Asking Tough Questions

Hello Friends, and welcome to Split Second! If you are new here, click on the Subscribe button below to keep up with all new posts. If you want to read old posts, check out my archive here! 

Asking tough questions is a special part of being human. It facilitates growth on personal and societal levels. It stimulates critical thinking. It forces us to introspect deeply. 

In many ways, tough questions are what grounds us and allow us to make sense of an ever changing world. 

Asking tough questions, however, is not natural. It’s often layered in complexities, touchy subjects, emotions, and politics. This causes us to tend to instinctively avoid them.

In today’s social/political climate, asking tough questions has been dissuaded even more. The fear of having opinions that differ from peers outweigh any gains of asking tough questions. 

So yes, asking tough questions is not easy. If they were, they would just be questions. 

The changing nature of our world order, and the possible fade of Pax Americana is a topic that warrants tough questions. Many geopolitical strategists and historians alike, many of whom are light years smarter than I will ever be on these topics, can agree that we are entering uncharted territories. A shift from a U.S. hegemony to multipolar uncertainty. Are we ready for what this entails?

I recently came across an unbelievably well written article published last month by Philip Zelikow, an esteemed international relations scholar and American diplomat, that has further shaped my views on the current geopolitical happenings of the world. 

In the essay, Zelikow expertly blends a firm understanding of lessons learned from anti-American partnerships of the past with the novel dynamics at play today. He presents a sobering reality that the U.S. and its allies are currently entering a period of relative vulnerability and even greater volatility against a new axis. One with many similarities to the one of yesteryear. I highly recommend giving it a read. 

There are two important thoughts that we can distill from Zelikow’s analysis. Let’s use this as the basis for some introspection.

1. Does the U.S. need to re-evaluate its strategy in the Middle East?

2. Does the U.S. need to increase defense spending?

The answer to both questions is likely yes. Here's why:

China’s Rise

The U.S. certainly has not had an economic power on the scale of China during its decades long run as undoubted global power. As U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has noted, “China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and the power to do it.”

To date, China has defined itself as the “build everything” country. The factory of the world and the top trading partner for a majority of the planet.

While much of China's focus on industrialization happens with the intent of economic progress, it also allows for them to build up their military. A different China than the one we saw at the turn of the century.

Xi Jinping has made it clear recently on his intentions in Asia. Bullying neighbors in the South China Sea, calling a reunification with Taiwan ‘inevitable’, and a recent claim that the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh is ‘South Tibet’. 

China’s robust manufacturing capacity and access to talent has created an opportunity for the nation to marry its economic prowess with ambitious national interest. One that involves a belief in a seemingly divine calling. Backed by a dictator who Zelikow describes in his writing as someone who “regard(s) themselves as world historical men of destiny”. The writing on the wall has become quite clear.

The difficult reality of the matter is China is preparing to engage in conflict if necessary, and it is probably more prepared to do so than the U.S.

While Zelikow argues that this is different from China actively seeking a war, plans for some form of mobilization have become clear. 

One telltale, but maybe less discussed, sign has been China’s accumulation of gold. The CCP has been dumping U.S. treasuries for nearly a decade now, and now buying the physical commodity at a rapid clip.

Why is this so notable? Xi has closely studied the western playbook of economic sanctions in light of the recent Russia-Ukraine conflict and has determined gold as a way to insulate the nation. 

Gold is conventionally seen as the “safe haven” asset, and its resilience during periods of turmoil may indicate that China is getting ready for some global uncertainty. 

The most obvious sign of China’s strong positioning, however, is its defense industrial base. While the U.S. has seemingly become content with dominating software, widgets, and other nice to haves, China has been intent on the physical items that determine balance of power. 

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) recently published a report in March of this year that outlines the velocity at which China is outpacing the U.S.

Here are some key takeaways:

• China is the world’s largest shipbuilder, with a capacity roughly 230 times the United States

• China has twice as many ground and paramilitary forces than the U.S. Over 50% more military personnel across the board

• Most active (testing and training) intercontinental ballistic missile program in the world. The last four years have seen China launch more test ballistic missiles than the rest of the world combined

This is only the tip of the iceberg. China’s excess manufacturing capacity, which American media such as the Wall Street Journal has pointed to as a sign of malinvestment, may actually be a plus for a country on wartime footing. This is because excess capacity allows for flexibility. It can be used to rapidly scale up any program within the scope of defense, something the U.S. and its allies cannot say the same for. 

The most notable and often discussed difference between the U.S. and China’s defense industrial base is ship building. As noted in the CSIS report and in an interesting publication from the U.S. Naval Institute, China severely outpaces the U.S. in shipbuilding. Here are some quick numbers.

• America’s share of global shipbuilding has shrunk by 90% since the 80’s

• The Navy has reduced its in-house naval architecture staff from 1,200 to 300

• The Navy is estimated to be 20 years behind in maintenance work

While our naval fleet has shrunk from 600 to 285 since the Cold War, China has increased their fleet to 440 in six years. While fleet size is not truly indicative of ability to perform stated missions due to various technological improvements and reductions in scope of mission, it does reflect a general state of decline. 

A newer counterpoint here would be that the future of warfare has changed drastically and aircraft carriers and other large-scale naval vessels are no longer as important as in battles of the past. With the massive improvements in drones and missiles, it is now fair to question the role of larger ships in the future of warfare. 

Regardless, something that is ultimately undebatable is China’s positioning as an economic and now military power. This is not your parents’ China. 

A nation as decisive as it is powerful. With seemingly boundless ability to build and backed by an autocrat who believes he has some divine calling.  A type of adversary that the United States has yet to face toe-to-toe in recent memory. An opponent that should prompt our nation to ask ourselves some hard questions and challenge conventional beliefs. 

The New Axis

Another theme that Zelikow touches upon in his essay is how the “new axis” of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are more aligned than other adversarial coalitions of the past. 

Zelikow points to the old axis power prior to WWII and makes the claim that while there are similarities between both groups, they were not as close as what we are currently seeing today. 

Zelikow further supports the notion that there was a clear difference in agendas when he references Mussolini telling Hitler that he was appalled by his decision to invade Poland, and that Italy was “not ready to join a war”. 

Zelikow makes it clear that the relationship between the old axis showed cracks and wavered prior to the launch of WWII. This is not the case in 2024. Today, the revisionist powers are showing a clear willingness to work together on many fronts, bound by the common belief that America's outsized role in the world is due for change. 

The proof of alliance on a strategic initiative is evident. 

Kim Jong Un has given “full support” for Russia’s war on Ukraine, and signed a comprehensive pact ensuring that both nations would support each other in case of a military attack.

Russia has also been very public boasting about their improved relations with Iran via sharing of intelligence, close cooperation between security councils, and Iran’s gifting of UAVs to Russia. This is anticipated to be a precursor to a “big treaty” between the two nations. 

Even Iran and North Korea, the lesser of this new axis, are showing a willingness to collaborate by sharing notes on their respective ballistic missile programs. All of this strategic initiative does not even include China. The most important player of the bunch. 

On the heels of Putin’s May visit to Beijing, a joint statement between the two nations was released announcing a “new era” strategic partnership between China and Russia. Here are some highlights released by the Kremlin, on this 7,000 word press release. Please read it for yourself, the messaging is clear. 

Actions speak louder than words, however, and both parties are putting their money where their mouth is. China has been buying tons of oil from Russia. Russia has been buying dual use components from China that can be used for drone, satellite, and machining tools. Avril Haines, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, indicated last month that “China’s provision of dual use components and material to Russia’s defense industry is one of several factors that tilted the momentum on the battlefield in Ukraine in Moscow’s favor, while also accelerating a reconstitution of Russia’s military strength after their extraordinarily costly invasion.”

While China has been careful to not posture itself as the ringleader of the group, it finds itself intertwined with the actions of its allies beyond its control.

The recent pact between Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, both known for their unpredictability, will put China’s peaceful façade to the test. Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at Renmin University in Beijing, stated recently that this pact has “significantly exacerbated” the risk of escalation or conflict in the region. East Asia has now emerged as the area to watch. The most pressing region to focus on.

Which brings us to one of the most important takeaways from Zelikow’s essay. Does the U.S. need to rethink its strategy in the Middle East?

Middle East Strategy

Let’s assume again that U.S. military capacity is not what it once was. This should be a fair assumption given foreign policy experts and politicians alike have been sounding the alarms. Senator Roger Wicker believes that the U.S. defense strategy is “inadequate” and has a, “lack of modern equipment, a paucity of training and maintenance funding, and a massive infrastructure backlog” in a recent publication. 

This introduces the question, should the U.S. be spending its resources in the Middle East, when a more clear and present threat has emerged in the far east? 

Right now, much of America’s resources are occupied with what is happening in both Ukraine and Gaza. While both are important for a variety of different reasons, it is fair to ask if the U.S. should be putting all its chips on the table here. 

From an economic standpoint, Asia remains much more important to U.S. interests. South Korea and Japan are two of America’s closest allies, and are critical to global technological development and preservation of democratic values in the region. Taiwan has remarkable market share over the semiconductor industry, crucial in the age of computing and AI. And now even South East Asia, which has emerged as the world’s most important regional growth story.

Overall, East Asia and SE Asia is a region with a large swath of the world’s population, much of its economic growth, and is now under an ever increasing threat. 

East + South East Asia as a region has shown its promise as a beacon for humanity’s progress. From economic output, social structure and cohesion, innovation, and quality of life, there are many reasons why it is in the best interest of the world to allow Asia to continue to grow and flourish. Not to mention the West’s economy depends on it. 

Notice the drastic difference in imports from Asia and the Middle East. Given the fact that imposing tariffs on China has become a bipartisan issue with both Trump and Biden on the same page, the dollar figure for SEA is bound to grow as China outsources its manufacturing capacity and know-how to bypass these sanctions. 

On the other hand, the Middle East is not as important from a purely economical standpoint. The longstanding belief that the U.S. had vested interest due to the need for oil is outdated. The U.S. is now a net exporter of crude oil and the world’s largest exporter of LNG. We are self-sufficient when it comes to energy. If you are in the camp that hydrocarbons are also a diminishing part of the world’s energy supply, then the Middle East’s economic value to the West lessens even further. 

Financial incentives aside, the Middle East does not embody the status quo that the U.S. should be eager to support. A region that has been bridled in decades of conflict (yes, plenty of blame on the U.S. here), home to a myriad of human rights abuses and violations, and complex religious rifts that extend for centuries. This is a region that needs plenty of reform economically, socially, and politically. After seeing the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan during the beginning of the 21st century, are these problems the U.S. can solve? A difficult, but fair question to pose.

This is not to say Asia is perfect and the Middle East is not. There is too much nuance to make definitive conclusions. But given the rise of China, the hollowing of the U.S. industrial base, and the strengthening of this new axis, it may be time to look in the mirror and re-examine the strategy in the Middle East. 

Defense Spending

For years following the end of the Cold War the consensus wisdom from progressives was to reduce the defense budget. Politicians on the left such as Bernie Sanders have been outspoken on the issue. What is most surprising today, however, are the cracks emerging on the right.

Former Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, who served under the Trump administration, posed that the defense budget needs to be cut “dramatically”. A bipartisan group, including Senators Mike Lee (R-UT), Mike Braun (R-IN), and Tom McClintock (R-CA), have called to curtail the DoD’s “unfunded priorities list”. Ohio Senator JD Vance has also called for restraint in spending. 

While these policy leaders have very valid reasons for their beliefs, the rapid build up of this new anti-American axis and the pressing timeline of the matter is equally enough to justify a counterpoint.

Many, including some reading this post, who are against increases in defense can definitely make a strong case as to why increasing spending could be a bad idea. Reasons can include the U.S.’ already spiraling budget, poor oversight of spending, and America “subsidizing” the defense budgets of our allies. One of the most popular counter arguments is that the U.S. still outspends the next nine biggest defense budgets in the world combined, so why on earth would we spend more?

What this oft-cited statistic often obfuscates is the defense budget on a relative basis, and ignores the massive vulnerabilities that have emerged.

Defense spending as a share of GDP, has fallen from 6 to 3 percent of total GDP since the 80’s. With the U.S. economy growing at the clip that it has, defense has not kept up. 

Also, dollar figures on paper mean nothing when you have little to show for it. Currently, the U.S. is facing a significant ammunition shortage due to increased demand from Ukraine and Israel. 

The current capacity for 155mm artillery shells is 28k per month. The U.S. is on track to produce 100k per month in 2025. For reference, we were at 867k per month in 1995. A stark change. The shortages extend beyond ammunition as well, with reports of low capacity for rocket launchers, utility cannons, and other missiles. The WSJ put out an opinion piece last summer that summarizes the issue well 

The U.S. has also reduced active duty personnel by about 35%, which puts us around the same total as Russia and North Korea. Factor in what we had discussed earlier with America’s faltering shipbuilding and the picture becomes clear. 

If the nation’s supply cannot keep up for conflicts we are not directly active in, then how will the nation fare if a larger conflict were to break out? What good is the current budget if it can barely make enough shells for Ukraine?

Now, any increase in defense spending absolutely must also be married with a host of other changes. This includes a restructuring of the budget, which currently is fixed to “must pay” bills (whatever that means), leaving little room for anyone looking to impose change or innovation. It also includes an overhaul of procurement, comprehensive audits, improvement in supply chains, and eliminating any and all unnecessary bureaucracies and associated costs. 

Certainly a tall task, but given today's environment, probably required. The arsenal of democracy does not sustain itself. 

With China stronger than ever, its allies will feel emboldened to take shots at the West in ways we may have not seen before. This is new and uncharted territory for many of us. This is a vulnerable time, whether we would like to admit it or not.

Being prepared is everything, and right now we have to ask ourselves; are we ready? Is the U.S. in a position to deter any acts of aggression?

I feel there is a sense amongst many Americans that we live at the end of history. It's as if this period of unprecedented peace and prosperity has lulled many to sleep. We have seen this belief play out with the withering of our defense industrial base. We as a nation have forgotten how to build. 

It is now our responsibility to start asking the hard questions. To look ourselves in the mirror, and each other in the eyes. To grapple with the realities of how the world has changed. Otherwise, the world we have all come to love and enjoy could change in a split second.