The dismissal of an unwilling Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense in 2014 was, I think, a watershed in the fortunes of the China hawks, both in the Pentagon and at Pacific Command.
Perhaps because it is bad form to explore the possibility that Hagel was purged for insufficient enthusiasm for a pro-active China confrontation agenda, nobody went there. But I did. Natch.
In 2015, I buried my analysis in a tediously long piece that was meant to give an overview of the evolution of US China policy, and provide a corrective to the "Chinese aggression" meme that China hawks like to lean on.
The narrative of escalating Chinese aggression is central to the China hawks' thesis that we need an escalating response.
Rather interestingly, today a lot of this narrative is coming out of Australia. Google "Chinese influence Australia" and you'll get an idea of the barrage of local and global coverage keying on the skillfully shaped message that Chinese influence--though it is not illegal--must be feared.
I've recently come to the conclusion that spate of panic stricken reports emerging from Australia concerning the China menace in economics, politics, and academics are a belated and improvised substitute for what was supposed to be the real deal: a pivot from Obama namby-pambyism to steely Clinton resolve to confront China in 2016.
The unexpected Trump victory--and the determined gutting of the State Department by Team Trump--has temporarily put paid to dreams of running a united and highly coordinated global anti-China initiative out of a Clinton White House drawing on allies and assets in Asia and Europe.
Instead, the aggressive anti-China alliance is being improvised in exile and, in Australia, with the support of James Clapper, who did a visiting scholar thing down there, the unflagging efforts of the Lowy Institute (which, in addition to serving as the FP mouthpiece of the Lowy family, which bundled for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and contributed coin to the Clinton Foundation, also employs Hillary Clinton's foreign policy major domo Jake Sullivan), and the assistance of a local flock of eager pro-US China hawks at Australian unis and think tanks and in the media.
More significantly, I'm guessing Team Clinton might be getting more than a little help from the king of PACOM's China hawks, Admiral Harry Harris, in supporting the Australian natsec establishment in eliciting a remarkably aggressive anti-China posture out of previously dovish Malcolm Turnbull.
Admiral Harris, indeed, is rumored to be ready to retire from the US Navy to take over as US Ambassador to Australia next year, which would give him the opportunity to get hands-on in coordinating the China confrontainment mission.
With this perspective, it's interesting to read what I wrote in 2015 after Chuck Hagel hit the bricks:
As I put it elsewhere:
Hillary wants to inherit her China crisis from Obama, not foment it herself.
Perhaps because it is bad form to explore the possibility that Hagel was purged for insufficient enthusiasm for a pro-active China confrontation agenda, nobody went there. But I did. Natch.
In 2015, I buried my analysis in a tediously long piece that was meant to give an overview of the evolution of US China policy, and provide a corrective to the "Chinese aggression" meme that China hawks like to lean on.
The narrative of escalating Chinese aggression is central to the China hawks' thesis that we need an escalating response.
Rather interestingly, today a lot of this narrative is coming out of Australia. Google "Chinese influence Australia" and you'll get an idea of the barrage of local and global coverage keying on the skillfully shaped message that Chinese influence--though it is not illegal--must be feared.
I've recently come to the conclusion that spate of panic stricken reports emerging from Australia concerning the China menace in economics, politics, and academics are a belated and improvised substitute for what was supposed to be the real deal: a pivot from Obama namby-pambyism to steely Clinton resolve to confront China in 2016.
The unexpected Trump victory--and the determined gutting of the State Department by Team Trump--has temporarily put paid to dreams of running a united and highly coordinated global anti-China initiative out of a Clinton White House drawing on allies and assets in Asia and Europe.
Instead, the aggressive anti-China alliance is being improvised in exile and, in Australia, with the support of James Clapper, who did a visiting scholar thing down there, the unflagging efforts of the Lowy Institute (which, in addition to serving as the FP mouthpiece of the Lowy family, which bundled for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and contributed coin to the Clinton Foundation, also employs Hillary Clinton's foreign policy major domo Jake Sullivan), and the assistance of a local flock of eager pro-US China hawks at Australian unis and think tanks and in the media.
More significantly, I'm guessing Team Clinton might be getting more than a little help from the king of PACOM's China hawks, Admiral Harry Harris, in supporting the Australian natsec establishment in eliciting a remarkably aggressive anti-China posture out of previously dovish Malcolm Turnbull.
Admiral Harris, indeed, is rumored to be ready to retire from the US Navy to take over as US Ambassador to Australia next year, which would give him the opportunity to get hands-on in coordinating the China confrontainment mission.
With this perspective, it's interesting to read what I wrote in 2015 after Chuck Hagel hit the bricks:
Now, of course, the
DoD has a new boss—Secretary of Defense Ash Carter; and PACCOM has a new
commander—Admiral Harry Harris, and the general consensus is that the muscular
defense sector has wrestled China policy away from the milquetoastian White
House. Interestingly, Admiral Harris was
previously the Pentagon’s liaison to to the State Department under Hillary
Clinton as well as John Kerry, which reinforces my impression that Hillary
Clinton and her foreign policy advisors have pre-loaded China policy with her
supporters, and I expect things to get ugly quickly so that the nasty and
awkward business of starting the confrontation can be done under Obama before
Clinton enters office.
And maybe now we've had to outsource the crisis to Australia!
For those who want to go through a lengthy and taxing account of how the China hawks developed their narrative and strategies since 2010, there's the full 2015 piece: It's Official. America Has a China Containment Policy.
For those who want to read about Chuck Hagel getting shivved (a story I don't think anybody has told in full) read on in this tasty excerpt:
The Chuck Hagel years (Feb 2013-15) are a sore point for US hawks, and perhaps explain why they like to date the South China Sea crisis to 2012 and a period of accommodation/appeasement/common sense during which the PRC ran amok in the South China Sea, and not 2010 when the carnival really started.
For those who want to go through a lengthy and taxing account of how the China hawks developed their narrative and strategies since 2010, there's the full 2015 piece: It's Official. America Has a China Containment Policy.
For those who want to read about Chuck Hagel getting shivved (a story I don't think anybody has told in full) read on in this tasty excerpt:
The Chuck Hagel years (Feb 2013-15) are a sore point for US hawks, and perhaps explain why they like to date the South China Sea crisis to 2012 and a period of accommodation/appeasement/common sense during which the PRC ran amok in the South China Sea, and not 2010 when the carnival really started.
In an end-2013 piece on the South China Sea, Bull In The China Shop, Professor Pedrozo, the legal muse for China hawks in the navy, (now at the US Naval War College, the go-to
institution for US SCS lawfare) gave full rein to his China hawk side. Beginning with an epigraph from Franklin
Roosevelt, “When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until
he has struck before you crush him”, and
concluding with an exhortation to America, with its allies, to “stand up to
Chinese brinkmanship before it is too late”, Pedrozo’s piece is also remarkable
for the venom it displays toward then Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel,
PACCOM’s Admiral Locklear, and the Obama China team for its caution/appeasement
in dealing with the PRC on the Cowpens incident,
the East China Sea ADIZ, and the tussle over Scarborough Shoal.
A key event in 2014 was a speech given in February by a key
Navy insider and China hawk, Captain James Fanell
to a US Naval Institute conference, in which he stated:
“[We] concluded that the PLA has been given the new task to
be able to conduct a short, sharp war to destroy Japanese forces in the East
China Sea, following with what can only be expected a seizure of the Senkakus
or even a southern Ryukyu [island] — as some of their academics say.”
Maybe bullshit, as in Fanell seizing on the “everybody has a warplan for every
contingency” thing to make China-bashing hay.
But the key element was that Captain Fannel was the head of intelligence
for PACCOM…and he had gone off rez.
And he had gone off rez at the same time that Secretary Hagel was prepping for a make-nice trip with the PRC.
Fanell’s comments come at the same time that Washington is arranging a trip
for Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to Beijing, with the expressed goal of
enhancing U.S.-China military-to-military relationships. U.S. military
officials want this relationship, among other reasons, to prevent some of the
tense encounters between U.S. and Chinese ships in recent years.In that context, Washington officials, when asked about Fanell’s comments, dismissed them.
Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, who has been in Beijing laying the groundwork for Hagel’s visit, went a step further.
Asked about Fanell’s “short, sharp war” assessment, Odierno responded: "I've seen no indications of that at all."
And Fanell’s speech to an obscure conference about East
Asian hypotheticals miraculously received the widest possible attention in the
non-specialist media.
Fanell was reassigned i.e. demoted in November 2014 (took a while, didn’t
it? Admiral Harris, at the time the
nominated but not yet confirmed Commander, Pacific Command, promoted from
Commander, Pacific Fleet [and Fanell’s boss], did the dirty, perhaps as a
condition of his new employment).
Navy Times reported:
Fanell's views have supporters inside naval intelligence,
and he has become a high-profile spokesman for a more alarmist view of the rise
of China than those espoused by Navy senior leadership, an intelligence source
who spoke to Navy Times said. Fanell's articles on China have been published by
Hoover Digest, Naval Intelligence Professionals Quarterly and the U. S. Naval
Institute's Proceedings.
So Fanell was gone, but guess what? Two weeks later, Hagel was gone as well!
Supposedly Hagel was booted because he wasn’t up to the IS
challenge, but I wonder. I’m not
alone. Per US News & World Reports
at the announcement of Hagel’s involuntary retirement:
“He gave them the strategy and the budget they asked for and wanted,” Edelman says. The White House has planned for a military drawdown after wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a reset toward a renewed presence in the Pacific. “I understand there were a few occasions when he may have leaned a little too far forward on his skis with regards to ISIS. But it’s kind of hard to figure out what it is they found lacking in his performance.”
US Middle East policy in 2015 is, for lack of a better term,
still totally for sh*t under Ash Carter and still characterized by conflicted
flailing and an utter unwillingness by the US uniformed forces to re-embrace
the jihadi tar baby, a sentiment that Hagel shared completely, but Asia
policy…well, galloping along in the new hawkish direction.
Fanell retired too, but his January 31, 2015 retirement party was
pretty much a victory lap and a sounding of the China threat tocsin. In his farewell speech, Fanell said:
[T]he Communist Party of China’s
designs stand in direct contrast to espoused U.S. national security objectives
of freedom of navigation and free access to markets for all of Asia.
This not only threatens our own
national security, but is also very clearly upsetting the entire Asia Pacific
region has enjoyed for over 70 years.
The challenge, as I have seen it, is
for intelligence professionals to make the case, to tell the truth and to
convince national decision and policy makers to realize that China’s rise, if
left unchecked or undeterred, will necessarily disrupt the peace and stability
of our friends, partners and allies. We should not have to wait for an
actual shooting war to start before we acknowledge there is a problem and
before we start taking serious action. The “Rebalance” is a good first
step forward, but it must be backed up with a real, tangible deterrent force
and we must stand-up to Beijing’s propaganda and bullying campaign, especially
those that come at the expense of our allies and partners.
To continue the synchronicity of Hagel & Fanell’s
careers, Hagel’s retirement ceremony took place three days earlier and was, we
can say, shrouded in defeat & failure:
A senior Pentagon
official told NBC News at the time that Hagel was asked to step down because
the president no longer had confidence in his ability to lead the military as
it struggled to defeat Islamic extremists waging war in the Middle East.
'He wasn’t up to the
job,' the official said.
...
Today
Earnest's stand-in, Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz, said 'friction'
between the White House and the Pentagon is 'something that predates this
administration.'
...
Schultz said
the White House believes it has 'good relationships with the military leaders.'
Uh-huh.
With Hagel gone, the US on track to extract new defense
guidelines from Japan, and with the DoD in the hands of the China hawks, it was
clear to the PRC it was time to make hay while the sun shone and get its facts
on the water for a prolonged period of China containment struggle, one that
might endure for the next decade factoring in the possibility of two terms for
Hillary Clinton.
