I've long noted that the Left has a history of opposing the current threat we are resisting in order to focus like a laser beam on the "next" vitally important threat. Obviously, when the current threat defeats us, that "next" threat becomes the current threat. Lather, rinse, repeat. The "bad war" versus "good war" dance of two decades ago is the most obvious example of this process.
The right has adopted this "we need to focus on the real threat" approach to advocate a pivot to Asia in order to abandon Europe and/or the Middle East to their fates. It'll be fine, they say.
This author's denial that America has pivoted to Asia ignores the departure of hundreds of thousands of American troops from Europe since the Cold War. The denial of a pivot ignores the massive reduction in American military power in the Middle East after winning in Iraq and losing in Afghanistan. As I observed in this post:
Clearly, we've been pivoting to focus on China ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. We have very few forces committed to Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, or Africa. I think it is ridiculous to argue we are distracted by the rest of the world. How much more should we withdraw? We're damned close to the point in those areas where the only thing left to pack up and take home are the cemeteries of our troops who died in combat overseas to protect America.
And pray tell, just how do we pack even more forces into limited bases in the western Pacific? I fear we would just put our best military assets in easy reach of an initial theater-wide Pearl Harbor by China.
And become I'm such a nice guy I won't mention that the Middle East is in Asia.
America didn't put a lot more power in the Pacific. But we prioritized that region for quality. And we certainly didn't reduce it the way Europe and the Middle East got the "bring them home" treatment. Forces in the Pacific clearly represent a higher percentage of the forces that exist. The remainder of American military power is more concentrated at home where it can reinforce the western Pacific more easily.
And I'll ask again, where do we put more units in Asia? We shouldn't jam them into ill-defended bases close to China and leave them open to a theater-wide Pearl Harbor. We need more bases with the air defenses to keep them from being convenient targets for China.
And simple things like aircraft shelters:
U.S. military bases in the Indo-Pacific region are sorely lacking hardened aircraft shelters, leaving them vulnerable to devastating airstrikes in a potential conflict with China, lawmakers warned.
Recent war games show the U.S. would lose 90% of its aircraft on the ground, rather than in air combat, due to insufficient base protection ...How is it possible to develop advanced planes yet put them where they can be easily knocked out on the ground?
But even as the call to pivot to Asia continues, some in that camp are setting the stage for the next dance steps to minimize the fierce urgency of that "next" threat so it too can be current threat that isn't really America's main concern. As the saying goes, nice work if you can get it:
America is willing to sacrifice for uninhabited rocks and reefs in the East and South China Seas. This is one of the main messages from Japanese prime minister Kishida Fumio and Philippines president Ferdinand Marcos’ official visits to the United States. The Biden administration’s doubling down on advancing Indo-Pacific countries’ interests vis-à-vis China represents a reckless strategy in a region where Washington should be especially shrewd and savvy. Instead of fighting others’ battles and setting itself up to fail, Washington should adopt a restrained regional policy to secure its interests. [emphasis added]
Oh, restraining our military deployments and alliances will settle the western Pacific? Huh! It sounds so simple! The problem is that China won't restrain its policies or its objectives. The author even admits this, which means in practice we are supposed to simply accept China's demands. Which seem to grow every couple years.
The author says we should not risk nuclear war over the Sudetenland Pacific "rocks". Wait. What? Nobody has ever said America should initiate a nuclear war over them. So the author must believe China thinks mere rocks are important enough to start a nuclear war. Really? That's what the author is going with? So no other lower level of resistance to China is possible?
Oh, with the author's policy of "restraint" we'll get the false peace of retreat. For a while.
And then we lose allies who decide to "restrain" their own regional policies knowing they are on their own.
But that's okay! Some in the chorus line are already dismissing the very idea that China is a threat that justifies a pivot! The mind boggles at what will be chosen as the "real" threat.
A policy of "restraint" means allies get isolated and defeated.
Lather, rinse, repeat. How America's security interests are secured this way
is beyond my nuance-free simple mind to grok.
It is depressing to see conservatives embarking on the quest for Mr. Good War. Sadly, America gets effed up every time with that approach.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War in this post.
