Image via Wikipedia
After a few days of foreign travel I had a chance to hear President Obama's recent speech on the proposed build up of U.S. military forces and resources in the Asia Pacific region. With the runup to the 2012 presidential elections, I could consider the speech merely politics. A strong defense policy and the related job creation from military spending always play well to the electorate. However, I think the speech was not for the benefit of the U.S. electorate.
The speech also reminded me of the Cold War days when the U.S. constantly rattled sabers at the Russians. In the nicest of terms and based on some set of policies related to the rule of law and democracy, the U.S. increased its military presence somewhere or entered into a new defense treaty with a partner country. Since the end of the Cold War the U.S. has had no unifying, large vision to bring the country together with a purpose. Maybe defending the Asia Pacific region is this new "vision", equivalent to the 1950-1980 period of "preventing the spread of communism". Of course, we no longer have a strong economy to finance such a plan given that the post-WWII economic boom is now long over.
One might also want to consider the U.S. record of military engagements in Asia since WWII. We have fought major conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan. While some, if not all, of these military engagements were justified, not a single one has ended well or advanced U.S. interests effectively. There has never been an armistice in Korea and North Korea now leads the list of the world's rogue nations. Vietnam tore apart the U.S. and did nothing to stop the spread of communism. Afghanistan is now ten years into a war that has no end in sight and only demeans the reputation of the U.S. as a world leader. One might also note the thousands of lives lost by U.S. servicemen in these conflicts. In summary, the U.S. has a poor record in Asia when it has exercised its military muscle.
It must be acknowledged that China is a growing economic and military force in Asia. With the possible exception of India or Japan, no Asian nation has the economic scale to build up a counter balancing force to the Chinese military. Neither of these countries has demonstrated any willingness to step up to face the Chinese, which might be a significant fact for the U.S. to note. Of course it could be that both of these Asian powers believe that a military build up is not the most effective way to deal with China. Another point for the U.S. to note. One could argue that neither of these countries has developed an effective military that can extend its military power beyond their own borders, but that again might be something for the U.S. to note in devising a strategy.
Lastly, I question whether the U.S. needs to be the world's policeman. Set aside that the U.S. can no longer afford such a role, how will Asia learn to resolve its conflicts peacefully if the default is the U.S. military presence. Perhaps we need to see how much military muscle China is willing to exercise before the U.S. expands its military commitments in Asia. Another alternative is for our "partner" countries in Asia to expand their own military resources. If they are not willing to do this in a meaningful way, then perhaps they should accept their fate or learn better to co-exist with the Chinese.
In closing, I think Obama's speech was reckless and only encourages the Chinese to accelerate their military buildup. More disappointing, the U.S. may be using the old U.S. "war fighting" strategy rather than look for new alternatives with China. Asia is too large geographically and the U.S. economy is at its weakest state since the 1930s. The U.S. cannot successfully execute a military strategy in Asia.
A previous post on U.S. military strategy is here.
After writting this post I found a very interesting article on the subject. "Hegemony with Chinese Characteristics" in The National Interest provides thoughtful insight into the history of clashes between dominant and emerging powers. Written by Aaron Friedberg, a professor at Princeton, Friedberg argues that a military confrontation is perhaps inevitable based on history and the different ideological beliefs of China and the U.S.
Note: Hegemony is defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group".
