The U.S. isn’t ready for a conflict in Asia
Korea’s attitude toward its territorial argument with Japan is symptomatic of the central emerging strategic reality in Asia: Much of the region is passing through a sort of geopolitical identity crisis, with key regional powers determined to find a more elaborate role for themselves. Globalization and interdependence are making people nostalgic for a more secure grasp on local cultures and traditions. The result is likely to be a period whose major risks of conflict will derive less from intentional calculations of national advantage than from a boiling clash of identity, pride, prestige, nationalism, and honor.
The conventional wisdom says that the main test of American strategy in Asia is the “rise of China.” In fact, a far bigger challenge may be the growing dominance of these emotional identity issues, because traditional U.S. instruments of statecraft are simply not well suited to dealing with them. A year into the “pivot to Asia,” Washington has designed a strategy for a 21st century, Soviet-style deterrence challenge: cold, calculating, pragmatic. Yet when dealing with the psycho-social dramas of countries clashing over pride and identity as much as interests, America’s usual m.o. may not have the intended effect. Remarkably, the major strategic risk confronting the United States in Asia today may be its insistence on thinking “strategically.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Eh, send Bark over there in his bomber jacket, maybe add a brace of toy cap pistols on his hip, and our enemies will run for the
hillsrice terraces.Bishop on November 5, 2012 at 5:43 PM
Balkans.
OldEnglish on November 5, 2012 at 5:44 PM
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – The most famous of which is “never get involved in a land war in Asia” – but only slightly less well-known is this: “Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”!
jrouse9394 on November 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM
We aren’t ready for a conflict against a real enemy ANYWHERE. Our tanks and armored vehicles are leftovers from the 1980′s. The factories that built them are gone. If we took any substantial losses, we would not be able to replace them.
Same with aircraft. We could not replace aircraft at any significant rate. Again, the plants that built the “Cold War” airforce are gone. Same with the shipyards for ships.
We could not replace combat losses in any are of equipment and it would take about a decade to get to the point where we could. The first thing we would need to build is steel mills. Ours are gone. We can’t have a conflict in Asia where most of our steel comes from without having an alternative source of steel. We have no mills. Also, we have no merchant shipping. We don’t have ANYTHING that we would need to fight against a technically capable foe.
crosspatch on November 5, 2012 at 5:52 PM
Unfortunately this may be true. The problem is that the more we are not ready for a conflict the more likely one of our enemies will give us one.
MikeA on November 5, 2012 at 6:03 PM
Dude, we are not fighting in Asia. I’m tried, just drop the big one.
Oil Can on November 5, 2012 at 6:20 PM
We are fighting in Asia, in a country which shares a border with China. The dear fellow seems not to mean ‘Asia’ so much as ‘the Far East’, or perhaps better, ‘the Western Pacific.’
Scribbler on November 5, 2012 at 6:24 PM
“Never get involved in a land war in Asia.” It’s one of the classic blunders.
Frank Enstine on November 5, 2012 at 6:26 PM
In a word: CHINA.
It’s just not politically correct right now to point out that China is a geopolitical threat. So instead, he just kind of jabbers aimlessly about whether or not it’s possible to wage war against a tectonic plate.
logis on November 5, 2012 at 6:51 PM
Because the M1a2 SEP/TUSk is just a cast-off hold-over from the 1980′s and the Stryker just another left-over. We have the MOST M-1 equivalents int he world, the Russians,the PRC, the British, or the French ahve a tither of the modern heavy armour of the US.
Well again since we expect a favourable exchange rate due to technology (F-22/35), force multipliers (AWACS) and outstanding flight crew we aren’t going to have to replace these aircraft at even Vietnam rates! Again, we will have more 4th generation a/c than the rest of the world combined, soon.
Of course the US fields 10-12 Heavy CV’s and and equal number of “Harrier Carriers” in the Gator Navy, more than the resto fthe world combined!
Except electronics, software, GPS, outstanding training facilities, and the worlds most abundant and capable hardware, I mean other than that, you’re right we have NOTHING.
JFKY on November 5, 2012 at 6:51 PM
Or, apparently, in Benghazi.
rbj on November 5, 2012 at 7:09 PM