Globalization

[Roguish Lawyer]

NDD:

Still glad you invited AL in here? LMAO

Regarding war with China, I support trading with and engaging with them, not isolating them, because this will make war less likely. I think it is foolish to dismiss China as a possible military adversary. If they cross the Strait, would you abandon Taiwan? :

[jatx]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

If they cross the Strait, would you abandon Taiwan? :

A friend of mine at the Pentagon calls this the "Million Man Swim"

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

I remember back when the Japanese were buying up car plants and property in the US. Everybody said we'd all be speaking Japanese in a few years. Well, what happened? Their shit fell through the cracks, just like everybody elses does when they grow too fast and they don't change the rules to meet the new situation. They didn't play fair with us either, remember that? They don't seem to be in the news much anymore as far as "taking over the US".

Watch what happens to the Chinese with this outrageous growth.

When I was in law school around 2000 or so, a book came out called "Germany, Inc." (explicitly mimicking a 1980s book on the Japanese model called Japan, Inc.). The author was convinced that we were wrong about Japan, but Germany was the new economic powerhouse we should be worried about. After all, in the wake of Daimler/Chrysler, Bertelsmann buying Random House and Deutsche Bank's takeover of Bankers Trust, among other deals, it looked like the Germans were buying up everybody.

The rhetoric was as heated as any anti-Japanese rhetoric of the 1980s: Bertelsmann's acquisition of Random House was called an Anschluss (annexation) by the left-wing The Nation magazine. For an English speaker, Anschluss connotes the 1938 Anschluss of Austria by Nazi Germany. Vanity Fair described the merger in the context of a "German blitzkrieg" on American publishers. Lest we miss the Nazi connotation, they added: American publishers were being "bought by people who at one point in this century were more famous for burning books than for publishing them."

So where exactly are the panzers of German industry these days?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

This is a tautology. "Gap" countries are defined as countries displaying these conditions, so the fact that an overwhelming number of countries displaying these conditions are "Gap" countries is, shall we say, unsurprising.

Negative, you need to read the book. The Gap was not initially defined by these conditions - it was originally a simple map of US deployments for operations other than war.

No, it's not surprising. But do you not think it is more of an impact to actually see stats? Are we going to pay chicken-egg now?

Oh, and I don't think it is a tautology to confim hypothesis with evidence to show reproducible results.

Unless you are referring to a tautology in the mathematical sense of the word?

[NousDefionsDoc]

So where exactly are the panzers of German industry these days?

My guess would be suffering the consequences of re-integration and membership in the EU. But then that is just a guess.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Fight! Fight!

(NDD, you have giant brass ones. )

Is the term “gap states� defined in here somewhere? I am following on a very slow Blackberry connection and would appreciate a quick definition if someone would be so kind.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/publi...gonsnewmap.htm

[NousDefionsDoc]

NDD:

Still glad you invited AL in here? LMAO

Absolutely. If I can't handle a challenge or two, I'm on the wrong track.

[Roguish Lawyer]

I like the comparison to Japan. Good one.

In case anyone is wondering, these are quotation marks:

“�

[DanUCSB]

You can tell that NDD's been reading too much Barnett.

But actually, I agree. Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map and Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree together make for a good primer on globalization and security concerns. They accurately describe what I would see as the primary security situation today: not great-power warfare, but rather the legacy of failing to understand and keep up with globalization: failed states (Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Liberia) and non-governmental groups who, for various reasons, fear the emergence of freedom, openness, and capitalism (al-Qaeda, most Islamofascist groups, various others). I'm not sure if I agree with Barnett's ultimate optimism in globalization leading us to a world where war is obsolete (people will always fight over some of the same old things), but I think he does a very good job of explaining how the usefulness of the old Big War legacy systems are on the decline (B-1 and B-2 bombers, major surface warships, Comanche) in favor of a more decentralized boots-on-the-ground approach (SF, basic infantry skills, Strykers, UAVs, UH-60s). But as we can see from watching procurement battles, a lot of generals don't want to give up their big-budget items, even if they don't adequately meet the nation's current or near future security needs (F-22s are sleek and sexy; UAVs are ugly and don't give ticket-punchers a clear path to general). Barnett's right when he complains that everyone is looking for the next near-peer competitor (which always ends up being China) while ignoring the real threats to our national security (all of the little bad guys around the globe biting at our ankles).

As for globalization in a larger sense, I'm with Greenhat and some of the others here. Business is a harsh thing, and it's meaningless to complain that the Chinese "don't play fair." Are we to expect them to boost their wages to US union levels out of some sense of international fair play? Of course not; that's absurd. I can understand the plight of people in the United States who are at the wrong end of the globalization stick; however, all of the other options are worse. Everyone in the US seems to love market economics right up until they find out that someone else can do their job just as well and for less.

Capitalism is a hard road, sometimes, and globalization is merely the logical extension of it to the international sphere. American lefties love to sit around and grouse about how bad working conditions are in other nations; what they forget, however, is that all of these people are doing it for a reason: working long hours in a factory for a tiny (to us) wage beats the hell out of starving to death in a mud hut. There's a reason why factories in Malaysia and Indonesia, call centers in India, and maquiladoras in Mexico constantly have crowds of would-be workers out front, hoping for a job. Capitalism, even exploitative and corrupt capitalism (which is a stage every nation inevitably goes through in the transition), has raised standard of living more than any other force in history.

[NousDefionsDoc]

I know I'm guilty of Barnetting. But it is actually an extension of Boyd's arugment against the F-15 and for the F-16, although he eventually lost out on the ultimate goal.

SF guys always knew they were wrong - we saw it on the ground. Seems like we just couldn't explain it (at least I couldn't). And now it makes sense. It explains why all the UAHs weren't armored, the lack of marksmenship skills, etc. We build one army when we need a different one. Of course the consequences of ignoring a near-peer that actually does do something would be catastrophic.

Based on the indicators and recent history - an A Team is more effective than a new fighter - something we knew all along. If I was USASOC, I would be giving this briefing everytime I saw two talking in DC.

It is also an excellent counter-argument to lib accusations.

For the record, I don't agree with everything Barnett has to say either - your example being one of them.

[Sacamuelas]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Absolutely. If I can't handle a challenge or two, I'm on the wrong track.

one or two!!!! .. that's fookin funny. Your ass is about to get a thesis of asswhoopin'.


I agree with RL though... NDD does got big'uns to make the challenge.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

My guess would be suffering the consequences of re-integration and membership in the EU. But then that is just a guess.

Right. They followed the same model you noted that Japan did, or at least that commenters on Japan did - inflating the threat of the monolith right when its internal problems reached a tipping point. The biggest problem of reintegration remaining today is chronically high unemployment, but given the experience of its EU neigbors, Germany would be suffering high unemployment even without the Ossis. Among other things, Germany is constrained by excessive bureaucracy and overregulation, EU and domestic, high taxes, a population spoiled by its cradle-to-grave welfare system, and politicians unwilling to address these problems.

My biggest fear for the US is whether we will follow Europe over this cliff.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

The chances of war with China may be small, but I think "close to nil" is an exaggeration. Taiwan and North Korea are two possible starting points, for example.

Looking at it from a Chinese perspective, there are a dozen or so potential starting points for conflict, though some are remote and others would not implicate the United States.

Numbers correspond to the attached map.

1. Civil unrest/uprising in Tibet. Probably unlikely to evolve into any sort of insurgency, but potentially a problem. There is also some question as to what degree of support China may be giving to Maoist guerrillas across the border in Nepal.

2. Conflict with India. India and China have a common border of about 2,800 miles and fought a border war in 1962. Smaller border clashes have followed, and both countries maintain large military forces in the region. Though a 1996 agreement allows for bilateral talks and confidence-building measures, the substance of the dispute is unresolved. India alternatively pursues close relationships with the US and the USSR/Russia to contain China, while China pursues such relationships with Pakistan to contain India. Both sides have nuclear weapons, though, which tends to moderate their behavior.

3. Civil unrest/uprising in Chinese Turkestan. Though they don't make the news much, China has millions of Turkic Muslims who don't particularly like being under China's thumb. When there was a Soviet Union, both countries had a common interest in suppressing their Turkic populations. But now China borders two independent Turkic countries - Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. While neither is a military threat to China, or is even especially inclined to support Islamists among China's Muslims, they still threaten Chinese control by virtue of (i) their very existence and (ii) the fact that as China prospers economically, even poorer Uighurs can get access to Turkish satellite television broadcasts in Central Asia and see what they are lacking. China has done and will continue to do everything it can to portray any dissent among these Turkic Muslims as part of the grand Islamist conspiracy, in the hopes that we will condone or at least ignore the measures they take to suppress dissent.

4. Mongolia. China still considers Mongolia to merely be Outer Mongolia awaiting return to the Chinese fold, but they aren't in any hurry to reclaim the country. China is worried, however, by two things. First, Mongolia has aggressively cultivated good relations with the United States, even sending troops to Iraq (after a 700-year absence). Second, Mongolian pop culture is seeping into China, undermining Chinese social control in Inner Mongolia (a Mongolian heavy metal band whose heroes are Metallica recently had its music banned in China). Only a slight threat that anything might happen militarily, but it does contribute to China's sense of paranoia.

5. The last Sino-Soviet border conflict was, like the Sino-Indian Border War, some time ago. And China is now Russia's largest customer for military hardware. But some degree of tension remains. Possibility of a war between the two countries is remote, but I have seen some rather outlandish scenarios (not including those in Tom Clancy novels) that factor in such a conflict.

6. North Korea. In the near term, if there were to be any conflict between China and one of its neighbors, war with North Korea actually seems the most likely. Even the old Communists of the Chinese politburo have to be worried about North Korean irrationality, and China already maintains a cordon sanitaire on its side of the border to deal with refugees fleeing North Korea. It is not far-fetched to imagine China pushing that cordon sanitaire closer to and across the border, and the DPRK not reacting too favorably to their Communist brothers.

7. A naval incident, fishing rights dispute or dispute over other issues (missile defense, North Korea, Taiwan, trade) could lead to a conflict in the East China Sea directly with Japan, South Korea or the US. Again, somewhat remote, but maybe NDD is right that the USAF and Navy need some scenario to justify those F-22s and CBGs.

8. Volumes have been written on a war between the PRC and the ROC, and whether and how that would implicate the US.

9. It hasn't been talked about much recently, but before 9-11, there was a fair amount of debate over the possibility of conflict in the South China Sea over the disputed Spratley and Paracel Islands. Everyone in the region - the PRC, the ROC, the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam - lays some sort of claim, and the potential oil and natural gas reserves there make it something the parties might consider worth fighting over. The islands and surrounding shipping lanes are also prone to piracy, so trading countries outside of the region, including Japan and the US, also have to be concerned.

10. China's last border war with Vietnam was 1979. It exposed the weaknesses of the PLA's conventional military forces, as Vietnamese gunners picked off Chinese tank unit commanders opening their hatches to use signal flags to command their units. That dismal showing was probably as much an impetus for Deng Xiaoping's modernizations as any worries about the USSR and the US. Like most of the other border war scenarios, a renewed conflict is a remote possibility, but it remains there. In connection with a conflict over the Spratleys, the possibility increases slightly, but is still rather remote.

11. I threw this one in even though I have no idea what the potentiality for a conflict is here. Burma, like North Korea is a rogue state with otherwise good relations with China. I suppose if there is a threat it arises less from conventional sources like a border dispute than from unconventional sources like narco-trafficking. If Chinese economic growth leads to its growing middle class becoming consumers of drugs, China might decide it needs its own counternarcotics strategy. Burma could be China's Colombia.

You can add your own speculative scenarios too. Two I did not put on the map were a direct conflict with the United States not involving a regional conflict, and civil unrest among the Han Chinese themselves, as opposed to minorities like the Uighurs and Tibetans. As to the latter, it's been 15 years since Tiananmen, but the memory remains. The Communist Party has to be paying close attention to various more recent manifestations of people power around the world, too. Even China's economic growth has the seeds of conflict, as it is creating two Chinas - one China where a growing middle class is seeing its economic prosperity not matched by the political freedom it increasingly learns is enjoyed by middle classes in other countries, and another China of tens or even hundreds of millions of people still living in pre-industrial conditions in villages without paved roads or running water.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

Right. They followed the same model you noted that Japan did, or at least that commenters on Japan did - inflating the threat of the monolith right when its internal problems reached a tipping point. The biggest problem of reintegration remaining today is chronically high unemployment, but given the experience of its EU neigbors, Germany would be suffering high unemployment even without the Ossis. Among other things, Germany is constrained by excessive bureaucracy and overregulation, EU and domestic, high taxes, a population spoiled by its cradle-to-grave welfare system, and politicians unwilling to address these problems.

My biggest fear for the US is whether we will follow Europe over this cliff.

IMO, Germany suffers from high employment because they re-integrated an entire gap state. They have twice as many people with the same number of jobs. High unemployment is not a problem, it is a symptom. However they had no choice.

If we don't establish the rules, we probably will follow Europe to some extent - their programs will become the norm. I am resigned to the fact that Euorphilia is a nasty by-product of globalization among certain groups.


Again- a laundry list of issues. What do you propose we do differently?