![]({"https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51JtiI2lSoL._SX338_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg":[340,499],"https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51JtiI2lSoL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg":[236,346]})
This is an exceptionally well written thesis by a highly knowledgeable author with solid references and background, presented in a cogent and compelling manor. I just don't buy it.
Author Robert Haddock believes passionately that the US has vital Asian interest imminently threatened by a rising China buttressed by friendly relations with its neighbor Russia and seeks to dominate the region by denying US military access. His answer is "Spend more. A lot more.". What is less clear is why? How would that benefit Americans?
Haddock acknowledges both that it has been US investment, and US abandonment of its manufacturing capacity to lower-wage China in exchange for higher investor profits that has created the monster that those who lost their jobs to will now be asked to pay higher taxes and send their children to fight. He goes on about their "salami chopping" encroachment strategy of achieving their goals - which is both true and troubling. But if you have already confirmed that if its American jobs and trade that underwrites Chinese aggression, then why not removed the fuel from their fire and limit trade? Why continue to pay for our adversary's military?
[Globalization has transferred out jobs and middle class to China and east Asia so that US corporations who outsource manufacturing there can sell those same products right back to Americans at the same price but with substantially lower quality. A demographic that used to work in our factories - however inefficient, still were able to buy a home, raise a family, buy healthcare, and raise a family. Now they work at service jobs and require public assistance with healthcare. Globalization has been a race to the bottom for most Americans. Haddock makes the point that US agriculture is exported to Asia, but that has no where near the economic impact of refrigerators, cars, and appliances. The point is that middle-class America has more reason to cheer for Asian disruption and blocked trade than to defend it.]
Haddock makes excellent arguments about how our Navy is ill-prepared to dominate the region because the IMF missile treaty limits the range of our missiles to just outside of China's defense zone, and that sailing warships inside of it will create sitting ducks. He maps out the changes required to gain offensive dominance in that challenging arena. But he doesn't convince me that its in our interest to do so.
Haddock points to how US prowess in attacking Iraq in 1991 - the massive display of military might, logistics, and technology, intimidated Chinese military planners. He talks about how we out-spent Russia in the late 1980's causing the breakup of their union. But he doesn't talk much about our complete inability to succeed in Afghanistan after 15 years against a rag-tag group of militants in a country that doesn't even manufacture rifles or gunpowder. He doesn't mention the abject disaster in Syria and Iraq. He doesn't mention our inability to prevail on Korea or Vietnam. He doesn't mention that while we have great military technology and spend far more than any country in history, that we don't know what the hell we are doing with that power or how to use it. He does, however, mention that countries whom we defend and spend enormous amounts of money on such as South Korea and Japan and Philippines, really, really don't want us there, and that in the event of a hot conflict with China, that our regional 'allies' are likely to remain neutral in the event of a Chinese victory. So, what are we fighting for?
Since WWII we have sacrificed roads, bridges, healthcare, and education to build a military that can prevail against any other in the world and it has been a disaster - both for Americans and the world. Its time to mind our own business and defend our own shores and rebuild our own country starting with taking trade and manufacturing back from countries who are emerging as regional hegemons.
Haddock points to rising economy in Germany prior to WWI and their desire to militarily protect shipping routes that threatened British naval supremacy as a factor leading to that war. But England had already declined from its glorious Mercantile Triangle manufacturing era that fueled the empire, and now set its sights on controlling the middle east oil lands where the German-Ottoman alliance stood in the way. Dragging the US into that war simply set the stage for the rise of Hitler, WWII, and the demise of Britain as a major world economic force. So controlling the seas might have been a motivational goal but in the end England would have been better off emulating the success of the German manufacturing & export economy rather than destroying it.
Haddock spends an entire chapter on 'strategy' and its very good. But it leaves out the fact that strategy is a method of achieving goals, and the first step is to set then validate the legitimacy of those goals. Our goals should be a strong America - and that comes first from jobs, infrastructure, agriculture, and healthcare. Way down on the list is a border dispute between China and Vietnam.
I can't emphasis what a great author Haddock is and how well this book is written and how knowledgeable he his and how effectively he supports his arguments. I just disagree with the priority of thesis and the best way to approach it. More importantly, why should the American middle class who has suffered so much under globalism now be asked to preserve it?
- Hardcover: 288 pages
- Publisher: Naval Institute Press (September 15, 2014)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 1612517951
- ISBN-13: 978-1612517957
- Product Dimensions: 6.1 x 1.2 x 9 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
- Customer Reviews: 14 customer reviews
-
Amazon Best Sellers Rank:
#1,240,792 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #2967 in Naval Military History
- #2807 in Military Strategy History (Books)
- #2655 in Chinese History (Books)
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
If you are a seller for this product, would you like to suggest updates through seller support?
