). It is in our strategic interest to control those bio materials.
Africa is a source of large scale population migrations which impact our various other concerns in the Middle East and Europe. Those concerns are of strategic importance to us which makes Africa of strategic importance to us.
Africa is a source of raw materials and having alternate sources is a strategic benefit to us.
Do I need to go on?
There is a paper, posted on chinausfocus.com arguing that China's geography severely restricts its naval capabilities. Uses German, Japanese and Russian examples. I'm curious on your take if you chose to read and comment. I don't know the author, and nothing suggests necessarily a background that gives this credibility. But then it is interesting.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read it but the geography constraints are obvious, referring to both the first island chain and the surrounding, unfriendly countries. Of course, the same first island chain that constrains Chinese naval ops also provides a natural bulwark against attacking naval forces. China has, essentially, a sea bastion that buffers its mainland.
DeleteI'm more interested in your opinion. What key takeaways did you get from the paper?
Well, maybe two takeaways. I don't pretend to have the knowledge to really test the examples of Germany or Russian geographic constraints to their navies in WW2 (Well maybe I do for Germany, but not Russia). The Idea that geography constrains China, and your statement that it's a "natural bulwark" against attacking naval forces can both be true - but isn't the result for both ships constrained their ability to operate with any freedom on the high seas? I am skeptical about the US simply resupplying Taiwan by sea during a conflict with the main line - seems to me that we'd be well inside China's ability to highly constrain that from being a simple shipping exercise.
DeleteDon’t think the rare earth minerals should worry you that much. Supply is elastic!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.wsj.com/articles/wyoming-hits-the-rare-earth-mother-lode-natural-resources-policy-china-mining-8e559cec
Yes and no. Yes, there are huge quantities of rare earths in the US. That's been known for decades. However, no, there is almost no mining and refining in the US and that's unlikely to change significantly for decades to come. From an article on the subject:
Delete"And the ore alone is worth relatively little without the complex, often environmentally hazardous processing involved in converting the ore into a usable form, says Julie Klinger, a geographer at the University of Delaware in Newark. As a result, the rare earth mining industry is wrestling with a legacy of environmental problems.
Rare earths are mined by digging vast open pits in the ground, which can contaminate the environment and disrupt ecosystems. When poorly regulated, mining can produce wastewater ponds filled with acids, heavy metals and radioactive material that might leak into groundwater. Processing the raw ore into a form useful to make magnets and other tech is a lengthy effort that takes large amounts of water and potentially toxic chemicals, and produces voluminous waste."
We can discover infinite amounts of rare earths but if we can't mine and refine it, it might as well be ... well ... dirt in the ground.
When you offer a link, please make sure that it's readable/reachable. The link you offered is behind a paywall.
Delete“However, no, there is almost no mining and refining in the US and that's unlikely to change significantly for decades to come. From an article on the subject”
DeleteI disagree. If the supply is tenuous, or for other reasons the global price goes up, I’d expect to see domestic production ramp up rapidly barring some regulatory prohibition (which again if national security is truly at stake will likely be waived). The market responds extremely rapidly when the occasion calls for it. Simply look at domestic oil production pre and post fracking if you would like an example
*sorry, no idea how to get a non-paywalled WSJ link
"I disagree. ... I’d expect to see domestic production ramp up rapidly"
DeleteThere is only one rare earth mine in the US (Mountain Pass in CA) that I'm aware of and no refining facilities. The Mt. Pass mine ships the raw ore abroad (China, I believe) to be processed. The company that owns the Mt. Pass mine is attempting to build a refining facility and have it operational in the near future. Note, however, that there are dozens of rare earths and each requires its own, unique refining process. The refining process is incredibly complex and costly.
It takes years to commission a new manufacturing facility of any type and even longer for a rare earth facility. You don't just slap together such a facility. When war comes, it will still require years to commission a rare earth refining facility.
This kind of hand waving away realistic timelines and difficulties is what places us in precarious positions.