Balance of Power and the Next Reallignment

[bathsheba666]

China only has to grow to the point where it can buy the majority of the US Senate and Congress.

Or lobby, rather than buy, if you prefer

 

[Ajidica]

The US was at the height lf its global power right after WW1, and then again after WW2 until the Soviets got their own atomic bomb. There is a third peak after the fall of communism which lasts until now, but it's declinining fast, and this peak was never as high as the previous two.

Where are you getting any sense of American decline from?

 

[Commodore]

Good soldiers, bad commanders someone used to say about Italian soldiers.

Anyway, while I do not have a military background at all, for some reason, it does seem to make a lot of sense to NOT patrol when fighting terrorists, as they operate on the premise of the element of surprise. They like to stay as long hidden as possible. Wouldn't it be better to wait until terrorists strike and then counterattack? Patrolling doesn't seem to make a lot of sense at all.

You patrol to do area denial and show the locals you are still there. You are correct in that they stay hidden during our patrols and that is kind of the point. As long as they think we have a strong presence in an area they will remain hidden or abandon the area altogether in favor of 'softer' targets.

Also, you can't gather intelligence about who's working for the enemy unless you get out there and engage with the locals. Sure, sometimes people will approach the FOB with information, but you'll never get the intelligence you need by relying on those types of sources.

In short, the idea behind patrolling in counter-insurgency operations is to take a proactive approach rather than a reactive one because being reactive in any type of military conflict more or less ensures your defeat.

 

[luiz]

Where are you getting any sense of American decline from?

On relative terms the US is undeniably declining (not this year in particular but since the end of the Cold War). Basically in 1991 (fall of the USSR) China was still a dirt poor country, India was even poorer, and Russia of course was on its knees. Now you have China with an economy roughly the same size of the US and slowly but surely eroding into the US's hegemony on the Pacific, an assertive Russia, a growing India. The US lost influence even in its own (former?) backyard: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua... all are firmly on the anti-American camp.On absolute terms the US has never been stronger, of course, but its grip on global affairs is much weaker now than in 1991.

 

[Tahuti]

In short, the idea behind patrolling in counter-insurgency operations is to take a proactive approach rather than a reactive one because being reactive in any type of military conflict more or less ensures your defeat.

I think that's where I still have trouble of accepting the logic of having patrols against non-conventional armed forces. Why wouldn't conventional vs. guerilla warfare be the exception that proves the rule? The non-conventional armed forces forces are the reactive ones here, and often end up winning. It seems that you have to be reactive yourself in order to lure them into a conventional firefight which they can't win.

 

[jackelgull]

I think that's where I still have trouble of accepting the logic of having patrols against non-conventional armed forces. Why wouldn't conventional vs. guerilla warfare be the exception that proves the rule? The non-conventional armed forces forces are the reactive ones here, and often end up winning. It seems that you have to be reactive yourself in order to lure them into a conventional firefight which they can't win.

They don't really "win" in the conventional sense of the word. They bleed away strength, but they largely lose. It is only because they have more members, and can take over parts of the country that the army isn't stationed in that guerrilla forces gain the traction they are famous for.

 

[Tahuti]

They don't really "win" in the conventional sense of the word. They bleed away strength, but they largely lose. It is only because they have more members, and can take over parts of the country that the army isn't stationed in that guerrilla forces gain the traction they are famous for.

If they survive while the invading forces have the objective to eliminate them, it is a failure. Israel has yet to do it and while holding out well compared to all the recent American operations, it is certainly not winning because of its tactics that end up boosting morale and resources for their enemies. America is losing Afghanistan, as it is negotiating with the Taliban. America lost Vietnam and Iraq II as well. Lately, there have been a host of wars where the insurgents won. The only recent war I can think off where the opposite was true was Sri Lanka's succesful repression of the Tamil Tigers.

 

[Zkribbler]

America lost Vietnam and Iraq II as well.

Not true.

A stalemate in Vietnam was reached which resulted in a peace treaty, which held for YEARS. Then, the North blatantly violated it by launching an unprovoked war against the South. Your argument would be like saying the Central Powers won WWI because the Nazis later invaded France and Russia.

The U.S. WON Iraq II, over a maelstrom of conflicts (Sunni vs. Shia, nationalists vs. US; al Qaeda vs. U.S., Shia militias vs. US, Baath party vs. the U.S.) We put together a coalition, democratically elected government. The current problem in Iraq is that, after the U.S. left, al Maliki systematically went about marginalizing the Kurds and Sunni Arabs. Thus, when ISIS showed up, the Kurds and Sunnis preferred it to al Maliki. Notice that, as soon as al Maliki was ousted and a more conciliatory central government took power, the ISIS juggernaut ground to a halt and is now being chewed away by the Kurds, and to a lesser degree, by the Sunni Arabs.

America is losing Afghanistan, as it is negotiating with the Taliban.

95% of all guerrilla wars end with a negotiated settlement.

 

[Commodore]

I think that's where I still have trouble of accepting the logic of having patrols against non-conventional armed forces. Why wouldn't conventional vs. guerilla warfare be the exception that proves the rule? The non-conventional armed forces forces are the reactive ones here, and often end up winning. It seems that you have to be reactive yourself in order to lure them into a conventional firefight which they can't win.

The non-conventional forces that end up winning their struggles do so because they are able to seize the initiative and force their enemy back on their heels and create situations where the government/occupiers are reacting to what they are doing instead of the other way around.

Now patrols allow the conventional forces to maintain the initiative by denying the patrolled area to the enemy for their activities. If it's a village you are denying them safehouses potential recruits and any resources or infrastructure present in the village that may aid them. If it's the country side, you conduct patrols to root out any enemy observers, scouts, or hidden firing positions they may use to drop mortars or rockets on you. The point is, you have to be out there trying to engage them or they will just slowly kill you with pinpricks; launching small attacks against you until you either lose the will to fight or you are weak enough for them to overwhelm you.

With all of that said however, the main purpose of a combat patrol during counter-insurgency is to provide a cover for action for your intelligence collectors. To any insurgents observing, the patrol is just a bunch of infantry grunts out there, when in reality there may be one or two intelligence collectors mixed in there gathering information. Now seeing as any successful counter-insurgency operation relies on intelligence-driven operations, those combat patrols become absolutely essential to a commander on the ground.

 

[Tahuti]

Not true.

A stalemate in Vietnam was reached which resulted in a peace treaty, which held for YEARS. Then, the North blatantly violated it by launching an unprovoked war against the South. Your argument would be like saying the Central Powers won WWI because the Nazis later invaded France and Russia.

Again, the goal was to destroy the NVA. This did not happen.

The U.S. WON Iraq II, over a maelstrom of conflicts (Sunni vs. Shia, nationalists vs. US; al Qaeda vs. U.S., Shia militias vs. US, Baath party vs. the U.S.) We put together a coalition, democratically elected government. The current problem in Iraq is that, after the U.S. left, al Maliki systematically went about marginalizing the Kurds and Sunni Arabs. Thus, when ISIS showed up, the Kurds and Sunnis preferred it to al Maliki. Notice that, as soon as al Maliki was ousted and a more conciliatory central government took power, the ISIS juggernaut ground to a halt and is now being chewed away by the Kurds, and to a lesser degree, by the Sunni Arabs.

The US deposed Saddam Hussein, that's all. I did not destroy ISIS or Al-Qaida in Iraq when they left. That's pretty much a loss.

95% of all guerrilla wars end with a negotiated settlement.

Which are often losses for the non-guerrilla side, since they come in with the goal of destroying them.

With all of that said however, the main purpose of a combat patrol during counter-insurgency is to provide a cover for action for your intelligence collectors. To any insurgents observing, the patrol is just a bunch of infantry grunts out there, when in reality there may be one or two intelligence collectors mixed in there gathering information. Now seeing as any successful counter-insurgency operation relies on intelligence-driven operations, those combat patrols become absolutely essential to a commander on the ground.

Why would intelligence gathering require patrols? Wouldn't it make more sense to infiltrate terrorist groups? I say this acknowledging that I essentially have implied conventional armed forces should avoid engaging terrorist groups altogether as much as possible, unless they operate in the open.

 

[nc-1701]

I don't know what the crisis will be or how bad it will be, but the trend in modern history has been towards greater unification of humanity. So perhaps the next great realignment will actually see some sort of global governmental authority arise. Whether that would be good or bad for the world is, obviously, unknown.

Indeed, as we can see the last crisis was very peaceful, aside from a few spin off wars in Yugoslavia etc. everything reshuffled with very little bloodshed. It remains to be seen if that was luck or a new post-nuclear paradigm though. Either way my question stands.

A question: has there really been a substantial, distinct period of unipolar America after the fall of the Soviet Union that is now leading into a period of realignment, or have we just been realigning since 1990?

Absolutely and without doubt.

I'd say when fiat currency finally spirals out of control somewhere will be the next major war.

Not like the world economy can grow real wages anymore with oil production plateaued.

We seemed to be heading there, but oil production is now absolutely not plateaued nor will it be in the near future.

If we compare China to the US individually, then yes, China will very likely grow more powerful than the US at some point. Its population is five times larger, so the better question is why it wasn't already more powerful to begin with.

However, we are not comparing China to the US. We are comparing their respective alliance systems with each other. And there is next to no chance that China will be able to put together an alliance system that can match the one the US has built up, which contains just about every developed country in the world. Especially not when one considers how abysmally China has conducted its foreign policy in recent years. A China-India axis would indeed be formidable, but China lost its chance and India will probably align itself more and more with the US and Japan, thus strengthening the US alliance even further. The only other viable great power candidate to align with China is Russia. While the two countries probably will come to some alliance of convenience, if for no other reason than having a common enemy, China and Russia have come to blows in the past and there are too many problems in their relationship for me to see it really working out in the long run.

Not to say that the US will remain sole hegemon forever. The future world will probably be a multipolar one, certainly not one where China is the sole superpower.

This is generally what this thread is about. Being a world power is not the same as having a strong military/economy or even the strongest one. It's a question of being in control and America is undoubtedly in control through our huge web of allies and influence. There are few places where American influence doesn't mean anything and America can't act with impunity.
The "crisis" I refer to in the OP is the point where American soft power starts being threatened and there is a risk of competing alliance systems. American soft power can survive even as China grows much larger than the US, but it may be threatened or pressed against longer term.
One thing I noticed about the recent Ukraine situation is that it is the first time I remember that an invasion occurred without America's blessing and then America was/is powerless to stop it. Surely a new development and perhaps a leading indicator of weakening American power more than an indicator of Russian power.

Finally I will add that predicting such a realignment by no means implies America will fall, after all the Anglo power group has come out on top of every past realignment.

 

[Perfection]

In the past conflict between nations was a good model for how the world works, in the future that will not be the case.

The next realignment will be the fading of power of nations as a whole.

 

[Tee Kay]

In the past conflict between nations was a good model for how the world works, in the future that will not be the case.

The next realignment will be the fading of power of nations as a whole.

Great men think alike.

We're well in transition from the era of nation-states to the era of the transnational corporations.

 

[Commodore]

Why would intelligence gathering require patrols? Wouldn't it make more sense to infiltrate terrorist groups? I say this acknowledging that I essentially have implied conventional armed forces should avoid engaging terrorist groups altogether as much as possible, unless they operate in the open.

Well you can't infiltrate an insurgency with your own people so you have to recruit locals to do that for you. Then you have to meet with them to debrief them. Most of the time your sources cannot come to the FOB to meet with you because insurgents usually watch the FOB to get an idea of which locals are helping you out. The only way to meet with them then is to go to them. That means a combat patrol so it just looks like business as usual for the occupiers instead of them conducting an intelligence debriefing.

One tactic I used to get one of my sources who infiltrated a group onto the FOB was to have an infantry platoon go to his village and pretend to detain him like we believed he really was a part of the group he infiltrated.

 

[Ajidica]

On relative terms the US is undeniably declining (not this year in particular but since the end of the Cold War). Basically in 1991 (fall of the USSR) China was still a dirt poor country, India was even poorer, and Russia of course was on its knees. Now you have China with an economy roughly the same size of the US and slowly but surely eroding into the US's hegemony on the Pacific, an assertive Russia, a growing India.

It is interesting to note that in South East Asia, a lot of China's neighbors -both our traditional allies and new countries such as Vietnam- are increasingly leaning toward the US for security agreements and forming an anti-China block that is roughly in line with our interests in the region. China may be trying to make a show of force to grab some islands, but their incessant sabre rattling is having the opposite effect, it is unnerving their neighbors enough into forming a 'united front' toward Chinese territorial ambitions. Working with America is better for their security interests than working with China.

The US lost influence even in its own (former?) backyard: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua... all are firmly on the anti-American camp.

Forgive me, but I hardly rank Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela as particularly important areas of US interest. Venezuela may have oil, but they kept selling it to us even as Chavez was calling Bush a donkey. Now that oil prices are falling and their economy is doing its best attempt to imitate the Hindenburg at Lakehurst, their international influence is falling.
Plus, if I remember correctly, Chavez managed to get some degree of anti-western popularity in that he was able to present himself as a leftist politician who stood up to entrenched commercial interests and sort of followed a democratic system.* The impression I've gotten is that Maduro doesn't have that perception he can bank on.

*I do not want to get into a discussion about what Chavez did or didn't do. As you will note, I said he was able to present himself as doing certain things, not that he did said things.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I'm skeptical that economics will play a great role in the distribution of future power. Economics do not matter as much as military technology matters. Your great banking and customer services sector will not stop you from becoming flame fuel for orbiting guns and rockets. And I don't think an African or South American country will ever be a superpower.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm skeptical that economics will play a great role in the distribution of future power. Economics do not matter as much as military technology matters. Your great banking and customer services sector will not stop you from becoming flame fuel for orbiting guns and rockets.

Well, economics is pretty critical for a good military. If we look at the numbers, Germany spends as a percentage of GDP on military less than, say, Brazil but due to the size of the German economy Germany spends a greater value. I would argue that in a straight up fight, the German military would probably beat the Brazilian military. (Ignoring of course I cannot think of a single even vaguely plausible scenario in which such a scenario would occur and ignoring the rather poor force projection abilities of both countries.)

And I don't think an African or South American country will ever be a superpower.

A country doesn't have to be a superpower to have influence. After all, tt was South African diplomatic efforts -not American, French or any other superpowers diplomatic efforts- that brought an end to the Second Congo War.

 

[Pangur Bán]

If you sent Richie Rich into a UFC fight, would you expect him to come out on top?That's not to deny that economic power can boost military power, and indeed economic power in the end depends on military power. Many military ideas and products are exchanged, so in that sense they are economic, but goods and services don't have military relevance by themselves. This is especially important to understand given that states keep military technology secret and maintain monopolies, so often the most important things are not traded.

 

[Commodore]

I'm skeptical that economics will play a great role in the distribution of future power.

Modern trends on global conflict resolution seem to disagree with your assertions....

 

[Pangur Bán]

Such as?