Partly this new alliance is noteworthy for who it leaves out: Canada and New Zealand, the other two of the 'Five Eyes' system. Partly it's noteworthy because we snaked the submarine fleet building contract out from under France, who will be angry. We may be damaging two different core alliances to set up this new front.
Wretchard notes that it looks like we're drawing lines that will exclude some other allies:
[A]s a practical matter the Philippines, Formosa — as Taiwan was once known — and Korea will be hard to defend in the first onslaught of a Pacific War. They will be defended if possible but not to the end. In the event of such a loss, Australia and Japan will be to the US what Britain was in 1940: the last line.
We could approach China more aggressively, and in a plausibly deniable fashion that would force them to fight wars we could stay out of ourselves. It should be noted that we almost did one of the things suggested there:
At the same time, as we are withdrawing from Afghanistan, the President could order the transfer of large amounts of small arms and ammunition stored there to the Uighur tribes who live in Afghanistan.
Missed it by that much. Maybe the Taliban will take up the jihad for their Islamic brethren under PRC oppression.
12 comments:
We may be damaging two different core alliances to set up this new front.
With Germany's carefully considered decision to turn its back on its own NATO commitment, along with a number of other European NATO member nations doing the same, I'm not convinced NATO remains a core alliance.
Better (although Biden is unlikely to do so) would be a new alliance with the Eastern European nations and Great Britain, and the continued redeployment of our forces in Germany into Poland and the Baltics. Once this alliance is up and running, then it would be useful to approach Sweden and Norway to join, along with Denmark and Netherlands, although those last four would be iffy.
In the Pacific, New Zealand is no loss; they've not changed since they blew up SEATO over their disdain for nuclear weapons. They'd rather rely on the good offices of their (and our) enemies for their security. Canada hasn't the resources to support both a rump NATO/New Alliance and a Pacific alliance. They're better focusing on one, and they're most tied in with Europe.
Eric Hines
I also wonder if there is concern that NZ and Canada have become unreliable in the face of China? The Canadian government has been developing very close ties to the Chinese -- as, frankly, has our own. Canada's economy is as tied to China's as ours is, and its major corporations are as well. Canada also said that, following the killing of the Keystone pipeline, they'd prefer China as a client for their oil to Americans.
From Dr. Patty's article suggesting how the US could outwit the Chinese Communist Party: "Another is manufacturing, where we are already looking at ways to relocate our supply chains out of the PRC."
Let's be serious. It has taken about a quarter of a century for the US to package up its former manufacturing capacity and offshore it to China. We should be looking to reshore essential manufacturing -- but the process will likely take a similar 20+ years. And first the US would have to roll back excessive regulation and rebuild its educational system -- which means sacrificing two of the Democrats' sacred cows.
The bottom line is that -- today and for the rest of Biden*'s reign and beyond -- the CCP can bring the US to its knees without firing a shot, simply by cutting off its exports or by insisting the US pays in Yuan.
While armchair strategists have been re-fighting WWII with China cast as the Bad Guy, China has been winning a deliberate economic war against the West. And our Best & Brightest have been too stupid or too compromised to notice.
The CCP has problems too, especially in terms of food. Your own food is going to get a lot more expensive -- especially protein -- because of their efforts to shore up their significant losses.
It's easy to focus on our problems and ignore theirs, but Sun Tzu counsels a clear understanding of both situations. We have a lot of problems, especially a corrupt leadership and an ossified bureaucracy that can't solve problems because it can't change or learn any more. China has big problems too. They may not be as obvious because our journalists don't understand them either.
In the meantime, it's a great year to buy a side of beef and a big freezer. You'll thank me next year.
Related:
https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1438350472163864578?s=20
Angry!? The French defense minister called the AUKUS sub deal a stab in the back. The deal was negotiated and the French sub deal cancelled without any prior notice or negotiation. The French were dumped unceremoniously, just as in Afghanistan. Two back stabbings in one month. When will the Europeans learn that they cannot trust the US or any of its commitments. NATO is a dead letter. The French and Germans need to cut a deal with Russian, and soon.
In the meantime, it's a great year to buy a side of beef and a big freezer.
Good advice,
Not so easy these days.
Given how angry the UK was over how the US left Afghanistan, why are they willing to enter into this pact?
Hong Kong, perhaps. Though our Secretary of State stabbed HK this morning by deleting a statement from Twitter that we “stand with Hong Kong.”
Canada looks to have been cut out due to allowing Huawei technology in their 5G network. Concerns over Chinese SIGINT capabilities must be high.
Doesn't make sense to me but I'm not really a "give someone a second chance to betray me" kind of girl. We'll see how this all plays out.
Frankly if you were upset about betrayal, you wouldn’t be a US ally at all. Our political system produces regular betrayal of our allies.
Our political system produces regular betrayal of our allies.
As do despotic systems. Political betrayals aren't unique to any particular system.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment