The US Is Militarily & Economically Impotent

The US Is Militarily & Economically Impotent

By Scott Ritter
Information Clearing House
July 17, 2020

Mike Pompeo’s statement that Beijing’s claims in the South China
Sea are unlawful was seen by some as a dramatic step toward war.

But it’s little more than bluster as the US knows it is not yet
capable of taking military action.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued a statement this week
which rejected – as official US policy – China’s territorial claims
in the South China Sea, saying that there was no legal basis for
China’s claims and accusing China of using intimidatory tactics
against littoral states with competing claims.

“We are making clear,” the statement read, “Beijing’s claims
to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are
completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control
them. The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China
Sea as its maritime empire.”

Under its self-proclaimed “nine-dash line” policy, China claims
about nine-tenths of the 3.5-million square kilometer South China
Sea.

In addition to asserting territorial claims over existing shoals
and islands, China has constructed a series of fortified man-made
islands which it has used to assert its presence in the region.

Five other nations – the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia
and Taiwan – dispute China’s claims, and have filed various legal
challenges over the years, some of which have been recognized
as valid under UN arbitration.

Until Pompeo’s statement was issued, the official US policy
was one of neutrality regarding China’s territorial claims.

Now the US has lined up against China in a dramatic manner.

The timing of Pompeo’s statement did not take place in a vacuum.

Less than two weeks ago, the United States Navy undertook a fresh
round of “freedom of navigation” exercises aimed at putting China
on notice that its territorial aspirations in the South China Sea
would not go unchallenged.

The deployment of two carrier battle groups was an unprecedented
display of military muscle flexing, remarkable not simply for the
size and scope of the drill, but rather the context in which it was
conducted.

Yesterday, the UK, America’s closest ally, said it was intending to
station one of its new aircraft carriers in the region, apparently as
a measure to counter an “increasingly assertive China.”

China has, in recent months, publicly displayed its own military
arsenal, in particular two classes of missiles, known as the DF-21
and DF-26, which have been given the moniker “carrier killers”
for obvious reasons.

The Global Times, an English-language paper published under the
auspices of the Chinese Communist Party, made reference to these
missiles in a tweet published in response to the deployment of the
US carriers, noting that “China has a wide selection of anti-aircraft
carrier weapons like DF-21D and DF-26 “aircraft carrier killer”
#missiles. South China Sea is fully within grasp of the #PLA; any US
#aircraftcarrier movement in the region is at the pleasure of PLA.”

The US Navy’s Chief of Information, Rear Admiral Charlie Brown,
sent out a tweet in response, declaring “And yet, there they are.
Two @USNavy aircraft carriers operating in the international waters
of the South China Sea. #USSNimitz & #USSRonaldReagan are not
intimidated #AtOurDiscretion.”

Admiral Brown’s bluster disguises the reality that missiles such
as the DF-21 and DF-26, which are referred to as “anti-access/
area denial” weapons (AA/AD), represent a new face of maritime
warfare that makes the US carrier battle group obsolete.

This is reflected in new guidance issued by the Commandant of the
Marine Corps for the marines to restructure its amphibious strike
capability to reflect this new reality.

“Visions of a massed naval armada nine nautical miles off-shore
in the South China Sea preparing to launch the landing force…are
impractical and unreasonable,”General David Berger noted.

“We must accept the realities created by the proliferation of
precision long-range fires, mines, and other smart-weapons,
and seek innovative ways to overcome those threat capabilities.”

The importance of the Commandant’s guidance is that it is based
in reality, not theory – the Marine Corps is currently undergoing a
radical restructuring of its combat organization and capability,
shedding so-called “legacy” capabilities such as heavy armor and
military police in favor of a new “expeditionary” structure which
will operate from advance bases in the Pacific and make use of its
own long-range strike capabilities to disrupt a potential adversary
– in this case, China.

While some feverish commentators took Pompeo’s words as setting
the legal foundation for the use of military force against Beijing,
the truth is that neither the Marine Corps nor the US Navy are able
to successfully execute a China-beating military campaign in the
South China Sea today – and any such capability is years away.

This is the fallacy of Secretary Pompeo’s statement – words that
cannot be backed up with might are, to be blunt, "Meaningless."

Pompeo’s statement did not specify what consequences the US
is prepared to impose in the event China continues its aggressive
assertion of its “nine-dash line” claims, for the simple fact that
there are no meaningful consequences that can be imposed.

Pompeo’s bluster seemed more intent in driving a wedge between
China and its Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) trading
partners, many of whom have territorial disputes with China in the
South China Sea, than starting a war.

China has been for years now seeking to strengthen its economic
and security ties with the ASEAN bloc, much to the consternation
of the US. Indeed, one of the major obstacles faced by the US in
confronting China in the South China Sea is the reticence among
the very nations Pompeo sought to court in his statement to
alienate relations with China, whose status as the region’s
most economically powerful trading partner most ASEAN nations
cannot ignore.

Here, President Trump’s precipitous decision to withdraw from the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in 2018 has come back to haunt US
policy makers – void of any viable US-led economic alternative, the
ASEAN nations have no choice but to gravitate toward China.

By putting down a marker that it views the totality of China’s South
China Sea claims as legally impermissible, the Trump administration
is seeking to influence the diplomatic arena where the various
disputes China has with the South China littoral states will be
handled for the foreseeable future.

Other than words, however, the US has limited leverage that it
can apply – freedom of navigation exercises are an irritant to China,
but have done nothing to halt its expansion in the region, and in the
aftermath of the collapse of the TPP, the US has failed to put
forward any coherent regional economic development strategy
to counter that of China.

The critical question is to what extent the South China Sea littoral
nations are willing to rally around the new US declaratory policy
regarding China’s ambitions in the South China Sea.

Lacking either the military muscle to compel Chinese change or the
economic wherewithal to offer a meaningful alternative to China’s
economic influence, Pompeo’s statement is little more than empty
words masking growing US impotence.

The fact that the sole meaningful response to China’s stance in the
South China Sea being pursued by the US is a radical restructuring
of the Marine Corps solely designed to engage China militarily in
the region should be worrisome to all; by failing to back up strong
rhetoric with meaningful policy options, the US is in danger of
backing itself into a corner for which the only solution will be the
military tool offered by the marines.

The entire world should hope and pray that it does not come to
that.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/55361.htm