JCS Chairman Pace Engages in Wishful Thinking About Beijing's Military Ambitions

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed Feb. 3 that the risk of war with China is diminishing. "I am optimistic about the future with regard to China. There is much more that the two countries have in common than we have not in common," said Pace, while in Seoul, South Korea. I am normally reluctant to dispute the opinions of top military officers, particularly one with such a distinguished record dating back to being a platoon leader in Vietnam. But the general's remarks seem at odds with recent findings by other strategists at the Department of Defense.

The Quadrennial Defense Review released February 6 notes, "Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time off set traditional U.S. military advantages absent U.S. counter strategies....China continues to invest heavily in its military, particularly in its strategic arsenal and capabilities designed to improve its ability to project power beyond its borders....The pace and scope of China's military build-up already puts regional military balances at risk. China is likely to continue making large investments in high-end, asymmetric military capabilities, emphasizing electronic and cyber-warfare; counter-space operations; ballistic and cruise missiles; advanced integrated air defense systems; next generation torpedoes; advanced submarines; strategic nuclear strike from modern, sophisticated land and sea-based systems; and theater unmanned aerial vehicles for employment by the Chinese military and for global export."

The QDR reflects the findings in the 2005 annual report on "The Military Power of the People's Republic of China" released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense last July 20. The report's emphasis on the changing balance of power between China and Taiwan got most of the media attention, but this was not the whole story. "Although the principal focus of China's military modernization in the near term appears to be preparing for potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait, some of China's military planners are surveying the strategic landscape beyond Taiwan. Some Chinese military analysts have expressed the view that control of Taiwan would enable the PLA Navy to move its maritime defensive perimeter further seaward and improve Beijing's ability to influence regional sea lines of communication," warns the report. General Wen Zongren, Political Commissar of the elite PLA Academy of Military Science, is quoted as saying that taking control of Taiwan is of "far reaching significance to breaking international forces' blockade against China's maritime security. . . . Only when we break this blockade shall we be able to talk about China's rise. . . . [T]o rise suddenly, China must pass through oceans and go out of the oceans in its future development."

It should also be remember that only a few days before the Pentagon report on China's military was released, Professor Major General Zhu Chenghu, dean of the Defense Affairs Institute for China's National Defense University, threatened the United States with nuclear war over Taiwan. "If the Americans are determined to interfere, we will be determined to respond," said Zhu. He outlined the response as one of total war, "We ... will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds ...of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese." The Beijing government refused to retract the statements made by General Zhu.

The difference in perspective between Generals Zhu and Pace on the nature of the U.S.-China relationship could not be more dramatic. Gen. Pace did not base his optimism on an assessment of growing Chinese capabilities, but on what he hoped would be Beijing's intentions. He believes, "As we continue to build the economic bridges between the two countries and as each country becomes more and more dependent on the other for prosperity, when you do that you lessen significantly any probability of military complications." This sounds more like the self-serving argument for continued "engagement" with China heard in banking and transnational business circles rather than what should be expected from the realists at the Pentagon.

In traditional diplomatic parlance, trade constitutes "low politics" because it deals primarily with private interests. Strategic issues that affect the balance of power between nations is the realm of "high politics" and the duty of governments to direct. The line is not a sharp one, of course, because adroit Great Powers are able to shape the international order in ways that generate economic as well as security benefits. The line blurs even more in regard to China because so much of its economy is state-owned or state-controlled. In most high-tech sectors, there is no line between civilian and military programs.

The transfer of technology, know-how, and manufacturing capacity to China via trade and foreign investment is affecting the balance of power. For example, China has become the world's largest exporter of information technology (IT) goods, according to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), surpassing the United States. A new report by the RAND Corporation on the Chinese defense industry found it was more advanced that previously thought, due in large part to its progress in IT.

The monograph A New Direction for China's Defense Industry by Evan Medeiros, Roger Cliff, Keith Crane. and James Mulvenonn was released in December. Though not usually classified as part of China's weapons industry because the sector is oriented toward commercial markets, Beijing's IT establishment, "is probably the most organizationally innovative and economically dynamic producer of equipment for China's military." A key finding of the RAND report is that, "the People's Liberation Army has been able to effectively leverage certain IT products to improve the military's command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence capabilities." Though Beijing has a long way to go to match overall American military capabilities, its intentions are clearly to close the gap.

The QDR states that, "U.S. policy seeks to encourage China to choose a path of peaceful economic growth and political liberalization, rather than military threat and intimidation." The record of history does not, however, provide much support for the notion that major powers will restrain themselves when new wealth allows them to better provide for the pursuit of old ambitions. DoD strategists understand they must hedge against a Chinese leadership that will make its own decisions, based on a very different set of values. Thus the QDR states, "the vast distances of the Asian theater, China's continental depth, and the challenge of en route and in-theater U.S. basing place a premium on forces capable of sustained operations at great distances into denied areas." The QDR goes on to talk about the development of a new "land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability to be fielded by 2018" and of a new unmanned strike aircraft for the Navy; but it will take a greater industrial effort to prepare for the challenges of an emerging China than the QDR envisions.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, a prolific writer on military affairs for the Army War College, and for professional publications like Armed Forces Journal, has identified a major flaw in current U.S. planning: the notion that future wars will be short. Writing in the February 6 issue of The Weekly Standard, he argued, "a war with China, which our war gamers blithely assume would be brief, would reveal the quantitative incompetence of our forces. An assault on a continent-spanning power would swiftly drain our stocks of precision weapons, ready pilots, and aircraft. Quality, no matter how great, is not a reliable substitute for a robust force in being and deep reserves that can be mobilized rapidly."

The Iraqi insurgency – which even at its height did not expand much beyond mere terrorism – has stretched American forces and called for unexpected boosts in military equipment production. Any risk of a future confrontation with a rapidly industrializing China should compel American leaders to think more seriously about maintaining and expanding the capacity of the U.S. defense manufacturing base. A vibrant, fully-integrated industrial system is needed both to arm and equip a larger standing force, and to provide for the rapid economic mobilization that would be required to conduct a long and large-scale war in Asia. The stakes are much too high to be glossed over with wishful thinking.

I'd like to think that General Pace is just engaging in some nice polite global-politico-speak for consumption by the diplomats and other international paperpushers, while keeping in mind that if Beijing doesn't make a course correction regarding Taiwan and other Pacific issues, that we're going to end up in a major confrontation with them, and the ChiComs don't care if Wal-Mart ends up not buying their cheap-ass products, because those consumer goods are disposable, just like millions of their citizens who would be happily sacrificed in a nuclear exchange if it meant that Beijing would prevail in some manner. They have millions upon millions of excess citizens, and the Commies are more than willing to use them as cannon fodder. General Pace knows this. He is definitely no dummy.

The problem is that the Army does not like being relegated to cleaning up the ugly messes around the world and thinks it wants to be a "strategic force." But strategi forces, however much purity and sophistication is associated is a pretty boring place to be these days. The Army is getting a lot of action and a lot of glory. I don't know why they feel jealous.

The Iraqi insurgency – which even at its height did not expand much beyond mere terrorism – has stretched American forces and called for unexpected boosts in military equipment production.

1. We flattened the entire Iraqi army in a matter of days. The Chinese won't fight much better, there's simply more of them to bulldoze.

2. The insurgency exists only because of extremely restrictive rules of engagement, media coverage, and external support. In a knock down drag out war with China, there would be none of those three factors to help a local resistance.

The transfer of technology, know-how, and manufacturing capacity to China via trade and foreign investment is affecting the balance of power.

Yer basic free tradin' transfer of technology, wealth, and production.

I read "free traders" comments and I spotted and corrected a mistake in the article.

China has become the world's largest exporter of ~~information technology (IT) goods~~ buggy whips, according to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), surpassing the United States. A new report by the RAND Corporation on the Chinese defense industry found it was more advanced that previously thought, due in large part to its progress in IT buggy whips.

China has become the world's largest exporter of information technology (IT) goods buggy whips, according to data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), surpassing the United States. A new report by the RAND Corporation on the Chinese defense industry found it was more advanced that previously thought, due in large part to its progress in IT buggy whips.

LMAO!

Also with apologies, things have not been going exactly as expected in Iraq. Of course, China is a special case. They won't have to bomb us, we are sending them the money to buy us out. So maybe the winning strategy suggested is for the Arabs to use all the oil money we send them and buy pieces of us too.

Our new presidential slogan [Bush-Clinton-Bush] is not 'The Buck Stops Here' but 'The Buck Starts Here'.

Translation, go gread some of the other things William R. Hawkins has written. He is a paid shill for the big armor industry, and it is the big armor industry that is making the most noise about China, as if we are ever going to use heavily armed ground forces against China. To the extent China is a threat it will be dealt with by 6000 miles of pacific ocean backed up by a Navy and Air Force. If all of that is insufficient, then we have large nuclear arsenal at our disposal.

From the article he writes "...Thus the QDR states, "the vast distances of the Asian theater, China's continental depth, and the challenge of en route and in-theater U.S. basing place a premium on forces capable of sustained operations at great distances into denied areas." The QDR goes on to talk about the development of a new "land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability to be fielded by 2018" and of a new unmanned strike aircraft for the Navy; but it will take a greater industrial effort to prepare for the challenges of an emerging China than the QDR envisions..."

The new "land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability to be fielded by 2018" is a bomber, not a new army force. He is correct in that maintaining the current level of 170 bombers is inadequate in view of the threat. We should be planning to buy several hundred of the new bomber, not a few dozen, and their tankers should be American, not French.

Any new bomber should be both conventional and nuclear capable. It would also have more uses than China and would fit into a policy of "disproportionate response" when we decide to take off the gloves in dealing with the Islamderthals.

"Any new bomber should be both conventional and nuclear capable. It would also have more uses than China and would fit into a policy of "disproportionate response" when we decide to take off the gloves in dealing with the Islamderthals."

I think we should back out of the INF Treaty as well. It'll give us maximum flexibility in neutron-weapons use. Besides, Russia will need them too once China stabs them in the back and goes after all of those natural resources.

"Taiwan will be taken over the same way Hong Kong was "annexed"...no bullets fired.."

I don't know about that. The increase in economic cooperation has been a double-edged sword. Large numbers of ethnic Chinese are emigrating from Taiwan to China for management jobs leaving a larger and larger percentage of independence-minded ethnic Taiwanese behind. And formally recognizing Taiwanese independence is something we should do right now.

I think we should back out of the INF Treaty as well. It'll give us maximum flexibility in neutron-weapons use. Besides, Russia will need them too once China stabs them in the back and goes after all of those natural resources.

We should also build up our own ICBM force. No need to design a new ICBM, the Minuteman can be put back into production. The peanut farmer shut the line down in 1977 as a gesture of friendship to the USSR. They replied by cranking out SS-18's.

A Minuteman could be much improved just by the advances in technology such as Alithalite castings, better guidance and improved warheads to give them improved payload/range. Personally I like adding range, perhaps North Dakota to Mecca and Medina?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.