A Problem With Deterrence Theory
Deterrence depends upon America’s overwhelming economic, political and military capability against an adversary and the belief by that enemy that America has the intent to use that capability if attacked. However, that does not mean that if America places an enemy in an untenable position involving its fear, honor and/or critical interests, that the enemy might choose war rather than back down. An example of a massive failure of deterrence theory was Japan’s decision to wage war against America during the Second World War. Even though Japan’s leaders believed they could not win a long-term war against America, they still made the decision to attack us at Pearl Harbor, hoping in vain that America would eventually settle for peace. The point is that battles and wars break out for numerous reasons, and it is dangerous and wrong, to rely only on deterrence theory for protection.
Hegemonic Wars
The primary security concern currently facing America is the threat of a major hegemonic war with China. There have been at least three hegemonic wars in modern times which completely changed the way society was organized.
The first was the Thirty Years War (1619 to 1648). This war was fought over three political, economic and ideological issues dealing with the European state system. The specific issues were: Was Europe to be controlled by the Habsburg imperial dynasty or independent nation-states; was feudalism or capitalism to be the primary mode of economic organization; and was the Catholic or Protestant religion to be dominant.
The second modern hegemonic war was the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1792 to 1815). These wars also dealt with political, economic and ideological issues namely: Whether France or Great Britain would control Europe’s political system; whether mercantilist or market mechanisms would organize economics; and whether republican or conservative political forms would be the basis of domestic society.
The third modern hegemonic war was World War One (1914 to 1918) and World War Two (1939 to 1945) which can be considered one long war. Among the primary issues of World War One was the British-German naval arms race which was a classic version of a status quo nation-state being threatened by a rising power; the French-German animosity dating back to France’s defeat by Prussia/Germany in 1871 which gave Alsace and some parts of Lorraine to Germany; and the Russian-German/Austrian rivalry in the Balkans. World War Two was in many ways dealing with the unfinished business and failure of World War One’s Treaty of Versailles (1919) which led to the rise of Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.
The possible fourth modern hegemonic war could involve America vs. China. Once again the issues would be political, economic and ideological. Will America continue to dominate the economic (free markets over socialism) and political/ideological (democracy over authoritarianism) systems of most of the world or will China supplant America’s leadership position and will China use force to do so.
The bottom line is that hegemonic wars change everything and bring about a new regional or world order. Time will tell if we, in the near future, are about to engage in and witness yet another life-changing hegemonic war.
China Has Revealed What It Really Thinks
Just a few years ago in 2010, the careful non-aggressive, non-coercive diplomacy that China had been conducting for many years was brutally repudiated by China’s Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi when he told the ASEAN conference meeting in Hanoi that the world better get used to the concept that there are “big countries” and “small countries.” The implication was clear. China was big and the rest of them were small.
His quote sounded reminiscent of the infamous quote from Thucydides when quoting the ancient Athenians who said, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
Are we again going to make the mistake of not listening to, or believing, what people say. We should not forget that Adolph Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” told the world in the 1920’s what he planned to do if he were to gain power.
It is imperative that we listen carefully to what China’s representatives are saying and deconstruct the truth from the lies. We need to discern China’s real aims. In that regard, when their Foreign Minister states that the world better get used to the concept that there are big countries and small countries we should accept that this is how China really views the world and understand the unspoken threat included in that statement.
Forward Presence Vs. Offshore Balancing In The Western Pacific
There is some controversy over the current strategic concept of military ‘forward presence’ in the Western Pacific in order for America to project power and continue to maintain its and its allies security in the region. There are some who think that ‘offshore balancing’ should replace this costly military strategy. Offshore balancing basically means letting other nation-states in a region of the world deal with any aggressive hegemon in that region.
The problem with the concept is that this approach tends to lead to an arms race among many of the stronger countries in the impacted region which then destabilizes the security environment, making armed conflict more likely than less. The concept also presumes that if offshore balancing is not successful that America would come to the aid of its allies in that region if they were not able to deal with the hegemon on their own. Offshore balancing is what America initially tried to do during the First and Second World Wars however that resulted in a very deadly although ultimately successful outcome. While America was able to become a force in ending those wars, it came at a terrible cost in lives and treasure because America had to fight to take back territory that the enemy had already seized.
So, while maintaining a military forward presence in the Western Pacific is expensive, it is the least risky concept for America to continue to follow. In fact it has worked to prevent any major near-peer war in the region since the end of the Second World War.