There’s Ukraine, there’s Gaza and there will be Taiwan.
Not “may well be”. Not “it’s a question of when, not if”. There will be a war in and over Taiwan.
Or that, at any rate, is Mike Studeman’s take. And who, you might wish to ask, is Mike Studeman?
Mike Studeman was the former commander of the Office of Naval Intelligence and director for intelligence (J2) of the Indo-Pacific Command. He is a member of the National Bureau of Asian Research advisory board and is MITRE’s first national security fellow.
Source: https://warontherocks.com/2024/04/china-is-battening-down-for-the-gathering-storm-over-taiwan/
Please read that article in its entirety, to understand why he says war is inevitable.
My top five takeaways from that article – and the reason why I end up agreeing with him – are below:
- Xi is 70 years old, and he has only “ten reliable years of vitality to conduct a major operation and then lead China through the inevitable multi-year recovery from anticipated international retribution”. You might say that he might well leave that job for his successor, but if you truly believe that, you underrate the ego factor when it comes to macho leaders. Maybe I overrate it, but I don’t think such a thing is possible.
- Watch “Wag the Dog”, and listen to the album on loop. The movie is well worth your time in the context of the article we’re talking about today. The album has nothing to do with anything, but you could do far worse than listen to a Mark Knopfler album. My personal favorite is a song that lasts for all of 1:36, and it is called Just Instinct.
- His (Xi’s) economy is likely to continue its dramatic backsliding even if war doesn’t take place. In other words, his logical reaction when faced with a flailing economy is to say “My Father What Goes?” re: invading Taiwan. And so the chances of an invasion go up, not down, with a weakening Chinese economy.
- The world’s best response is to have “deep magazines of long-range fires and more forces forward — especially many small, mobile, lethal, persistent, and uncrewed types”. This will not increase the chance of war, the author says, but dissuade Xi from starting one.
In other words, from a game theoretic perspective, upping the stakes is the best move the rest of the world can make. How can that be true given pts. 1,2, and 3 above? Well, I said “best” response. Not “logical”, not “most likely to obtain peace”, but best.
Let me be clear: I disagree with Mike Studeman – it will increase the chance of war. But I also agree with Mike Studeman – it is the best possible response.
Real female dog, game theory. - His administration is designed to wage warfare, not administer:
“Leadership changes at the 20th Party Congress in late 2022, for example, turned the Politburo into a body more akin to a war cabinet. Fifteen of its 24 members now have Taiwan-related experience. Included in this cadre is the most recent former eastern theater commander — the general responsible for executing a Taiwan fight — who was leapfrogged to the Politburo without being a prior member of the Central Committee.”
Is attainment of ongoing economic growth and prosperity an end in itself? Or is it the means to a “higher” end?
Asking for a friend, as the kids put it these days.
EconForEverybody 