Compass Points - IndoPacom Victory
What does victory look like?
Compass Points - IndoPacom Victory
What does victory look like?
May 10, 2024
.
Marine and former US Representative Mike Gallagher and his co-author Matt Pottinger argue in their Foreign Affairs article that there is: "No Substitute for Victory- America’s Competition With China Must Be Won, Not Managed."
.
Later, in the Washington Post, Gallagher and Pottinger defend themselves against charges that aiming for "victory" is destabilizing and dangerous.
.
=============
.
In Fareed Zakaria’s May 5 op-ed, “A hawkish strategy on China is a big mistake,” he argued in response to our recent Foreign Affairs article, “No Substitute for Victory: America’s Competition With China Must Be Won, Not Managed,” that it’s simply too hard to contain America’s primary adversary.
But his view that U.S.-China relations are on the upswing is mistaken. And while Mr. Zakaria laid out the risks of countering China, he didn’t tally the costs of failing to act at this crucial juncture.
The heart of our position, as Mr. Zakaria noted, is that the Biden administration’s policy of “managing competition” with Beijing is a rehash of the failed “détente” policies that Washington employed in the 1970s to cope with a militarily resurgent Soviet Union. We argue that this is a dangerous policy because it breeds complacency by the American people and signals weakness to Beijing at a time when Chinese leader Xi Jinping is fostering international chaos and advancing a global vision hostile to democracies.
Recent events have proved our point. Far from Mr. Zakaria’s contention that “tensions have in fact calmed down” recently between Washington and Beijing, the Biden administration’s conciliatory approach has in reality been met with hostility from Beijing. China has sold skyrocketing amounts of crucial materiel to Russia for use in its war in Europe and offered growing diplomatic support for Iran and its terrorist proxies such as Hamas.
. . . We hope Mr. Zakaria does not object to our first goal of dissuading China’s leaders from trying to prevail in a hot or cold conflict with the United States and its friends, given that Beijing is providing decisive material support to Russia’s war in Europe, serving up diplomatic and propaganda support for Iran’s proxy wars in the Middle East, and moving to seize territory in the South China Sea administered by the Philippines, a U.S. ally.
And we question why he should find it “reckless” and “dangerous” for us — or for any American — to express hope that Chinese citizens will someday find inspiration to explore new models of development and governance that don’t rely on repression at home and compulsive hostility abroad, as we did in Foreign Affairs. That has been the goal of most U.S. presidents since Woodrow Wilson — and with good reason. It’s an essential American idea.
-- Mike Gallagher, Green Bay, Wis.
-- Matt Pottinger, Palo Alto, Calif.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/05/08/contain-china-nuclear-war-climate-change/
.
=============
.
Clearly China is a threat in the Pacific and beyond. In Pacific, the Philippines are under near weekly assault by China's vessels on disputed reefs and shoals off of the Philippine coast. Should the Philippines acquiesce to China's aggression and threats? Would that bring peace? Surrender beings only death and destruction. To maintain the peace, requires constant and active deterrence. Instead of surrendering, the Philippines are bulking up their military and reaching out to neighbors and allies. The "shoulder to shoulder" Philippine military exercise, Balikatan 2024 is just wrapping up.
.
=============
.
LAOAG, Philippines May 6 (Reuters) - U.S. and Philippine armed forces fired missiles and artillery to thwart a simulated invasion in the Philippines' northern waters facing Taiwan on Monday, in a show of military force and strengthening ties as regional tensions rise.
About 200 soldiers took turns defending the shores of the coastal city of Laoag in Ilocos province, launching Javelin missiles and firing howitzers and machine guns to repel an unnamed enemy trying to storm the beach.
U.S. and Filipino military personnel sank five floating pontoons standing in for amphibious landing ships as part of their annual exercises called Balikatan, or "shoulder-to-shoulder".
The annual drills, which involve about 16,000 Filipino and American troops and began last month, will run until May 10. They come at a time of escalating tensions between the Philippines and China in the South China Sea.
-- Reuters
.
=============
.
While Marines participated in Balikatan 2024, Marine forces in the Pacific are not the full deterrence they should be. The amphibious ship USS Boxer does not deter. It is disabled and back in port for more repairs. Units, equipment, and capabilities that are in repair or exist only in artist renderings do not deter. Only actual units, equipment, and capabilities deter. The Marine Corps' Marine Expeditionary Force located in Okinawa, Japan does not deter as much as it should because it has been stripped of too many badly needed units, equipment, and capabilities.
.
Marine and former US Representative Mike Gallagher and his co-author Matt Pottinger argue in their Foreign Affairs article that there is: "No Substitute for Victory- America’s Competition With China Must Be Won, Not Managed."
.
What does victory look like?
.
Victory means being strong enough and resolute enough to deter China and other bad actors in the Pacific. Victory is not fighting an all-out war with China, North Korea, or anyone else. Victory is being strong enough to preserve the peace, to win victory through deterrence. Deterrence is costly, but the US cannot afford deterrence that does not deter.
.
The Marine Corps for decades has been a powerful deterrence tool for the United States. Amphibious Ready Groups / Marine Expeditionary Units always on offense, always on patrol, deter our foes. When Marines demonstrate their ability to arrive at the scene of a crisis and immediately deter, assist, and fight, it deters bad actors not just at that location but also others around the world. A big part of deterrence is showing that the US is willing to take action. When the US decides to "send in the Marines" to some small, local crisis, that makes bad actors around the globe rethink their plans.
.
Compass Points thanks authors Gallagher and Pottinger for their article in Foreign Affairs and thanks all those working to upgrade, enhance, and restore a Marine Corps that deters.
.
- - - - -
.
Foreign Affairs - May/June Edition 2024
No Substitute for Victory
America’s Competition With China Must Be Won, Not Managed
By Matt Pottinger and Mike Gallagher
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/no-substitute-victory-pottinger-gallagher
.
- - - - -
.
Reuters - 05/06/2024
Philippines, US repel mock foreign invaders in annual military exercises
By Mikhail Flores
It seems that there are a couple of large themes running throughout. Manage rather than lead. “Joint” services that don’t act jointly (army ships and Marines as stand in forces) “peer” foes who aren’t peers or even necessarily foes. A lack of clarity in the lines between public foreign policy and a military that can prosecute the foreign policy if needs be.
Dumbing it down for one’s own sake and sanity if the Marine Corps sticks to what it has done best or well over the last decades meaning a MAGTF concept that allows very good flexible response to many different crises large and small. Real humanitarian relief operations, sustained combat operations and the mere threat of Marines “going across the beach” in a short sharp action of some sort. The rest can take care of itself. We did not even have an equal seat at the JCS table until General Wilson achieved that status when he was CMC. But, somehow the Corps was able to conduct and meet Title X requirements. Focus on what you can do, be obnoxious about sealift, both the necessary amphibious support and long term prepositioning of ships for sustained operations. Focus on leadership, find quality over quantity and sometimes be bloody well rude about it. No Congress person XY or Z we aren’t doing that, we are not lowering standards to meet arbitrary recruitment standards. As General Wilson told Congress at some sort of hearing, if it came down to he and his driver being the only Marines qualified to be Marines then the T/O of the Corps would be 2. China maybe belligerent because it has plenty of problems at home. Defeating China is defined how? What is the military option for China that brings them global dominance. Once dominant what have they gained and can they hold on to that dominance? Doubtful on all accounts. So let China be China and let the Marine Corps be the Marine Corps. It all flows down hill from the simplest of concepts. Gravity works.
Managing China as a military and economic peer competitor is similar in precept to Chamberlin managing Hitler before WW ll.