[ad_1]
ACTS Post opinions with a wide range of perspectives to foster constructive discussion.
On December 2, The Brookings Institution delivered a speech by US Army Gen. Mark Millie, 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest ranking officer in the US Armed Forces. He said something important about how to deal with America’s difficult relations with Russia and China, and this should serve as a lesson for those in military uniforms and plainclothes who are convinced that one day we will be forced to do so. we enter into a violent confrontation with one of these two hostile forces, or both, writes Michael O’Hanlon in a material presented by the FOCUS News Agency without editorial intervention.
First, a bit of context. In 2015, Millie’s predecessor, Marine General Joseph Dunford, told a congressional hearing that Russia had become a major threat to America’s national security.
A year after Russia invaded Crimea, invaded eastern Ukraine with its agents, and prepared to disrupt the US presidential election, Dunford’s assessment surprised some congressmen, but sounded plausible. The honeymoon with Russia, which began after the end of the Cold War, is over, especially after Vladimir Putin once again settled comfortably in the Kremlin, where he can now stay until 2036.
For a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold War, US foreign policy has focused on rogue states like Iraq under Saddam Hussein and North Korea. But not anymore. The Obama administration’s second defense policy, spearheaded by Defense Secretary Ash Carter, has focused on the Third Offset strategy, which is based on the idea of strengthening non-nuclear deterrence capabilities against other major powers.
During the Trump administration, Russia and China were at the center of national security and national defense strategies. At the end of his four-year term, Dunford had already warned that China would soon become a major threat to the United States. In an interview, Millie also cited China as the biggest threat.
Most of these changes in strategies were indeed justified. However, now we are faced with another problem. Today, many Pentagon agencies and other agencies have begun to view Russia and China not only as our competitors, but as our likely future enemies. Some of them are supporters of the realist school of international relations, which does not expect any breakthrough in interstate behavior and considers conflicts between great powers to be the norm. Others are watching the behavior of Russia and China in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Western Pacific, and within the United States, and understandably uncomfortable.
So the danger is that we may have a national herd mentality, similar to the way of thinking that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and before the Vietnam War. As a result, the United States may go beyond acceptable vigilance and preparedness and may overreact to a future crisis. Let us think of the First World War, which is the result of a small crisis caused by mistrust and because the armed forces of the countries have made military plans of this type that suggest a rapid escalation in the event of hostilities.
It was in this context that Millie’s calm and serious comments were supposed to sound. They should not be seen as a show of calm and a careless attitude towards the current situation regarding Russia, China and the West. Yet they radiate this calm that we must all accept. Millie believes that the relationship will continue to be complicated and confusing. But he does not expect to start a war and does not consider it an acceptable outcome.
In particular, when I asked him about the alleged rivalry between the great powers, the rivalry with Russia and China, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff replied: “We want to remain in a state of great rivalry between the powers. The rivalry of the great powers does so. This is how the world works, that’s right. Look at the history of mankind for the last five or ten thousand years. The major forces will compete with each other in many different areas. This is normal. This is nothing special. However , it is necessary to ensure that this remains a rivalry between the great powers and does not turn into a conflict between the great powers or even a war between them. “
So far so good. And then Millie explained: “In the first half of the last century, from 1914 to 1945, we lived through two world wars. From 1914 to 1945, 150 million people died in the course of hostilities … There was terrible bloodshed and great destruction. We still feel the effects of World War I and World War II. Now it is extremely difficult for us to imagine a war between the great powers. And if you imagine a great power war, using nuclear weapons, you will understand that this should never be allowed.
It’s all too easy to forget this when you imagine a “limited” conflict with China starting somewhere on an uninhabited Pacific island, or a sudden military battle with Russia over a border city in one of the Baltic states, like Estonia or Latvia.
Some US military and strategists believe that we must be able to control such skirmishes before they escalate into a larger conflict. History shows us that this is not the case.
While Millie agrees with the old adage that if you want to keep the peace, you must prepare for war, she did list some important points the United States must adhere to in order to reduce the risk of conflict through deterrence. According to Mili, it is necessary to strengthen the US military potential, strengthen alliances, maintain commitment in the affairs of different regions of the world (but at the same time, as he added, limit the military presence in some countries), maintain force. of the American economy and to show determination. All this is not easy. Nothing in Millie’s comments can be construed as indifference or overconfidence that it could have political consequences.
However, it is worth noting that Millie’s reasoning reflects her desire to avoid war. It should be remembered that the United States has been involved in many wars: in the little more than 30 years that I have worked in Washington, there have been conflicts in Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, again in Iraq – not to mention many. Smaller counterterrorism operations in countries ranging from Pakistan to Syria, from Somalia to Libya, etc. Millie argues that planning and preparing for a conflict against Russia or China has nothing to do with other cases. And it is not just that conflicts with Russia will be more difficult. Rather, they are wars that should not start, in which the measure of success is not military victory, but limitation or, if the war has begun, rapid de-escalation and the end of the conflict.
As the Biden administration begins to develop and build its defense and national security strategies, you will need to follow General Millie’s advice.
[ad_2]
