"I'm NOT WEAK"

Photo:  Daily Mail

The headline for this story is "I'm NOT WEAK: Obama answers critics in West Point speech and insists the US must lead the world by example – 'If we don't, no one else will'

If one must state they are not weak, then you've already lost all chance of convincing people otherwise. If you state that the US must lead the way, you can't then hide behind "partnerships" and "multilateral actions" otherwise you just confirm that you are weak.  If you claim American exceptionalism, you can't then delegate the work to international coalitions without confirming your weakness.  You can't say your critics downplay the effectiveness of international coalitions without showing at least one example where it has worked during your administration.  You can't talk tough, as you did with Syria and Russia, and then do nothing without your enemies and allies calling you weak.

But most of all Mr President, if you are the Commander-In-Chief, then when a someone in uniform renders a salute….RETURN IT!!

Don't Meddle

At least that's what Beijing has told Washington in regards to increasing hostile relations between China and Japan. China and Japan are locked in a dispute over another set of islands (not the Kurils).
The islands located in the in the East China Sea, known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China, have lately strained bilateral relations of the two leading Asian economies (RT.com).  As I've already posted, China and Japan have no reason to be friendly after the atrocities in Nanking during World War II.

The US has increased troop strength in South Korea by sending 40 M1 Abrahams tanks and 800 soldiers from the 1st US Cavalry Division.  The troops will do a nine-month rotation but the tanks will remain as other troops rotate into theater.  According to RT.com, this is part of Washington's "pivot" to Asia.

"This addition of forces to Korea is part of the rebalance to the Pacific. It's been long planned and is part of our enduring commitment to security on the Korean peninsula," said Army Colonel Steve Warner in an article from Reuters.  But the numbers given hardly represent a increase of any significance.  As several others have pointed out, the move is more show than substance.  The real pivot seems to be in spending with funding switching away from the Army and more towards the Air Force and Navy (hence the huge build-up at Andersen AFB).

China's reaction is to criticize the "pivot" and increased military presence saying that it is straining relations between US and China.

China's Defense Ministry Spokesman Yang Yujun said, "the US is destabilizing the region by sending more troops, ships, and planes and strengthening its military alliances with regional partners."  PressTV.  China has criticized US military build-ups in countries besides South Korea such as Vietnam and Philippines.

All of this seems to indicate that the Obama Administration is not interested in fighting terrorism and focus more on regaining some type of global legitimacy.  The challenge is for the US to re-establish itself in Asia without being perceived as an even bigger threat by China.  And let's one forgets, the US has de facto diplomatic relations with Taiwan (under the Taiwan Relations Act 1979).  While the Taiwan Relations Act does not require the US to defend Taiwan per se, the US is able to provide arms to the Taiwanese government.  Of course, this means that the US views Taiwan as independent from China (something Beijing flatly rejects).

A conflict between China and Japan could be just the impetus for North Korea to attack.  Kim Jong Un is a young leader with some very disturbing tendencies (such as having an uncle and former girlfriend executed).  Young men tend to want to prove themselves and Kim Jong Un appears to have no problems with doing that.  Such tendencies could mean conflicts could break out with little to no warning.

What can we make of this?  Events in Asia are shaped by prior events going back 50 or more years in many cases.  In comparison, the events going on in Iran and Syria are far more recent.   The Obama Administration has been unable handle the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran nor keep his word of outing Asad should he use chemical weapons in Syria.  It is unlikely in the final years of his administration that the President will find the ability to negotiate his pivot successfully.  If nothing else, China merely needs to wait him out.  More likely, his actions will cause China to become more aggressive towards the next administration.  Should Hilary Clinton become the next President, I don't see her relaxing this approach to the region.

World War Three

The polar vortex that hit the last two days has closed the college and left me with more time to read and write.  A few days ago, Max Hastings posted an article about why he thought the deteriorating relationships between the US and China could lead to the next world war.

As was the case in World War I, neither the Chinese nor the US are looking to start a war.  However, China will not be denied its future role as a global economic and military superpower.  The US is no longer interested or able to go head to head with China (at least not publicly).  What might provide then the catalyst for war?

Interestingly the answer is Japan.  The Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the formal ending of the Japanese Empire and hostilities of WWII, also ended the Japanese military as anything other than a self-defense force.  Very similar in fact to what happened in Germany.

The United States has maintained a large military presence in Japan more out of its commitment to protect Japan against aggression from China than as an occupying power.  The US military, since at least the Reagan administration, has thought to re-evaluate this relationships but the Japanese government has historically tended to prefer to focus its GDP towards its economy rather than defense.

Recently this relationship has begun to change.  Washington is beginning to once again look to Japan to assume more responsibility for its own defense and Tokyo is now more receptive.  Herein lies the real root of the problem.

Japan has never admitted to the atrocities it committed against China and Korea during the war.  In comparison, Germany has openly acknowledged the Holocaust and criminalized Nazism.  The lack of admitting Japan's atrocities is what lies in China's fear that that US is looking to pull out of its role in Japan.

This lead to a whether alarming statement by the Chinese ambassador to London that "Japan risks ‘a serious threat to global peace’ by ‘rekindling’ the bellicose attitude that hastened the expansion of World War II into a global conflict."--The Nation

With this as a backdrop, is it no wonder that the Chinese have felt compelled to expand their air defense zone?  Similarly the United States has spent over $6 billion at Andersen AFB as part of a reinforcement program.

Let's not forget the continued struggle between Japan and Russia over the disputed Northern Territories (specifically the Kuril Islands, which has prevented a peace treaty being signed between Russia and Japan since WWII).

The Kuril Islands were annexed by the Soviet Union during World War II and remain under the control of Russia which is why in Feb 2011, then Russian President Medvedev ordered a significant increase in reinforcements of the islands when it look like Japan may lay claim.

The issues though actually date back to Czarist Russia when the quest for a warm water port lead Czar Nicholas II to attack Japan in 1904.  Partially out of bad advice from his own people but also partially the noting that the Japanese were somehow a backwards people. the Czar believed this was sure fire way to increase his political standing with little risk.  Unfortunately the Japanese were now a modern, early 20th Century military and defeated the Russian Navy (and also ended the era of the Czars, leading to the Russian Revolution and the start of the Soviet Union).

The victory by Japan emboldened their desires of the Empire to expand.  The loss by Russia was sought to be revenged in part by the Soviet take over of the Kuril Islands.  Is it any wonder that according to a 2012 Pew Global Attitudes Project survey, 72% of Japanese people view Russia unfavorably, compared with 22% who viewed it favorably, making Japan the most anti-Russian nation in the world?

The Chinese remember the Japanese invasion of 1937 resulting the Massacre of Nanking where, according to estimates by International Military Tribunal of the Far East, over 200,000 Chinese civilians and disarmed combatants were murdered by the Japanese Imperial Army.

So do the Souther Koreans.  Just last month, South Korean President Park Geun-hye said she rejects flatly any idea of meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe until Japan apologises for wrongdoings during its 35-year occupation of Korea.

South Korea wants a deeper apology and greater compensation for an estimated 200,000 South Korean “comfort women” who were forced to work as prostitutes in Japanese military brothels during the occupation. Everything to do with the 1910-45 Japanese occupation of Korea, brutal and authoritarian even compared with most other imperial occupations, still festers--The Independent

It has looked to me for some time that major hostilities could be started over Syria and Iran (and nothing today makes my think that still can't happen), I think we must also now consider how old hostilities in the Pacific may be creating an even more volatile situation than the Middle East.

Iranians stage mass protest against 'Great Satan' US

First we had Medved visiting the Kurile Islands trying to stir-up nationalistic fervor about a long forgotten part of history. Now Iran wants to restart the old "US Satan" slogan from 30 years ago. In my class on terrorism, I teach the students how many groups create an appearance of legitimacy by evoking symbols from the past. Medved's visit links him back to the halcyon days of the Russian empire (minus all of that czarist crap) and now Iran wants to go back to the days when they held the US hostage for 444 days. Both of these cases demonstrate how despots refocus the attention of the masses on matters outside their borders. Juan Peron did the same thing with the Falklands, whipping up national frenzy in an attempt to divert attention from his disastrous (and vicious) domestic policies. He of course under-estimated Prime Minister Thatcher's resolve and who proceeded to thrash him. (Note: Thatcher was helped indirectly by Ronald Reagan who sold Argentina bomb fuses that would not set if dropped from low altitude).

The US has ceased combat operations in Iraq, while still keeping 60,000 troops in country. Other than getting rid of Saddam Hussein, the outcome of all of the deaths, money and resources spent is unclear. General Patreaus, as the latest commander of forces in Afghanistan, recently predicted it would take another 10-20 years to finish the job in Afghanistan. These two latest conflicts are part of an unimpressive track record for the US abroad. Vietnam, the Tehran embassy hostage situation, the Beirut bombings in 1983, Grenada, Somalia 1993, Haiti 1995, and Kosovo all demonstrate the inability of US military action to bring a decisive conclusion to the situation. Yes, I know there were many factors contributing to each of these events but the rest of the world is able to draw its own conclusion. The United States will eventually tire and call its troops home whether the mission is completed or not.

Link