MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘strategic ambiguity’

“Strategic Stupidity”

Posted by M. C. on May 9, 2024

From Wikipedia we find this standard view of the causes of WW I, “Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis leading up to the war included misperceptions of intent (such as the German belief that Britain would remain neutral), the fatalistic belief that war was inevitable, and the speed with which the crisis escalated, partly due to delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications.

I am a dual citizen of the United States and France. Of course the whole world knows the obvious, that my US president Joe Biden is a senile old fool. But it is not so obvious that my French president Emmanuel Macron is a sophisticated and clever fool, but a fool nonetheless.

Over the past several weeks Macron has been formulating a public policy he called “strategic ambiguity.” The idea was to scare Putin and the Russians that the French army might or might not show up in Ukraine to stop the Russian advance. In Macron’s mind, the Russians would be afraid to attack a NATO member’s troops, though they would not be in Ukraine as NATO. In the last couple of days there was a report that a first contingent of soldiers from the French Foreign Legion (not French citizens) had been embedded in a Ukrainian unit.

While acting with ambiguity might make sense in a Pariasian dalliance it makes little sense in geopolitics. Take the example of WWI. From Wikipedia we find this standard view of the causes of WW I, “Other factors that came into play during the diplomatic crisis leading up to the war included misperceptions of intent (such as the German belief that Britain would remain neutral), the fatalistic belief that war was inevitable, and the speed with which the crisis escalated, partly due to delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications.” My emphases are in italics. My point here is not to get in the weeds about WWI, but I have read the Hidden History of WWI | The Corbett Report, so I know there is much more to know than what is written in a Wikiedpia article.

It is Statecraft 101 that ambiguity on war between nuclear powers is very dangerous. Thus, there existed the Hotline between Russia–United States. “… the Moscow–Washington hotline, also known as the “red telephone”, although telephones have never been used in this capacity. This direct communications link was established on June 20, 1963, in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which convinced both sides of the need for better communications. It was the first time used by U.S. President John F. Kennedy on August 30, 1963 and utilized teletypewriter technology, later replaced by telecopier and then by electronic mail.”

Russia’s response was strong and direct, i.e., without ambiguity. They started drills for the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there were statements directly contradicting Macron, French troops would be treated as enemy combatants.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

By Gambling on Deterrance, Washington Must Prepare for Failure in the Pacific

Posted by M. C. on June 19, 2023

Japanese leaders chose war rather than capitulation, even though some of them, including Admiral IsorokuYamamoto, the architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor, suspected that their country could not win a war against the United States.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/by-gambling-on-deterrance-washington-must-prepare-for-failure-in-the-pacific/

by Ted Galen Carpenter

china us flags on table

It has become increasingly apparent that any notion of U.S. “strategic ambiguity” with respect to Taiwan is dead. Both the Joe Biden administration’s rhetoric and U.S. military deployments in the western Pacific indicate that the United States will come to Taiwan’s defense if the People’s Republic of China (PRC) uses force against the island. The logic underlying this more confrontational stance is that it will deter Beijing from taking rash actions. It is far more likely to produce a potentially catastrophic military collision between the United States and China.

The reliability and credibility of any U.S. security assurances to Taipei are based on the assumption that U.S. forces would prevail if fighting broke out. However, it is most unclear whether that would be the case. Simulations run by the Pentagon and think tanks in recent years have produced mixed results. Some of them indicate that the United States would lose such a war; others point to a hard-fought U.S. victory. Both scenarios entail a horrific cost in lives and treasure. Looming in the background is the worry that either country might conclude that an escalation to the use of nuclear weapons was necessary to avoid a humiliating defeat.

The Pentagon and its supporters increasingly focus on ways to strengthen the U.S. military presence in the western Pacific to maximize the credibility of deterrence. A recent article by Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery (ret.) and Bradley Bowman is typical. They recommend five steps to prevent defeat: enhancing the ability to strike attacking PRC forces; strengthening Taiwan’s ability to defend itself; bolstering the survivability of forward deployed U.S. units; improving the capabilities of U.S. and allied forces to fight together; and building more cyber resilient infrastructure to support military mobility.

Such analyses focus on only one element of deterrence—the balance of military forces. Even with that narrow focus, U.S. prospects are not bright. Over the past two decades, the PRC has dedicated itself to an extraordinarily ambitious military modernization program. The focus of that effort has been on air and naval weapons systems that would make a U.S. intervention to defend Taiwan prohibitively problematic and costly. Beijing may already have achieved that capability. If not, it is just a few years away.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »