Protect Thy Mote

"I heard that there's going to be a 14 percent increase in the Chinese defense budget. That's a lot... China should undertake to be transparent about what that means." - Condoleezza Rice

What it means is this: imagine the globe for a moment. Take all the oceans. Up to 12 miles from all the coastlines of the world paint the seas a light blue. In the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean allot no such space. This is where our Navy can go with impunity. Nobody can stop us. Running about 300-400 miles inland is the combat radius of the jet fighters aboard the 12 American US carriers, six of which are always at sea and all of which have about 80 combat-capable aircraft. That's the force projection capability of the United States.

With the help of regional allies, we've assigned ourselves responsible for the security of all the lighter shade of blue. We're also responsible for the security of Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand, most of Western Europe, the Caribbean basin, and now we're adding a lot of Eastern Europe to the mix to. Don't forget Israel, Jordan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. We're everywhere because no one else is. We want [our] oil and commerce to move unhindered, so we've assigned ourselves police it.

In case you hadn't notice, and I'm sure you did, that darker blue abuts a lot of other peoples stuff. It causes incidents sometimes, such as when an EP-3 Orion electronic eavesdropper flying 70 miles off the coast of China had it's wing clipped accidentally by intercepting Chinese fighters.

China's economy is growing at over 10% per year, almost 70% of which is based on exports. Like every modern economy, it's extremely dependent on foreign hydrocarbons for economic expansion. Should it be a surprise then that

"By 2010, China's submarine force will be nearly double the size of the U.S. submarine feet. The entire Chinese naval fleet is projected to surpass the size of the U.S. fleet by 2015." - American Shipbuilders Association

Mix this with the idea of "offensive realism," one of the most compelling foreign policy theories I've ever read, and the future looks a little scary. As one power rises and another weakens, historically they almost always come to blows as the rising power encroaches on the weaker ones old turf. America has a lot of old turf. John Mearsheimer makes the case in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Great powers need to prove their respective strengths and the only way to do it is to actually fire shots. Furthermore, he argues, that states must constantly expand or face perennial insecurity.

In an insightful piece written by Paul Kennedy from Harvard, he waxes on Europe deconstructing it's military while every powerful nation in Asia is rapidly expanding theirs. He concludes with a question about Europe's pacifism and Asia's militarism that I think can equally be applied to the feigned ignorance fueling Condoleeza Rice's quote at the top.

This leads to an obvious, final question: What do naval strategic planners in the one continent assume about the future of the world that the planners in the second continent do not? Why is Chinese public television showing programs about the rise of Elizabeth I's navy at the same time that the British Ministry of Defense is mothballing or scrapping warships with names that go back over 400 years?

So what is it American strategic planners assume about the future of the world that they want the Chinese to admit in spite of their promise of a "peaceful rise"? Perhaps she's looking for a confession that, as the Heritage Foundation assumes, that the "peacetime expansion of China's military capabilities betrays a clear intent to challenge the United States in the Western Pacific and establish itself as the region's predominant military power."

Honestly, maybe that's not a bad thing. If indeed that is the case, and it likely is to a degree, open communication about mutual desires and fears of the future can only be a good thing.