Historical parallels are notoriously imprecise, but having just finished reading “In the Garden of the Beasts“, I was again struck by how obvious were the militarist designs of the Nazi regime in pre-war Germany, and how contortionist were the efforts of diplomats throughout Europe and the US to ignore them. Apart from his rough treatment of German Jews, people wanted to believe that Hitler was good for Germany and take at face value his frequently expressed desire for peace, refusing to see that desire had an expiration date attached: The acquisition of military powers sufficient to implement his lebensraum strategy.
In the 21st Century, China-watchers speak of managing that vast and dictatorial nation’s rise on the international stage, hoping to influence the People’s Republic to play a responsible regional and international role.
Somehow, the ChiComs always manage to disappoint:
In the final weeks of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s battle with Libyan rebels, Chinese state companies offered to sell his government large stockpiles of weapons and ammunition in apparent violation of United Nations sanctions, officials of Libya’s transitional government said Sunday. They cited Qaddafi government documents found by a Canadian journalist, which the officials said were authentic.
The documents, including a memo from Libyan security officials detailing a shopping trip to Beijing on July 16, appear to show that state-controlled Chinese arms companies offered to sell $200 million worth of rocket launchers, antitank missiles, portable surface-to-air missiles designed to bring down aircraft, and other weapons and munitions. The documents, in Arabic, were posted on Sunday on the Web site of The Globe and Mail, a Toronto newspaper.
The Chinese companies apparently suggested that the arms be delivered through third countries like Algeria or South Africa. Like China, those countries opposed the United Nations authorization of NATO military action against Qaddafi forces in Libya, but said they supported the arms embargo imposed by an earlier United Nations resolution.
Of closer interest to this maritime nation is China’s plans to operationalize their aircraft carrier as a strategic asset under a “Fourth Fleet” construct. Whereas we here at home navel-gaze, when we ought to be instead casting our gaze upon the correlation of naval forces, according to Princeton professor of politics Aaron Friedberg:
With Democrats eager to protect social spending and Republicans anxious to avoid tax hikes, and both saying the national debt must be brought under control, we can expect sustained efforts to slash the defense budget. Over the next 10 years, cuts in planned spending could total half a trillion dollars. Even as the Pentagon saves money by pulling back from Afghanistan and Iraq, there will be fewer dollars with which to buy weapons or develop new ones.
Unfortunately, those constraints are being imposed just as America faces a growing strategic challenge. Fueled by economic growth of nearly 10 percent a year, China has been engaged for nearly two decades in a rapid and wide-ranging military buildup. China is secretive about its intentions, and American strategists have had to focus on other concerns since 9/11. Still, the dimensions, direction and likely implications of China’s buildup have become increasingly clear.
China probably does not want direct conflict with the United States, which is both its principal borrower and largest trading partner. The US also maintains the world’s dominant naval force – truly, a global force for good – which at least in part explains the PRC’s goal of creating an anti-access/area denial capability.
This defensive capability is in itself aggravating to America’s favored balanced power arrangement with Asian partners. But China’s acquisition of the offensive, blue water naval capability inherent to a carrier battle group clearly indicates that Middle Kingdom wants more than just a larger say in regional affairs. By expanding its naval operations beyond the South China Sea, China telegraphs an intention to be a player in the world-wide sea lines of communication to strategic resources. The opportunities for miscalculation multiply.
The war-weary, 1930′s era members of the State Department’s “Pretty Good Club“, yearned for a newly rising Germany to be a responsible partner on the world stage. The wish became the instrument, and the maker of the wish the agent – so much so that they deliberately overlooked the unmistakeable evidence that Hitler was playing a zero sum game.
As is China.
History repeats: Beyond the acquisition of offensive naval armaments, this is never made more manifestly clear than when China’s leadership – presented a no-cost opportunity to do the right thing – so often chooses to be unhelpful.
To paraphrase, “Wish in one hand, spit in the other. See which one fills up first…”
Our leadership, both civilian and military, seem to be operating mostly on wishes lately. Is there a pragmatic leader on the horizon? I guess I’m wishing for one.
I’ve said it before…China behaves in a way disturbingly reminiscent of Wilhelmine Germany. They combine a sense of inferiority with increasing power and lack of tact.
It’s a dangerous combination.
Mike M. & VX: Add to the equation that China has nukes, which nobody had back when Germany was building up to war, and our 50-year display of “lack-a-balls” (since we stood eye-to-eye with the USSR over Cuba) or whatever it will take for the USA to truly confront a nuclear regime doing the bad thing. We’ve shown very little desire to take the hard (but correct IMHO) course of action in regard to North Korea or Iran. And Iran has been killing U.S. citizens and soldiers for 30 years now, directly or through proxies, yet we have done virtually nothing to change their direction despite their commitment to bring an end to our one true friend in the middle east. We have all said it, and we all know it: If you delay action on the problem, you are just faced with a bigger and worse problem when you are forced to confront it. This applies across the board and our government, and both parties, are fine with treating the problem as they do Medicare and Social Security = kick it down the road so someone else can make the hard decisions. It’s malfeasance of office and absolute failure to live up to the oaths they all took to start in office…reason to throw the lot out.
I wouldn’t say that Wilhelmine Germany had a sense of inferiority. They did have a sense of distrust of their neighbors. A popular song of the time was “Wacht am Rhein,” or “Watch On The Rhein.” Note that Germany had enemies both east and west. Pfalz was laid waste by Louis XIV, and Prussia destroyed by Napoleon. Poland had taken pieces of Germany, and Fredrick The Great was down to drafting 14 year olds in a war with Russia that ended only with the death of the Monarch. Germany had been a battleground during teh 30 years war, and once again in the Napoleonic Wars.
Historically, Germany had no reason to feel inferior. Germany did have reason to fear her neighbors. Very good reason.
While I culd never get a clear answer as to why Hitler was accepted in the manner he was, as an outsider we can see the red flags,particularly in retrospect. The US had a part in that when Wilson got us into a war where we did not belong. We had no dog in the fight and should have stayed out. Using the sinking of the Lusitania, an auxiliary cruiser of the Royal Navy, as a Casus Beli was transparently stupid. Wilsonism has done us no favors and caused to expend blood and treasure for little or no gain over the years.
I disagree. Wilhemline Germany was rife with a sense of inferiority. It showed in the grasping for colonies that were of no profit. And in the whole “place in the sun” rhetoric.
Not that they WERE inferior. Far from it. But the attitude made Germany more bellicose than they should have been.
You can disagree if you like. That’s your privelege.
Lex is obviously dead on here in his concerns. Lex has touched upon several of the reasons for our current head-in-the-sand, whistling-past-the-grave-yard approach (very hard to do simultaneously physical-wise, but we seem to be doing just fine metaphorically-speaking) but I would add to the calculus that our failure to gird our loins for looming challenges China represents is explained by the same reason that present-day “Western Civilization” studiously refuses to accept the existential mortal challenge Islam in ALL its forms presents to the West, i.e., the almost superhuman effort (financial, psychological, political) that will be required of our entire society to resist/cope with these challenges.
The agnostic philosopher/critic of religion Sam Harris has labeled modern Christianity and Western Civilization in general as being “suicidily naive” in how we view the Islamic threat. I would suggest he add that posed by China to his list of threats we are collectively “suicidily naive” about..
I would modify “Modern Christianity” to “Modern Leftwing Christianity.” IN my evangelical circles we can see where things are headed with Islam. The leftists, as always, are living in their normal alternate reality.
Any comparison between Nazi Germany and China is quite a massive stretch in time and circumstance. Nuclear capabilities along with interdependent Globalization are only two of a wide variety of differences.
Major powers no longer can go head to head. Yes, proxy wars still exist. But they are foolish. Vietnam was lost not because of military might. Rather it was the fear of a Soviet or Chinese intervention and escalation. A foolish strategy that made for a foolish and failed war.
In view of China’s naval plans, perhaps Russia should start rebuilding their fleet. They are far more vulnerable to China’s growing Navy . . . as is Japan, … or maybe Brazil?
Vietnam was lost in 1975 in the halls of Congress. It had nothing to do with the Soviet Union or The Red Chinese. The usual leftist suspects prevented Ford from honoring the Geneva accords. Mansfield, Kennedy, Church, McGovern, and the other idiots have the blood of millions on their hands.
Vietnam was lost (1) from 1964 forward as LBJ & Co misused / failed to use the military might of the USA in a proper fashion so that what should have been a relatively short conflict turned into a long one because we allowed the little guy to build, grow, diversify, etc.; (2) The war was also lost from the beginning due to our failure to insist that the So. Vietnamese have direct and primary responsibility for the war and that their governmental / social systems be changed to support a successful effort. We shot ourselves in the foot, no doubt about it. And we lost. And Congress was dishonorable, big surprise, in not honoring the promises given to the So. Viets…not that it would have stopped their loss eventually given that their system sucked and could not provide or support a South Korea-quality military.
SteveC is quite correct regarding our failure in Vietnam.
Henry Kissinger recently stated that our goal in Vietnam was “unachievable.” The reason he continued: “America wanted compromise,” Hanoi wanted victory.” [Indeed!]
Even more telling is famous fighter pilot Robin Olds’ meeting with President Johnson and his National Security Advisor Walt Rostow in 1968 I believe. With the war not going well Olds was asked what needed to be done about the War?
From his biography, Olds correctly replied, “Win it!”
“Rostow was floored. ‘You mean mine the harbors? That is an act of war! That’ll bring down the Chinese,’” he said, ignorantly.
Of course by the time we finally did mine the harbors in 1972 and bomb Hanoi, it was a little late. The dye was cast and we were set upon pulling chocks with ‘Vietnamization’ … 58,000+ good men and a number of women too late.
Congress did not lose Vietnam in the early ’70s. It was doomed to failure from the start. Olds got into a lot of trouble in the ’60s for telling the press publicly what we needed to do in Vietnam – win or get out. He was right, but mostly alone.
We won it on the battlefield. Kissenger signed a dishonorable treaty allowing the NVA to remain in place instead of requiring them to withdraw. The doshonoring of the treaty in Congress was where the loss took place.
The Christmas bombing of 1972 brought the North back to the table in fear of what we would continue to do if they did not act reasonably. Kiseenger threw it away, although he did keep the provision for support of the RVN.
The troops won it in spite of the politicians. The North had been reduced to a cemetary. You can say what you will, but it was lost by a dishonorable leftist Congress that wanted us to lose.
QM – War is larger than the battlefields. We lost. Full Stop.
Nixon spent all that time and energy setting up conditions to allow the mining of harbors. He isolated the battlefield in Vietnam, but not from the Left in America.
Nixon needed to replace the luminaries on the left that cost so many lives. His congressional and anti-media strategy was where Nixon failed.
Our servicemen did what they could.
Servicemen lost in Vietnam and the Vietnamese boat people can be added as another mite to the pile of dead the Left are responsible for. It amazes me that even today, with over a hundred years of experience, that anyone can claim the Left’s philosophy is not evil incarnate.
Just statistics, and we’re not to blame, the Left would say. Plus the Left’s intentions are good.
NaClyDog – My goodness! So my leftist philosophy is “evil incarnate?”
Maybe I should quickly go to Confession and be absolved. Ya think?
Salty, I didn’t say we didn’t lose. I just placed the blame where it belonged.
Last I talked with you, Flit, you drove F-4s over Uncle Ho’s paradise. So, you did your part, which the rest of the left threw away in DC.
QM, distinction noted. Tis ever thus, methinks. Don’t hate the playa, hate the game. It’s a quandary as to how to do better. Few leaders can pull it off. Perhaps Eisenhower was the last President to do so well.
Fliterman, I honor your service. You occasionally post wisely, and I do need to be at my best to disagree with you. We will, in all probability, continue to talk past one another. It’s the happening thing today.
The Left is seductive in the self-esteem it bestows on it’s followers. Based on outcomes, from the Soviet Union, North Korea, Maoist China, Iran, the propaganda by the deed, to Zimbabwe, the philosophical underpinnings of the Left are flawed in human societies. The ideas of the Left do not work for the mass of a society. They work for the comfort of the leaders of that society — for a while. Death and suffering follow in any society with the Left in total control.
As a scientist, I would be regarded as a failure if I had that many experiments, and disregarded or explained away the results like the Left does. The Left is to successful human societies as Aristotle’s theories are to Quantum Mechanics.
“Interdependent Globalization”.
That chimera is always paraded out as the magic wand to erase any casus belli on the part of our rival and sometimes-enemy China. But throughout history, particularly that of the last century, it has never, ever held water.
France’s largest trading partner in 1913? Imperial Germany. Germany’s numbers one and two in 1913? England and France. Russia was also a top trading partner.
The same in 1938. Russia being fifth among trading partners. Poland, sixth. By 1941, Germany had declared war on all of them.
Japan’s largest trading partner in 1940? Yep. The United States. Britain was third, IIRC. We know how that turned out.
We should eventually come to grips with the concept that, when a nation wishes regional hegemony and a seat at the world table, it is often willing to disrupt commerce in order to obtain a more favorable position/situation.
Oh, and not just for hot wars. The Soviets’ largest trading partner in 1945? Those capitalist dogs in America. Just before the Iron Curtain came down.
We do seem to just keep declaring “Peace” prematurely, don’t we?
They’re better at the long view than we are. For us, even the most thoughtful politicians (whoever they might be) can’t plan past the next election cycle, force planners can’t count on anything past the next budget cycle, and business execs can’t look much further than the next shareholders’ meeting. Add the ADD-ish news cycle we’ve imposed on ourselves, and our collective tendency to view the board as though we’re playing mirror images of ourselves…
For them? If it takes a generation to develop proficiency in blue-water ops, amphibious warfare, deep strike, heavy logistics, and all the other skillsets for power projection, then, as far as they’re concerned, that’s how long it takes; they’re perfectly willing to do economy-of-force ops by supporting bad actors to keep us distracted while they prep.
Even if it works out better than I think we have any right to expect, it’s going to be expensive on more levels than just financial…
The thing is, China as we know it doesn’t have a generation. Their one-child policy has led to a significant gender imbalance which is starting to come of age. In 20 years there’s going to be a massive aging of the population that’ll make our Boomer problems seem trivial. Not to mention the potential housing bubble that has yet to pop, the cronyist loans, the currency manipulation, or the general lack of economic transparency.
10% annual growth is easy when you’re picking the low hanging fruit. It becomes much harder when you have to actually innovate. China is also starting to see competition from below from places like Vietnam, India and Africa.
Perhaps. The flip side of that, in two parts: a) they’ll have a great deal of economic pressure to make “let’s go take it” military adventures even more tempting; coupled with b) a whole lot of single male cannon fodder to throw into the mix.
Perhaps I’m overly pessimistic, but I’d rather be wrong in my direction than the other direction.
I was again struck by how obvious were the militarist designs of the Nazi regime in pre-war Germany, and how contortionist were the efforts of diplomats throughout Europe and the US to ignore them.
In hindsight, yes. At the time … yes, the European leaders were being stupid, but perhaps not in the way you think. They all thought they could go right back to the power games that had defined their world before the Great War. France and Britain looked the other way when Germany began to re-arm because France and Britain wanted a strong Central European power to stand as a bulwark against the aggressively expansionist Soviet Union. None of them understood yet that the Great War had changed all the rules, and the old game of Euro-politics was obsolete. But they did understand that, with the horrors of the Great War fresh in people’s minds, they didn’t have any popular support for trying to rein in Germany until it was much, much too late.
this is never made more manifestly clear than when China’s leadership – presented a no-cost opportunity to do the right thing – so often chooses to be unhelpful.
What is “the right thing,” though? The rulers of the Middle Kingdom have always taken a very China-centric view of the world. Maybe from their point of view, being unhelpful is “the right thing.”
By expanding its naval operations beyond the South China Sea, China telegraphs an intention to be a player in the world-wide sea lines of communication to strategic resources.
And from their point of view, this is a bad thing because …?
I myself think we should be very afraid of China exerting control over the Western Pacific sea-lanes. But if we want to prevent that, we have to give the Chinese rulers a reason that seems valid in their own China-centric frame of reference. How can we possibly convince China that it’s in China’s best interests to not become a power player in its own regional waters? Consider how we felt when the Royal Navy ruled the waters even off the US East Coast, and we could do nothing to stop them?
I don’t fault the Chinese leadership from taking a China-centric view. That’s their job.
But China, like Wilhelmine Germany, is making enemies of former friends. Making moves that destabilize the power balance to the point where other nations feel compelled to rearm. Wanting to secure their SLOCs is a sensible desire. But China needs to realize that getting aggressive will drive the US, Japan, South Korea, the Phillippines, Australia, Singapore, and India to arm – and they are all in a position to strike at the Chinese SLOCs to the Middle East. A smarter move would be to cooperate with the United States. Forget invading Taiwan – trade formal diplomatic recognition for some air and naval basing rights specifically for shipping protection. Divide the oil wealth of the South China Sea. Use soft power to establish China in a leadership position, and confine competition with the other powers to the spheres of business and sport.
It’s the sort of thing Bismark would have done.
One can only hope we find our “FDR” somewhere on the horizon to get things straight again (and hope that this time he isn’t a near-socialist Democrat
)
flit and wolf…you missed the point (or made it for Lex with your comments):
The point is that everyone is making excuses for China (as they did with Germany pre-1940); are we doomed to repeat that failure? And looking at it through the prism of China’s view is useless…even a terrorist thinks that what he’s doing is for the right reawithsons.
I also think the idea that war between great powers is obsolete due to nukes…with each new weapon, pundits have always declared war as they knew it was obsolete. They were proved wrong each time.
Someone missed someone’s point, Hummer Driver, but I’m not sure it’s who you think it is.
I don’t make excuses for aggressor nations – not in today’s world, nor in the world of eighty years ago. However, I do believe that making decisions based on incomplete data is almost as bad as making decisions based on no data. I think Lex’s thoughts on European politics in the 1930s were based on incomplete information. There was a reason the other Western Powers allowed Germany to rearm in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. To those who made that decision, it seemed like a good reason. Not everyone agreed with them. Some people saw (rightly, as we now know) that the decision would prove disastrous. But that doesn’t mean the people who made the decision were stupid. I think that understanding why they made that decision is useful in recognizing it when the same situation arises again, and hopefully making a different and better decision. (Although so far in dealing with Iran, it seems that hope is forlorn.)
“And looking at it through the prism of China’s view is useless…even a terrorist thinks that what he’s doing is for the right reasons.”
Not useless. Never useless. “Know the enemy and know yourself, and you will always be victorious.” (Sun-tzu, of course) If you don’t understand the other guy’s POV, you can’t oppose him effectively. Note that I didn’t say “agree with” or even “accept as valid,” I just said “understand.” I understand why islamist terrorists do what they do, which is why I conclude the only way to deal with them is to kill them before they have a chance to kill me. I don’t understand why China’s leadership is being belligerent, so I’m not sure of the best way to oppose it. Are they like the islamists, who understand no language but force? Or are they rational folks with legitimate grievances that can be recognized and settled?
But each new invention has ended war as it was known. The development of the stirrup emplaced cavalry on top of the battlefield, the invention of gunpowder knocked it off. The minie ball ended most of the infantry formations of the ppNapoleonic wars, and the machine gun finished the rest. Tanks, airplanes, and blitzkrieg put an end to fortifications. Nuclear weapons and ICBMs made tanks nearly useless.
Never again will we see large-scale tank battles. Nuclear powers don’t need them, and second-tier countries saw Saddam spend billions on a first-rate conventional army only to have it disassembled in 6 weeks. The only course to military significance is through nuclear weapons, thus India and Iran.
War has changed again. It is now something more subtle, more covert. It consists of forcing ones opponents into having to choose between backing down or ending civilization. Saber rattling, demonsrations of resolve, and proxy wars are the way of the future. Until the next invention.
*reasons (sorry)
You have to be able to get into the mind of your opponent to some extent to be able to see teh problems he’s facing and allow for those things in your own planning. Neither teh Brits or Frogs did that with Hitler because of their own military weakness and unwillingness to run the danger of starting another great war. To understand that all you need do is look at the casualty figures for battles like Ypres to see the utter terror they faced when making any decision that might lead to war.
After the Great War, the British Empire was a dead man walking. The French tried to reimpose themselves on tehr Asian colonies, but lost that battle. Although the French really thought they could take up their colonies where they left off in 1941, the Brits knew better, but tried anyway in Kenya, and lost.
There is some justice in teh accusations of shortsightedness on teh part of the Europeans. However, they truly feared another great war and were trying to avoid it. When versailles was forced down Germany’s throat, however, there was little chance of it.
J-20 (2011) = A6M (1940), just sayin’
I have my doubts about that. The danger I see is having enough AC to take the fight to them. Frankly, I have serious doubts we’re going to have to worry about it. Globally, we are on the brink of becoming irrelevant.
Greetings:
It’s almost like nobody reads Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations…” anymore including our current administration which somehow managed to ignore the author’s advice to avoid internecine Muslim conflicts such as the above mentioned Great Libyan Adventure,
My current image of our foreign relations is like one of those nature programs where the “King of the Beasts” lion is trying to protect his kill from a pack of aggressive hyenas. The Lion is the good old USofA, the kill is the world economy, and the hyenas are all those muslims, commies, and somewhat reformed commies who love their hate. China, obviously, is not not only the most dangerous but also the beneficiary of a culture that thinks in terms of generations as opposed to election cycles. The Chinese have been establishing themselves both politically and economically throughout the world to meet their resource needs. The recent imbroglio about “rare earth metals” was an excellent example of the “Middle Kingdom” way of doing things. They have 5000 years of history and they will make use of it all.