Pages

Monday, November 4, 2024

Philippines Strategy

You’ve probably noticed that several of ComNavOps’ fictional stories revolve around the Philippines.  This is not by random chance.  The strategic value of the Philippines cannot be overstated.  The country, along with Taiwan, forms two gigantic ‘forts’ that China must deal with in any war.
 
From China’s perspective, those two countries act as forward enemy bases that dominate the surrounding seas and impact any operations the Chinese would attempt.  Their removal from the strategic equations is imperative.  Ideally, China would turn the tables by seizing both countries and using them as forts against any American response.
 
Taiwan’s seizure (or ‘reunification’ as the Chinese would euphemistically put it) is absolutely mandatory for both strategic and cultural reasons.  Wisely or foolishly, China’s leadership has linked themselves to the seizure of Taiwan as a national and cultural imperative.  For those reasons, Taiwan will be the first operation in any war.
 
The Philippines present a somewhat different situation for China.  The Philippines cannot be allowed to become a US forward base but it is not necessarily a requirement that the country be physically seized and occupied.  Forcing Philippines to declare neutrality is almost as good as seizing it.  A declaration of neutrality would eliminate Philippines as a forward base for the US and would have the added benefit of not tying up any Chinese forces in an occupation. 
 
Ideally, of course, China would like the Philippines to enter a war as an ally of China, thereby allowing China to use it as a base without the difficulties of an invasion and occupation.
 
By far, the most likely course of action is that Philippines would declare neutrality rather than place themselves as a target between the US and China.
 
Neutrality, however, will not prevent China, which cares nothing for international laws, from occupying areas of the Philippines that it finds advantageous in its war efforts against the US.  This, of course, leaves Philippines in a bit of a no-win situation.
 
All of this is fairly obvious so where is this going?  Let’s consider scenarios in which the US has access to the use of the Philippines, either because the Philippines enters the war as an ally of the US or because Philippines declares neutrality and China ignores that and attempts to seize or operate from the country, thereby negating Philippines’ neutrality. 
 
In this case, the US would attempt to set up bases and, perhaps more importantly, surveillance assets (radar, elevated optical sensors, etc.).   Obviously, China is not going to sit back and allow that to occur without hindrance. This raises the scenario of the US having to fight to establish and operate a base – something that we haven’t had to do since Guadalcanal.  Do we have the capability to seize suitable land, set up a base while under fire, and defend that base well enough to keep it operational?
 
The answer is no and certainly not with the equipment, units, and training we have currently.  This strongly suggests that we should be developing – quickly! – the capability to seize, set up, and defend a major base.  I’ve often suggested that the Marine’s core mission should be port seizure and this type of operation would be a logical extension of that.  Note that the Army does have existing units dedicated to the seizure of existing airbases.
 
Seizure of land for a not yet existing base could range from ‘walk in unopposed’ to a full fledged, contested, amphibious assault depending on how extensively the Chinese manage to get established.  As we’ve thoroughly discussed, our ability to conduct an opposed landing is extremely limited as we lack naval gun support, sufficient ship-to-shore connectors to allow for attrition, armor, logistic support, sea bases (if we don’t seize a port), mines to protect our sea flanks, and mobile anti-air defenses to protect forces ashore.  In addition, our ability to establish local air superiority is highly suspect and would be largely limited to the understrength air wings of our carriers which would be hard pressed to conduct simultaneous air-to-air and ground support operations with just thirty or so combat aircraft per air wing.
 
 
As we contemplate seizing land and establishing a base, consider these questions:
 
  • Do we have the ability to transport and very quickly (instantly!) set up anti-cruise and anti-ballistic missile defenses to protect a base?
  • Do we have ground forces who have been trained for base defense?
  • Can we transport armor to the Philippines for base defense.  Yes, we’ll certainly be facing Chinese armored forces.
  • Do we have sufficient numbers of C-RAM (counter rocket, artillery, and mortar) weapons to defend a base against constant, high volume attacks?
  • Do we have sufficient portable, mobile sensors to establish effective surveillance and early warning systems?
  • Are we doctrinally willing, and trained, to move our Aegis ships in close to land to provide anti-air protection for the ground forces until they can establish their own defenses?
  • Are we capable of quickly constructing hardened and/or underground hangars and fuel/weapons storage?
  • Do we sufficient airbase repair equipment that can be transported to the site?
  • Do we have sufficient engineering units to build a base under fire, continuously repair it, and keep it operational under fire?
  • Can we operate modern, finicky aircraft under primitive conditions with few spare parts, computers, and no modern state of the art repair facilities?  That’s what a forward, contested base would be, after all.  Our abysmal aircraft readiness rates during peacetime suggest that this, alone, almost rules out establishing an airbase in the Philippines.  If you can’t keep aircraft operational, there’s little point having an airbase.  If you recall, we were only able to sporadically operate F4F Wildcats from Guadalcanal and they were robust, easy to maintain aircraft by comparison, requiring only a wrench and duct tape to repair!
 
This kind of thought exercise is exactly what the US military should be doing all day, every day and yet we’re not.  Not even a little bit.  Instead we’re engaged in all manner of social programs, diversity, gender issues, environmental issues, climate concerns, etc.
 
We must start planning for the China war.  If the war never comes, that’s fine but failure to plan for it is dereliction of duty at its most extreme.

31 comments:

  1. So far as heavy armor (tanks), we have some in South Korea, but it would impossible to ship it out under Chinese air superiority. We have no tanks in Japan, or Alaska, or Hawaii, or the entire West Coast! The nearest army tank unit is in Colorado!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is why we need to do pre-war planning!

      Delete
    2. I discussed this with some retired Army officers 20 years ago when BRACs were ongoing. All agreed that underused, large army bases at Yuma AZ and Yakima WA should host an army armored brigade. This would reduce the crowding at Fort Hood (now Liberty I think). Changing base names is more important than strategy.

      Delete
  2. In a ‘competition’ for influence we need to ask ourselves what can we offer the Philippines vs what the Chinese can offer.
    FTA? Budgetary assistance? Easier immigration? Bribing their leaders? Green Cards for their families when they have to run? Scholarships for their leaders’ children? We’re not looking good on any of this.
    End of the day….Filipinos don’t like the Chinese much, but they’ve no particular reason to like us very much either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In a ‘competition’ for influence we need to ask ourselves what can we offer the Philippines"

      Excellent. Now, give us your answer. What are some of the things we should be offering the Philippines that doesn't compromise our own values?

      Delete
    2. I’d take a step back, and make a serious attempt to develop and articulate a coherent foreign policy and get some sort of national bipartisan consensus around that. And then I’d try to do the same thing with our defense, trade and foreign aid policies and try to tie them all together (just like the Chinese do), so we’re at least all pulling in the same direction.
      Out of all that, hopefully would come some sort of agreement around which countries and which issues are vitally important to us, and which are of peripheral concern, and we could properly and correctly focus our limited national attention and resources, and not allow ourselves to be distracted by conflicts in far away places between peoples of whom we know little and should care less.
      That would be a very good start.

      Delete
    3. "attempt to develop and articulate a coherent foreign policy and get some sort of national bipartisan consensus around that."

      Of course. But, what specifically would you suggest in regards to Philippines?

      Delete
    4. Well if we exclude the things we can’t do for either political or legal reasons, our options narrow considerably, but this is what I would do.

      First, if we truly believe that the Philippines is a critical security ally then let’s start treating it that way by showing it some respect, and calling time on our preachy lectures around human rights, which started under Obama and have been a continuing irritant to the relationship ever since. An own-goal which gave China an opening it grabbed with both hands. In this regard, for example we should hold our noses and invite Marcos over to celebrate the anniversary of whatever we can think of, and give him the full 21-gun and state dinner treatment.
      Second, we should continue to build and deepen the relationship with the the Armed Forces of the Philippines, including embedding Filipino officers in the 7th Fleet (maybe we’re already doing this…) and we should transfer to them surplus US military equipment in quantity (if we have any left). Especially we should transfer surplus warships, to the extent that we think they could manage them - Coast Guard cutters might be ideal if we have any spare to requirements. Maybe we could transfer the LCSs as they retire, so they can be converted back to the fast ferry ships that was the basis of their original design - with thousands of islands you need a lot of ferries right?
      Third, we should recognise and accept that Filipino society is deeply corrupt and that’s something we need to work with and manage, and not waste our time and alienate people by trying to change. I would get defence manufacturers to fund a few Asia Pacific think tanks to add to the dozens that we already have, not to provide any useful output (it’s nearly all self-serving garbage imo), but rather to give Filipino officers and politicians a decent income stream in retirement (just like we do for our own generals and admirals), along with residency for themselves and their families. We have a big advantage over the Chinese here, because let’s face it, nobody wants to retire to China.
      Fourth, I would fund US-flagged street level projects to improve the life of average Filipinos, which is pretty average at best. Side note: my eye surgeon takes his entire team to the Philippines every two years to perform free cataract surgery. He tells me that people spend weeks travelling hundreds of miles from remote villages as this is the only way for them to stave off blindness. This would need to be done at community level to prevent the funds being stolen by local politicians.
      We could encourage the development of a tourist industry, where theoretically the Philippines has enormous potential. At the moment the experience is third world at best, from the minute you get off the plane - not a decent meal in sight - to the pollution and gridlocked traffic anytime you want to go anywhere.
      College scholarships; high school student exchanges; city twinning; plenty of other stuff probably, but that would be a good start: I’m not holding my breath…

      Delete
    5. "this is what I would do"

      This is an outstanding comment. I don't quite agree with all of it and would offer other measures but it's worlds better than what we're doing now. More importantly, it's logically consistent and offers a great starting point for discussions.

      Very well done.

      "street level projects"

      This seems the most important to me and offers the biggest goodwill return on investment. This addresses the 'street level' impact but we should also make an effort to positively impact/benefit higher level civilian leadership with projects and funding that directly benefit the upper levels. After all, they're the geopolitical decision makers so making them happy should lead to positive results for us.

      Let me build further off your comment ...

      I would also add a second, vital action we should take and that is to get directly involved in Philippine sovereignty enforcement (meaning, confrontation with the Chinese). I'm not talking about giving Philippines equipment or cross training but to use our forces to directly and forcibly confront Chinese incursions into Philippine territorial air/water. This would show the Philippines that we're serious about a relationship with them.

      These two measures offer the best combination of inspiring confidence (forceful confrontation) and friendship (street projects).

      Delete
  3. The Philippines is 2% ethnic Chinese who control half of its businesses, including most large corporations. Some 30% of Filipinos are part Chinese, who were the first foriegners to arrive in Manila (at Tondo) before the Spanish. China is the Philippines primary trading partner and biggest investor and its economy is booming. Tens of thousands of Chinese work there, many illegally. Good luck with getting them to side with us. They don't want to get stuck in a great war like they did in World War II, but will accept whatever money we give. The disputes over tiny uninhabited islands has gone on for a 100 years due to traditional fishing patterns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is your solution? Do we cede the Philippines to China? Do we have any realistic hope of at least getting them to a neutral status in a war? Should we be planning on simply seizing Philippines territory for bases in a war regardless of the country's status? Something else?

      Delete
    2. That 2% number is not far distant from the U.S. percentage of Chinese background. Does not necessarily mean anything. How many of those are nationalists who fled? How many think of China before the Philippines? Numbers lie all the time.

      Delete
    3. "Does not necessarily mean anything. "

      You are correct but not for the reason you think. The population percentage, alone, has little meaning but the percentage of Chinese controlling businesses, government positions, civil services, etc. means everything. So, you're correct that, "Numbers lie all the time", and, in this case, the population percentage masks the impact of that percentage.

      Over the years, I've read several reports about the Chinese use of emigration as a soft weapon leading to the eventual annexation of Philippines. The Chinese take the long view.

      I would also note that China has publicly and explicitly stated that they will militarily come to the aid of foreign Chinese should the need arise. Understanding Chinese methods, this means that China will use the pretext of aiding foreign Chinese in order to implement military action and presence should the need arise for the Chinese government to seize Philippine territory.

      In summary, the fact that a specific number doesn't necessarily mean anything does not mean that it necessarily means nothing.

      To close, here's a quote from Wiki,

      "Chinese Filipinos also play a leading role in the Philippine business sector and dominate the Philippine economy today."

      Delete
    4. If maintaining the moral high ground, spreading democracy and respect human rights are not a concern, just put a pro-US dictator in charge, nationalize all the Chinese owned industries and shove them all on boats.

      Delete
    5. "If maintaining the moral high ground, spreading democracy and respect human rights are not a concern"

      Well ... how has that approach worked out in the Middle East? Sure, ideally we'd like to maintain all our high values but the reality of world may require some adjustments in our dealings with other countries and cultures. For example, we arguably made the Middle East far worse and directly gave rise to ISIS and other terrorist groups when we ousted Sadaam Hussein. He was a ruthless dictator but he enforced a degree of peace and stability.

      Afghanistan simply isn't culturally capable of being a democracy and spent US blood and treasure trying to force it. How many people died as a result?

      "put a pro-US dictator in charge"

      In many cases, this may be the best practical solution we can come up with. Not perfect, but practical.

      "nationalize all the Chinese owned industries and shove them all on boats."

      I know you're attempting to mock but that's a potentially viable solution if nothing else works.

      Delete
    6. Not mocking, just pointing out what has happened to ethnic Chinese in Vietnam after US lost the Vietnam War (hint, it is related to the term “boat people”). Mixed that with the right wing dictators CIA has been helping to put in place in Cold War to prevent Soviet influences I would be more surprised that my solution has not been sitting in some file cabinet in Langley.

      Delete
  4. Tease the Chinese as follows. Declare that Philippine independence was the result of an Unequal Treaty and that the US therefore will return it to the status of a US colony. That'll larn 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think this should be our primary focal point for our world-wide efforts.

    If I had carte blanche I would reinstitute permanent military installations in the Philippines.

    In the world of modern weapons, Subic Bay and Clark AFB are a little too close to China to be primary bases (although they would be great places for refueling and rearming aircraft and naval vessels in peacetime and as long as they last during war).

    Instead I would like to build a substantial naval base near Davao City in Mindanao.
    This naval base would include a NAS and house a Marine regiment.

    Nearby I would have a joint Air Force and Army base that would have a brigade of air assault infantry with helicopter lift.

    These bases would be core for doing a host of activities to solidify our connections to the Philippines; running joint training operations with the Philippine military, working as a staging base for operations in the archipelago, and as a base for infrastructure building in the area using seabees and army engineers. We should station naval forces there to aggressively contest control of the South China Sea.

    China would have a fit when we started doing this, but really who gives a (expletive deleted) what they think about it.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
  6. To keep the Philippines out of a future conflict, China doesn’t need to invade, they just need the country to not take sides and/or agree not to host any US forces that could be used against China. So, the real question is: what would China have to do to pressure the Phillippine government to stay neutral? Recognize some Philippine sovereignty claims in the S China Sea? Threaten to beat the hell out of them? There may be economic screws to twist - China is their second biggest trade partner, but the US is the largest and Japan #3. So the leverage is there but limited. Maybe some combination of all of these?

    This route is cheaper, easier, and less politically damaging than invasion, and gets China the same outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Taiwan’s seizure (or ‘reunification’ as the Chinese would euphemistically put it) is absolutely mandatory for both strategic and cultural reasons. "

    Since Pelosi's visit Taiwan and China organized a large scale drill, US neither issue warning to China with "serious consequences" nor sent naval force to go in the region. USS Reagan's sail path at that time has become a laughingstock.

    Rather than blame Navy or Biden for chicken out, we need to think soberly - like it or not, with new high-tech toys, Chinese navy has gain upper hand in the West Pacific. Need to push hard on military R&D as the nation cannot rely on weapons designed for regional powers to fight a superpower.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This upper hand from high tech weapons give China strategic option to unify the island peacefully with coercive means - through drills to convince Taiwan to give up hope on US, especially convince them even if US sends all carriers to Taiwan, it is still hopeless.

      Watch next week's Zhuhai Air Show - the largest weapon show in China held every two years. Although the show is mainly for promoting weapon exports, they do show advanced weapons even though they are not for sale as to demonstrate Chinese weapon industry's capabilities so as to promote weapons can be sold.

      Delete
    2. "new high-tech toys, Chinese navy has gain upper hand in the West Pacific."

      What 'high-tech toys' have the Chinese got that have given them the upper hand?

      What they have over the US is willpower and determination. They're willing to use what they have to achieve their goals and the US is not. It has nothing to do with technology.

      Delete
    3. Don't forget industry. They've got more shipyards and industrial capacity than we do. We build one DDG a year and struggled to launch even 30 LCSes; the Chinese build multiple ships every year.

      Even assuming a better than even trade of ships in a naval conflict, the Chinese are in a better position to regenerate lost ships than we are.

      Delete
    4. In hind sight, the one of the biggest US mistake in containing China is not helping Taiwan to abolish Republic of China ASAP when Bill Clinton had the carriers defending Taiwan in 1996.

      The setup was just perfect, you had a RoC president that is in favor of it, a Taiwanese population just gain the right to vote, with a significant number of them that is really pissed off at RoC’s existence, while also pissed off at PRC firing missile at them for gaining the right to vote. The PRC navy was also powerless to prevent a fait accompli unlike the juggernaut we are facing today. In return US will get a “get out of jail free” card in by stating they still respect One China, except Taiwan is not part of (Republic of) China anymore due to the will of Taiwanese people.

      Delete
    5. China's new toy:

      https://www.twz.com/news-features/our-best-look-yet-chinas-new-stealthy-trimaran-drone-ship

      Delete
    6. China's new UAV under construction is larger than its export version. How will they use this kind of UAV? coastal patrol? in the South China Sea to defend manmade islands?

      Delete
  8. A take-give grand bargain. State-hood (51st) to the Philippine, and cede SCS to the Chinese. The former will ensure China never thinks about infringing on the U.S. territory (thus our security sphere of influence perpetually ensured), the latter will give China the commercial security to their trade route. Too bad such card is not for Taiwan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "and cede SCS to the Chinese."

      I don't know how to break this to you but the Chinese already own the SCS in a brilliant, peacetime fait accompli.

      "The former will ensure China never thinks about infringing on the U.S. territory"

      Are you sure? China currently sends spy balloons across US territory, transits US territorial waters with naval vessels, seizes US drones and manned aircraft/crew, routinely violates the territorial waters of many SCS countries, etc. Why would they suddenly respect the US?

      Delete
    2. Let’s go back to original dilemma,

      What do we want? (maintain our empire without getting into a war with a MAD power). Yet, what do we do? (prepare to fight a MAD power so we can maintain our empire).

      What does China want? (Return to its natural status thru trade and other non-war means without getting into a war with the US.). Yet, what does it do? (Preparing a defensive A2D2 against a MAD power to deter us.)

      What is happening ? (China, a smarter “imperial Japan” is pushing the little guys thru non-warring means to nudge us out in the Westpac. And we’re preparing a war we can’t afford the potentially MAD consequence. In sum, China is winning and we got the wrong tool to counter that).

      So, what should we do? (Setting Taiwan aside for now and if war preparation is a non-usable end; let’s make the little guy an instant giant so it can’t be touched, at the same time acknowledge China’s aspiration to fulfill its natural status).

      The bottom line: we cannot fantasize a war( and its preparation) against a MAD power. Same goes with China. So we must fight and win with non-war means like China does.

      Delete
  9. The operational difficulties for the US to seize and/or defend bases in the Philippine are similar for China. In both case the logistical pipeline will be hard to sustain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta completely disagree. The Chinese supply line is 100% enclosed within the Chinese controlled (and densely militarily populated - meaning, heavily defended) E/S China Seas. In contrast, the US has to cross thousands of miles of very lightly defended seas that are susceptible to Chinese submarine, bomber, and missile/ballistic attack.

      Regarding distance, the Philippines are 500+ miles from the Chinese coast/ports/airbases, depending on the specific locations. In contrast, the US is 7000 miles from, say, San Francisco to Manila.

      The Chinese supply line will be easy to maintain (as easy as anything is in war!). The US supply line will be a challenge.

      On top of that, when one factors in the availability of cargo ships, the Chinese are vastly better equipped for resupply efforts.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.