One only has to return to World War II to see the strategic importance of the South China and Phillipine Seas. Admiral Toyoda acknowledged that it would be better to annihilate the Imperial Japanese Navy rather than yield the shipping lanes around the Phillipines.

I recently commented on the necessity of an open-ocean escort class for our large MSC force with the encounter between the USNS Impeccable and Chinese ships in my home blog. URR astutely points out that as our uncertainty about China’s intentions increases, events like the Impeccable’s harassment could become increasingly volatile. Our logistics and survey ships need a cost-effective class for armed escort/convoy protection.

One of the Navy’s central missions has always been the protection of civilian shipping and commerce. If the risk of conflict with China increases, a blue-water convoy escort is essential to ensuring access.

So should we just get rid of the Navy and go with the Coast Guard? I’m just a civilian, but I always thought intel provided you capabilities, not intentions. And for that matter, there was a Proceedings article a few years ago where the PLAN admiral in charge flat out said his area of control would encompass one of our states.

“Is the counter to that potential regional threat, and is the answer for the mission of forward presence a very high cost/low density fleet of superships that run into the billions per copy?”

Well put, URR. Secretary Gates has been fond of advocating for the armed forces we need now, not what we will need for some future conflict. In an Army context, COIN over Future Combat System.

Trouble is, in a Naval context, what we build right now will be what we have if a fight comes in 20, 30, or 50 years. And then whoever has the job will have to say, “You go to war with the [Navy] you have.” Officials are definitely between a rock and a hard place: current leaders will be damned if they spend the money now, future leaders will be damned if a needed capability isn’t there. I suppose that’s why we (notionally) respect them so much – they have the moral courage to make an unpopular decision…which is what we desperately need with respect to shipbuilding.

China is a ‘threat’ (quotation marks needed) because if it wasn’t, the US military’s force-building argument (esp. USN and USAF) would be weak. Well, it is weak: with a military budget bigger than that of the next gazzilion countries and with no bluewater or air-combat threats of any credibility, we do not need the size navy or air force we want.

‘Zactly.

Every service branch needs its boogeyman. China is the USN’s.

Sam, I think a point on which we can agree is your assertion that the Navy needs to focus on “strategic utility and employment.” Let me refine my position: China is clearly building a stronger Navy, but I am not a strategic bombast that advocates a new 600-ship Navy.

It’s likely that the right mix of ships could be achieved under a lower budget. I am all for incorporating the cost effiencies in the acquisitions process that most taxpayers expect. It is also likely that the Navy would be well served by building a good number of basic combatants with technology that we already have. In many ways, this fleet composition would be better suited to confront our current challenges as well as potential future requirements. The point we part ways is your position that tailoring the force for current and future mission needs assumes that the force will be shifted away from the three traditional Line communities.

Navies are expensive and take a long time to develop. I freely stipulate to this as fact. That in itself is a deterrent, and maintaining a robust capability in the traditional warfare areas will ensure that we don’t have to worry about losing influence. Can we do better in a time when tax dollars are scarce – absolutely. Would you be willing to accept a fleet centered around low-cost combatants built using commercial-off-the-shelf technology, perhaps funded through a reduction of one or two carrier strike group(s)?

Excerpts from an AP report this morning…

Australia Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has urged Americans not to view China as an enemy but as a country offering huge economic opportunities, even though its leaders have “done some bad things in the past.”

“I think China represents a huge opportunity for us all for the 21st century,” Rudd replied, noting it has a big part to play as “the center of global economic gravity” shifts toward the Asia-Pacific region.

“Therefore, when you look at China in the future, I don’t think anything is to be served by simply assuming it’s all going to go bad,” Rudd said.

He said the “smart course of action” for the United States and Australia would be to help integrate China into global political, economic and security institutions and engage Beijing on climate change.

“Now, if China was to turn its back on that or not be responsible, the world would soon know,” Rudd said. “They’re not perfect. They’ve done some bad things in the past. But let’s look at the opportunities, rather than simply assume it’s all threat and all risk.”

I was reading the blog http://opensourcegeopolitics.blogspot.com/

There is a YouTube video there that is best watched well after lunch, note: this disclaimer that the material is disturbing is mild. The actions of the Chineese banning access to YouTube and the treatment to Tibet nationals ought to remind people in the USA that given an opportunity, with no repercussions; that we would receive the same treatment.

The recent statements about our currency:

“I think the Chinese are a little disingenuous to say, ‘Now isn’t it so bad that we hold all these dollars.’ They hold all these dollars because they chose to buy the dollars, and they didn’t want to sell the dollars because they didn’t want to appreciate their currency. It was a very simple calculation on their part, so they shouldn’t come around blaming it all on us.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/03/24/volcker-china-chose-to-buy-dollars/

Indeed, were Chinese long term strategy to include dislodging the dollar from its reserve currency status, perhaps the policy of overloading the US with debt long after it was clear that the debt was unsustainable would be a reasonable policy.

I hope that there is a resolute response to North Korean missle ambitions, and I hope that it is executed by the USN to make clear that relations with the USA are conditional, that international conduct matters, and that the argument that trade is more important than national security is foolish.

I hope the USN takes down a North Korean missle as a clear signal that our national security and commitment to that security via strength is not moot or missed.

American economists, business, academics, and the public at large are essentially unaware of Pax Oceana Americana 1945-date. They assume that the free, universally available, and unhindered access to the world’s oceans is the normal, timeless state of affairs in international relations and world economics, and requires neither effort, expertise, equipment or national strategy to maintain.

This is a result of the success of the sea services of the United States in husbanding and using the sea power and sea supremacy gained in WWII. That is now eroding. Changes are in the wind, but not the changes predicted or sought by those unaware of the Pax.

From the UK’s Telegraph:

“A Foreign Ministry spokesman said the report marked a ‘gross’ misrepresentation of facts and urged the United States to halt the annual publication.

“‘This is a gross distortion of the facts and China resolutely opposes it,’ ministry spokesman Qin Gang told journalists in Beijing.

“Qin Gang asked the United States to stop issuing the annual report ‘to avoid further damage to the two sides’ military relations.’”

*****

If China’s policy is ‘peaceful expansion,’ then why are they playing cagey about their military modernization?

FOD,

Let me address your assertions:

1) I don’t really care what type of government China has, and I’m not interested in the United States influencing Chinese domestic affiars. That’s their business… The Communism v. Capitalism arguement is stale as well, so we agree there. Framing my argument in terms of being a Cold Warrior distracts from the real issues, to wit;

2) Shifting to a market economy has nothing to do with increasing the likelihood for peace. I will stipulate to the possibility that trade will prevent conflict…I hope for that. But in an economically difficult time, countries (especially one’s with market economies) tend to be willing to compromise international relations to satisfy their population economically (bread and circuses). The Chinese government, like any other, is ultimately interested in perpetuating itself. Whether that is working with the U.S. or against them is another question.

3) China has not stopped bloviating about disputed territories. In a speech connected with China’s announcement of a 20% increase in defense spending, Jiang Enzhu, the Chinese congress spokesman said “that Beijing was ‘fully prepared to repulse any adventurous activities’ – namely, any attempt formally to declare independence.”

As we discuss the semantics of the “framework” for the discussion we see our ‘little emporers’ behaving in a manner that almost ridicules our observation that cooperation makes much more sense than confontation. That observed and as a groundwork, why then does China make statements about an international currency? All economists discount that notion beyond sensationalism, then why does China broach the subject? From their cultural perspective why is that done? And the purchasing of the ‘distasteful’ us debt, I’m reminded of people at an all you can eat buffet heading back to get another plate, complaining, “this is the worst food I have ever tasted, so let’s go and get another plate.” Again what is being communicated? What this communicates is contempt. Contempt returned for cooperation. I think that China will be the China of acts and not our intentions. It is the cumulative acts of China in a variety of areas that demonstrate contempt, not a singular instance of it; say harrasing a naval vessel or detaining a flight crew. Collectively and seen as a whole, what would it take to constitute the concept of contempt a precursor to threat?

It is the China of acts that we should be focused upon, collectively the posture is the little emporer syndrome or a prelude to something worse.

http://blog.usni.org/?p=1701

And if you looked at the video, do you expect to be treated better?

It is as if you are wishing in one hand and