China on Thursday fuelled the confusion surrounding its refusal to allow a visit to Hong Kong by a US aircraft carrier when it denied telling President George W. Bush that the affair was a “misunderstanding”.
Beijing’s decision to block a Thanksgiving port visit by the USS Kitty Hawk and earlier to bar two US destroyers from taking refuge in Hong Kong from a storm has angered the US navy and threatened the recent warming in cross-Pacific military ties.
This incident displays the divergence in thought that currently runs through the defense establishment. The root of this divergence is the Big wars versus Small wars argument. Big war enthusiasts argue that we need to focus on the next “big” war, against a state competitor (e.g. China, North Korea, Iran) and therefore we must purchase weapon systems that can deal with “big war” scenarios: F-22s, attack submarines, crusader artillery systems, etc. “Big War” types also embrace network-centric warfare, and increased investment in technological developments that will support destroying enemy armies. “Small war” proponents see the future of warfare developing along the 4GW model, where conflict are not between states, but within states. These wars will be fought along ethnic and religious lines, and increasingly involve control over resources. “Small war” types see the conflicts we are involved in now (OIF and OEF) and the relative successive gains when a “small war” strategy is implemented (COIN) rather than a Big-War mentality of search and destroy, and then returning to mega-bases for chow. “Small war” thinkers want to spend money on developing soldiers and supporting their efforts to work with local populations, rather than defeating enemy armies on the battlefield.
Anyway, this China incident gives some ammo to the “big war” thinkers, because they see China as our number one threat on a nation-state playing field. As long as China stays on the radar screen as a looming “future threat,” big war types will be able to forward their arguments that we are “ruining our Army” by executing counter-insurgency operations, and must return to focusing on synchronizing combat power on a linear battlefield.
China, if it were smart, would knock these kind of shenanigans off. While it isn’t wise to create international incidents with the US anyway, doing it at a time when economic ties between the two countries have never been stronger makes little sense. China is already making windfall off of US security protecting its oil exports through the Persian Gulf, and has negatively interfered with US efforts in Africa, and elsewhere. US efforts are focused elsewhere, fighting AQ and stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan –we don’t have time for China right now.
Interesting post. I hope you’ll blog more about this 4GW/Big War debate.
A few months ago I noted a quote from Ehud Barak to the effect that one of the reasons for the IDF’s problems in the 2006 Hezbollah war was that it had been compromised (my word, as I don’t recall his) by years of counter-insurgency operations. Smaller theater but the same play?
A ponder,
This during an election cycle,(of greatest consequence in my observation) seems to speak to how China now figures itself as a “shaper” of world direction. Could this be a “ping?”(Respects to the Bull)to see what bounces back from across to pond? Maybe see how the market reacts, an up-tick in the belt-way chatter. They have enough people here on the home turf to collect the data they need. But this still begs the question,
Why Now?
Others have argued for a redivision of labor amongst the Services – that is, the Army and Marines should stay focused on “small wars” while the Air Force and Navy prepare for “big wars”. It’s really hard to see how US ground forces would play in a confrontation with China (you know, never fight a land war in Asia and all that), so they might as well stay focused on counter-insurgency.
See this:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG499.pdf
A New Division of Labor
Meeting America’s Security Challenges Beyond Iraq
By: Andrew R. Hoehn, Adam Grissom, David Ochmanek, David A. Shlapak, Alan J. Vick
I am sure the whole incident was to tweak tue U.S. nose and let us know it wasn’t an accident.
As far as the 4Gw/Big War debate, it needs to occur. Unfortunately I beleive our military needs to be flexible enough to handle both instances. Sure as we focus on 4Gw/COIN, some SOB will show up with tanks, artillery and air defense.
I believe it is likely we will face military confrontation with China in the near future. It won’t be traditional state-on-state, but a lot of proxy-wars and small unit action as China stretches it’s muscle and influence in Africa, SE/SW Asia and possibly having to evict them from strategic choke points (panama canal, caribbean ports etc.).
What I continue to find incredible is that the history of the United States is one of Small Wars, with a few big ones thrown in now and again.
There needs to be a balance between the preps for the “next big war” and the near-continuous small wars we are involved in.
Unfortuntately, we don’t spend enough money on developing and making attractive the COIN side of our military, across all services.
I don’t agree that any of the services should be specifically designated to one or the other, rather they need to develop and maintain proficiency to carry out foreign policy. That means being able to fight the next big war (and not WWII) while also being able to conduct small wars. The USMC has an incredible tradition of small wars from the first part of the last century, while the Navy as always been instrumental in “showing the flag” and fighting when necessary.
Unfortunatly, I belive also that our top military leadership refuses to see the need for balance, and very few do not take the necessary long view of the US’ place in the world.
Do we play the same games against China that we did against the USSR? If we aren’t there are some people asleep at the wheel at the pentagon.
I think we need a military confrontation against China sooner, rather than later. First, China needs to realize its place in the world. China needs to learn the lesson that it cannot and will not be allowed to challenge US supremacy as the global superpower. The sooner we smack them down militarily, the better off we will be.
No accident that this happened. Sorry all the families got hosed, but I’d have voted for a Manila or Subic port call any day. :-)
Charlie, I have argued that this divide between big war and small war is essentially unecessary. I would be willing to bet that should China begin to flex its muscle and threaten Taiwan, we will regret not having spent money for the F-22 and follow-on aircraft, along with Naval forces up to the task of protecting our allies. If we don’t want to be committed to this, then we should tell Taiwan now so they can go nuclear.
On the other hand, where do we get the money to engage in both small wars and be a deterent for big wars? Close up shop in Germany and South Korea. Even the thinking man Gates still cannot wean us off of the cold war mentality, so we spend money where it is not necessary and for equipment to fight a war from fifty years ago.
We can do both, but it means stepping on toes, cutting ties that hold us back, and reorganizing and reshuffling to meet the demands of the day.
Will Gates do it. I dunno.
I have long standing belief that the military we had in the 1980s leading up to the end of the Cold War was perfectly set up to handle the big and small war scenarios.
First it was quite large, if I remember correctly about 16 total Army divisions, of which four were LIDs. We had the armor and mech units to fight big wars and the LIDs for the urban/small battles. The Marines, as always, could be used pretty well in either scenario.
Going forward I think the same set up is needed, although in all likelihood the odds of China starting something directly with us are pretty small. There is absolutely no upside for them.
Hey at least they avoided severe diarrhea and lead paint.
I agree with Matt, we can and should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, just as we did in the 80′s.
It is obvious that China is going to engage us with proxy wars not an all out confrontation.And who here still buys Chinese made products??
By the way Rumsfeld was right, there are to many people in the Pentagon who are still fighting the Cold War and in some instances World War 2,Korea and Vietnam!