The Pentagon�s annual publication, �Military Power of the
People�s Republic of China 2009,� accused China of stocking its military with
weapons that can be used to intimidate or attack Taiwan and mitigate U.S. air
and naval superiority near its territory. Even if the Department of Defense�s
report has not exaggerated the threat from China -- unlikely since the
department has an inherent conflict of interest in evaluating threats and
building weapons to counter those threats -- the report is good news.
You would never know it by the statement of Ike Skelton,
Democratic Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who warned that
�China�s military budget continues a trend of double-digit increases and
questions remain about China�s strategic intentions.�
Unfortunately, no questions exist about U.S. strategic
intentions, even under a new more liberal president. The United States will
seek to continue its military dominance of East Asia and the world and will
seek to keep China contained by a system of bilateral alliances, military bases
in East Asia, and far-forward military deployments -- all left over from the
Cold War.
In addition, the gap between U.S. and Chinese defense
spending remains vast. The massive U.S. defense spending is equal to almost
half the total defense expenditure for the entire world. Although China�s
defense spending has increased by double digits in recent years, this increase
followed a period of slack spending and starts from a much lower base level
than the gargantuan U.S. defense budget. U.S. yearly spending on defense is
$711 billion, whereas China�s is only 17 percent of that at $122 billion
annually.
Furthermore, the U.S. military deploys far forward around
China; China�s general military forces do not deploy in the Western Hemisphere
and do not threaten the United States. The most important finding in the
Pentagon�s report was that China could not deploy and sustain even small military
units far away from its borders before 2015. The report continued that China
would not be able to deploy and sustain large units in combat far away from
China until well into the decade after that. Instead, the Pentagon concluded
that China is modernizing its military for short conflicts around its borders.
In other words, China�s capability to project conventional power is and will
remain pathetic far into the future -- thus making most of China�s neighbors
relatively safe, and the faraway U.S. very safe, against a Chinese attack.
But what about Taiwan? Right now it is doubtful that China
could conduct a successful amphibious invasion against Taiwan, which is an
island. Island nations are easier to defend than other countries, because
amphibious landings are one of the most difficult military operations to
undertake. In Taiwan�s case, it has a very good air force that could probably
sink any Chinese amphibious force, because Chinese ships are deficient in good
air defenses. The greatest threat to Taiwan would be Chinese intimidation or
actual attack with a growing number of short-range ballistic missiles.
But the real question is whether Taiwan is strategic
militarily to the United States. The small island nation is not, and the United
States shouldn�t risk escalation with a nuclear-armed China to defend it. Even
as the Chinese military gets stronger, the rich Taiwanese can use a porcupine
strategy. They don�t have to be able to win a war with China; they just need to
be able to inflict enough damage to dissuade China from invading or attacking.
In contrast, Taiwan is strategic to China, because any major
foreign power with aircraft could transfer them to the island and have an
offshore base to bomb China. Even though China has far fewer nuclear weapons
than the United States, the Chinese are emotional about the Taiwan issue; thus,
any nuclear showdown over the island would be fraught with risk.
Therefore, the United States should declare that it will no
longer defend Taiwan and retract the American Navy�s threat to China from U.S.
forward bases and deployments in East Asia. Now that the Cold War is long over,
these forward forces are not needed for U.S. security and are needlessly
provocative to China. Such deployments and bases, and the U.S. containment
policy toward China, contribute to the perceived Chinese need for double-digit
defense budget increases. Thus, in a time of world economic meltdown, the U.S.
could retract its expensive, unaffordable, and out-of-date empire and make its
citizens safer at the same time.
Ivan
Eland is Director of the Center
on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute and Assistant
Editor of The
Independent Review. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa
State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in
national security policy from George Washington University. He has been
Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, Principal Defense
Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, Evaluator-in-Charge (national
security and intelligence) for the U.S. General Accounting Office, and
Investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense
Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books, The Empire
Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting
�Defense� Back into U.S. Defense Policy.