Those trying to understand China’s naval ambitions should be wary of the tacticization of strategy. Sea power isn’t just about the latest hardware.
Give Norman Friedman credit for candor. He confesses his limits. While reviewing our book Red Star over the Pacific: China’s Rise and the Challenge to US Maritime Strategy in the latest issue of the Naval War College Review, Friedman admits that while we “read the Chinese literature” – the primary source material on which we based the book – he “does not.” It shows. He deems one of our chief findings, that China is building an oceangoing navy, “so obvious that it is not really worth arguing.” And he insists that “it is necessary to read other languages…such as those of naval hardware and of naval tactics” to glean insight into the make-up of the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLA Navy) and the strategy governing Chinese naval operations.
Well, sort of. This is more than a quarrel over a nasty book review.Indeed, in the year Red Star over the Pacific has been in print, we have been flattered by mostly favorable reviews while carrying on civil discourse with our critics. Friedman’s review falls into a different category. His mistakes are so many and so flagrant that they demand a response, lest unwary readers think we concede them. But what really worries us is that officials who make and execute policy may heed Friedman’s advice. If they disregard what Chinese strategists say while founding their judgments only on the facts and figures found in, say, Jane’s Fighting Ships, they will take a grub’s-eye perspective on China’s emergence as a great seafaring nation.
Short-sightedness begets faulty strategy. And Red Star over the Pacific is a book about strategy. We investigate tactical and technical matters only insofar as they illuminate it. Ours is a book about “sea power” and “maritime strategy,” concepts that encompass far more than armaments and tactics, the relevant but constricted language Friedman insists on speaking. Like many Chinese commentators, we take our lead from Alfred Thayer Mahan, who defined sea power as a product of (1) international trade and commerce, (2) overseas bases, and (3) merchant and naval shipping. Take note: the navy constitutes only half of one-third of Mahan’s triad of sea power.
Friedman mostly excludes the human factor from naval affairs, further narrowing his vision. A fleet’s technical characteristics on paper – tonnages, fuel capacity, missile ranges, and so forth – say little about how, and how well, seamen and airmen will handle it in battle and other competitive endeavors. Our book concentrates on the human factor, and in particular on how China thinks about the sea. That’s why we draw overwhelmingly on Chinese sources.
As noted up front, Friedman admits this discomfits him because he doesn’t read the literature. We salute him for being frank, but that is a damning confession for any reviewer – a person chosen for his subject-matter expertise – to make. What was missing from the literature, and the void we try to fill, is a volume that applies strategic theory – the writings of great thinkers like Mao Zedong and Alfred Thayer Mahan – to China’s maritime rise while exploring patterns of Chinese strategic thought about the sea. How, we ask, will Beijing interpret these writings and put them into practice – if at all? Friedman is largely silent on these matters, the heart of our analysis. His review misses the point. Unable to comment knowledgeably, he nit-picks, and rather clumsily at that.
Let’s take his comments in turn. He first contends that “the recent appearance of the refitted Chinese aircraft carrier formerly known as Varyag is an indication” of China’s naval ambitions “that should be obvious to all.” Whether reactivating an old carrier really signifies the PLA Navy’s coming-out as a great navy is debatable. But taking Friedman on his terms, we point out that the flattop’s shakedown cruise took place ten months after Red Star over the Pacific appeared, and that Beijing officially announced its carrier program only on the eve of that maiden voyage. So much for being behind the times.
Photo Credit: U.S. Navy
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
hokie_1997
I’ve read some of Dr. Friedman’s books and several of his articles. I’ve always thought that he’s a ‘technologist’ – but not really a strategist. Friedman obsesses over the latest technology and its parameters, but almost always seems to ignore the human element.
Friedman was a poor choice to review “Red Star Over the Pacific” which I thought was more a book on strategy and China’s naval aspirations than technology.
In his review, Friedman clearly indicated that he was out of his depth in these areas – he even confesses it in at least two points. I was surprised that USNI even published his review, since it was so critical of the authors and yet so self-damnign at the same time.
I am glad the authors were given the opportunity to retort. Clearly they have put Friedman back in his box.
S.S. Brown
I’m grateful the authors emphasize that “a fleet’s technical characteristics on paper…say little about how, and how well, seamen and airmen will handle it in battle and other competitive endeavors.”
It is frightening, reading media coverage of looming DoD budget cuts, how much the human factor is excluded from consideration – not astronomical personnel costs as much as the so-called “moral factors,” so immeasurable yet, at the same time, so invaluable and indispensible to a robust national defense.
Liang1a
John Chan wrote:
December 11, 2011 at 11:17 pm
@Liang1a,
It is true that “advancing its indigenous technologies and producing goods and services of the highest qualities in the largest quantities for its people to consume.” is the “main reasons a nation becomes great,” but it is false that such advancement can happen independently regardless it is within China or outside of China. No invention or discovery can happen in vacuum, all of them need some kind inspiration and previous knowledge. More connections will provide more inspiration and previous knowledge subsequently will result in more invention and discovery; narrow scope independence and isolation are detrimental to invention and discovery and hence advancing indigenous technologies.
—————————————
Liang’s response:
It is obviously true that inventions cannot happen in a vacuum and need inspiration and prerequisite knowledge. It is often said that if we see farther it is because we stand on shoulders of giants. But this can be carried too far. To illustrate what I mean let me give you an example. China has been able to develop the best supercomputers in the world. Now there are only two countries that consistently make them as good as China or better than China. These are Japan and the US. This means that only these two countries can inspire China to make better supercomputers. It further means that the rest of the world cannot inspire China to improve its supercomputers. And lastly, it means that China would be wasting its time to look to the rest of the world for inspiration to make supercomputers. For example, China would be wasting its time to look to India or Philippines for inspiration to make improvements to its supercomputers. Following this logic, once China can consistently make superior supercomputers than Japan and the US then it would also become a waste of time to look to them for inspiration to improve on Chinese supercomputers. In the end China can only look to itself to make even better supercomputers. At such time China needs not look anywhere else in the world for improvements to make better supercomputers. Now if you expand that example to cover all technologies from say MRI to electric cars to milk powder to everything in the world such that China makes the very best of everything than any country in the world, then it is no use for it to look anywhere else in the world for inspiration for making superior products.
As to not being able to make things in vacuum, you must first understand what vacuum means. In this instance of technological development, vacuum means mostly foundation of knowledge in such subjects as physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc. Vacuum would also means a lack of world class scientists and engineers. But once China has millions of world class scientists and engineers who can develop the best of everything then China would not be in a vacuum so far as technologies are concerned.
Therefore, John Chan’s argument that China cannot develop technologies in a vacuum and must have inspiration from the outside world can only be valid where China is a backward country with few world class scientists and engineers and have no world class universities and R&D facilities. But once China has the best universities and R&D facilities in the world and has developed the best of all technologies in the world then it will no longer be in a technological vacuum and cannot any longer be inspired by any other countries. Therefore, the important task to get China to become technologically superior is not to seek inspiration from outside world but to improve China’s universities and R&D facilities. Continuing to seek inspiration from other countries without strengthening China’s own ability to develop superior technologies will keep China backward. But to nurture millions of superior scientists and engineers and empower them to do the R&D to produce the most superior technologies in the world will make China superior and make it unnecessary for it to seek inspiration from other countries.
===============================
John Chan wrote:
December 11, 2011 at 11:17 pm
Yang zi’s opinion did not show “acting like a terrified child” but a rather mature and prudent approach to “the great Chinese nation.”
———————————————-
Liang’s response:
From the above compelling logical argument, it is obvious that Yann Zi in wanting to keep China from becoming independent will only perpetuate China’s dependence to its former enemies and put China into deeper danger. Therefore, John Chan and Yang Zi are lacking in deeper understanding which proves the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. While it is true that a nation cannot develop advanced technologies in a vacuum and needs inspiration from the rest of the world, yet China is very unique in that it could nurture millions of world class scientists and engineers to develop the most advanced technologies on its own without any reference to other countries. Therefore, to say that China in particular must be inspired by other countries is selling the Chinese scientists and engineers short.
johnny
agreed with liang,china should start be independent and self sufficient and not rely on export and be become the factory of the world,instead become a self consumer market within china,start to produce quality products and raise the standard of living and have the rich people in china to invest in the western market in the meantime all chinese business should increase their wages to their fellow chinese employee so that they have more money to spend within china.
And last but not the least china should call back all the scientist and scholars living in the usa and start to use them in research and innovation so that china could made quality brand name produt. STOP THE BRAINDRAIN FROM CHINA TO THE WEST.
JUSTSAYNO
Given that most of the top leaders of China have their kids in Western nations, the most likely case here is that nothing will happen. Chinese leaders will not risk the future of their family to start up unnecessary wars, partially because Chinese military will not match that of US and US allies in the region. For a fraction of the risk however, China can just easily use economic pressure to exert influence in the region. A real military conflict is the worse case scenario, a lose/lose for everyone involved.
Maybe in 30 years China’s military will catch up to take over taiwan by force. However should China reach this stage, it wouldn’t even need to use its military to forcibly take over Taiwan.
Liang1a
John Chan wrote:
December 11, 2011 at 1:07 am
3. USA has never faced an opponent with bigger resources than it; it is another strategy error for the USA to pick on an opponent with more resource that can out last it. All China has to do is to grow and keep up the competition; eventually USA will walk the path of USSR.
———————————-
Liang’s response:
China actually does have much more natural resources than America. But China needs to use its resources efficiently. Right now by relying on exports China is squandering its resources to keep America afloat and enable it to use the money China deposited in American banks to buy up China’s domestic assets thus turning China into an American economic colony.
China also needs to be independent. Right now by allowing America to buy up China’s domestic assets it is becoming an American economic colony. And when America owned China’s economy then it will float on the Chinese economy. That means as China’s economy gets bigger, America’s ownership of China’s economy also gets bigger. In which case China will keep feeding America. And America will also be able to dominate China. That means John Chan’s assumption that China can “out last” America will fail. This is why China must become independent of America as well as of Japan and other countries. China cannot grow stronger by being sucked dry of its economic lifeblood by forigners. This is why those who want China to be “opened up” will doom China to perpetual weakness. Contrary to the misconception of the ignorant and cowardly, the only way for China to achieve its full potential is to become totally self-sufficient. It is very fortunate that China has the ability to achieve that self-sufficient. Therefore, China should rely on itself as much as possible as soon as possible. Then it will grow and become the richest and the most powerful nation in the world. Then John Chan’s argument that China can out last America can come true.
John Chan
It is inexcusable incompetence that China let American company to monopolize the food oil distribution and manufacturing in China. Such essential service that could destabilize the nation has fallen into the businesses of unfriendly nations is clear indication that FDI has reached an unacceptable extent in China; for the national security and independence, China indeed need to take action to restrict FDI in the light of national security, indigenous technologies development and self-sufficient.
In case of there is a hot confrontation between Westpac and China, China should not count on its foreign reserve as a tool to fight against the Westpac, nor the Westpac should count on their FDI in China as their resources to fight against China too.
Huang
China’s neccessary developnments and modenizations have been looked at as positive developnments for most while at the same time been perceived as imminent competitions for the traditional global powers. Accordingly, China’s economic inter-actions with both developed and developing economies have been hailed as win-win co-operstions in the changing global economic environment. Naturally, China has been striving to catch up with and adapt to the situations of the time on the national defense issues.
trades and economic co-operations with other nations will still be the main focus of the Chinese nation. There remains to be huge economic potentials around the globe waiting to be tapped into. For China, the economic works remain to be daunting and huge that constantly demanding new and innovative ideas which would lead to practical approaches in improving China’s economic strenght while contributing to the economic growths of China’s trading partners(another win-win situation).
China’s recent developnments of the Navy and Airforce are the topics of most discussions in recent history. Again, reactions are mixed based on different perspectives. As Bruce Lee emphasized,”A goal is not always meant to be reached. It often serves simply as something to aim at.” China’s military modernizations are neccessary in order to be up-to-the-task of defending the Motherland and also serves as an instrumental variable in promoting peace around the World.
As far as military hardwares and strategic or tactical considerations are concerned,China’s approach is that ” All fixed patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns.” as observed by Bruce Lee on the concepts he derived from the arts of hand combats. Chinese military scholars and researchers are and must always seek to understand the potential strenghts or weaknesses of all military related issues(China’s own and all others)in order to be one step ahead of any imminent disasters natunal or man-made. The science of military studies and researches in China have finally been re-started since the time of Sun Tzu. As the saying goes, “In order to control the river, one must first understand the attitudes of the river.”
Perceptions from others not withstanding, China is doing a fine job at “take no thought of who is right or wrong or who is better than. Be not for nor against.” as experienced by Bruce Lee not many years ago. That is to say, China’s intentions are peaceful.
Finally, China’s military and economic modernizations or “adaptabilities” should proceed according to China’s own national requirements and neccessities. Doing what needs to be done is also known and stressed by Bruce Lee as “The easy way is also the right way.” Therefore, for measures or counter-measures,”The possession of anything begins in the mind.” By Bruce Lee.
Liang1a
Quote from the article:
Friedman’s worst sin, though, is to succumb to (if not revel in) what the late Michael Handel termed the “tacticization of strategy.” Battlefield commanders and many civilians are prone to become spellbound by technological and tactical wizardry. In so doing, they lose sight of the higher – and ultimately decisive – levels of competition and warfare. Since World War II, observes Handel, “technological means have started to wag the strategic dog.” Andrew Krepinevich strikes a similar note in The Army and Vietnam, faulting the U.S. Army for prosecuting a “strategy of tactics.” U.S. forces seldom lost a tactical engagement with Vietnamese regular or irregular forces, yet they were unable to derive strategic or political gains from these engagements. Conflating equipment and tactics with strategy rendered an unbroken string of battlefield triumphs largely moot.
—————————————–
Liang’s response:
“Winning the battles and losing the war” is a well known phrase. It obviously applies to America’s Vietname venture. But this is not to say tactics are not important. If a country just lose tactical battles withnot advancing in strategic advantages then it will surely lose the strategic war as well. Furthermore, America lost the Vietnamese War for many reasons. The biggest reason is that it dared not attack N. Vietnam which immediately put N. Vietnam in a position where it cannot lose and can only win. Or conversely, American put itself into a position where it cannot win and can only lose. In the end the only strategy of the N. Vietnam is that it was willing to make the horrendous sacrifices of lives and materials. They needed only to hang on and continue the war of attrition and eventually America would have had enough and leave. Therefore, it was not so much a lack of political strategies on the part of the Americans that lost them the war but that they simply could not stop the unending tactical battles due to their inability to decapitate N. Vietnam and stop the war at its source.
As to China’s naval power, China has the need and the means to build itself a powerful navy. Since China’s economy is already on a par with the US in the most relevant PPP terms, it has the money to build itself as big a navy as America. Also China has all the essential technologies to build on its own as technologically advanced a navy as America. And as China’s need for a powerful navy becomes increasingly clear with each passing day, thanks to the increasing tensions in the S. China Sea and E. China Sea as well as the increasing threats posed by India in the Indian Ocean, it is only natural that China would deploy a powerful navy. China needs a powerful navy to protect its sovereign territories and keep open the vital sea lanes. And not the least the current threats to Syria and Iran also make it clear to the Chinese that they need a powerful navy to protect foreign allies.
Therefore, China has the wealth, the technologies and the need to build itself a powerful navy. Given these factors it is automatic that China will build itself a powerful navy. And the usual Japnese and Western denigrations will not stop China from building a powerful navy. It is time for these mendacious peoples to recognize that their denigrations will not prevent China’s rise in naval power. And their continuous denial of China’s obvious potential to achieve a powerful navy will only deceive themselves. By overestimating their own naval power and underestimating China’s naval power it will only lead them into a conflict from which they cannot win. And they will lose both tactically to China’s advanced naval forces and lose strategically due to their inability to prevent China from enhancing its global prestige and gaining new allies that will ultimately reduce Japan-West cabal’s global intimidation.
Yang zi
Liang1a, your linear thinking is very harmful. The world is a place where forces and counter forces act agains each other. As a nation with people long suffered hostilities, China need extra courage, tolerance and forbearance to rise above petty actors. The openness and enbracing of the world is the ticket for China’s greatness. I am not sure China has found the fountain of spring to perpetuate itself for eternal success. The world is full of great/not so great people just like China do, why do you always cut yourself out of the rest of the world?
Liang1a
Yang zi wrote:
December 10, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Liang1a, your linear thinking is very harmful. The world is a place where forces and counter forces act agains each other. As a nation with people long suffered hostilities, China need extra courage, tolerance and forbearance to rise above petty actors. The openness and enbracing of the world is the ticket for China’s greatness. I am not sure China has found the fountain of spring to perpetuate itself for eternal success. The world is full of great/not so great people just like China do, why do you always cut yourself out of the rest of the world?
———————–
Liang’s response:
Yang Zi, you lump independence with isolation. Why are you so terrified of China being “isolated”? Why are you so sure that China must be linked to the West in order to advance? You seem to think that if China cannot communicate with Japan and the US then it will become impoverished and backward. It is obvious that you have no idea how a nation becomes great. Let me tell you the main reasons a nation becomes great are by independent advancing its indigenous technologies and producing goods and services of the highest qualities in the largest quantities for its people to consume. And neither of these reasons have anything to do with communicating with or linking to other countries. So grow up and stop acting like a terrified child. You do no honor to the great Chinese nation.
John Chan
@Liang1a,
Definitely we cannot “lump independence with isolation,” but we also cannot twist “The openness and enbracing of the world is the ticket for China’s greatness” into “if China cannot communicate with Japan and the US then it will become impoverished and backward.”
It is true that “advancing its indigenous technologies and producing goods and services of the highest qualities in the largest quantities for its people to consume.” is the “main reasons a nation becomes great,” but it is false that such advancement can happen independently regardless it is within China or outside of China. No invention or discovery can happen in vacuum, all of them need some kind inspiration and previous knowledge. More connections will provide more inspiration and previous knowledge subsequently will result in more invention and discovery; narrow scope independence and isolation are detrimental to invention and discovery and hence advancing indigenous technologies.
Yang zi’s opinion did not show “acting like a terrified child” but a rather mature and prudent approach to “the great Chinese nation.”
John Chan
USA has committed numerous strategy errors by encircling China.
1. USA committed the same strategy mistake as they did in Vietnam, fighting a war thousands miles away from homeland meanwhile China is defending itself close to home. The cost to maintain a same unit of force is many times higher for the USA than China. History has shown time again, the one runs out of money first lose the war. The wars against lopsided weak opponents like Iraq and Libya duped USA into ignoring such fundamental strategy importance.
2. USA has coerced a dubious coalition, instead of focusing on one opponent, now USA has to divide its energy to make sure no one stab its back. It is a fatal strategy error to set oneself up for multiple fronts warfare.
3. USA has never faced an opponent with bigger resources than it; it is another strategy error for the USA to pick on an opponent with more resource that can out last it. All China has to do is to grow and keep up the competition; eventually USA will walk the path of USSR.
4. The only way for smaller nations to benefit from two Goliaths is to set them up to fight each other; it seems USA has fallen into such trap due to its irrational imperialism ego, USA is being pushed onto the path of self destruction.
Anon
1. John Chan, you don’t get it, the Pacific is one area of our home. We fought in Vietnam for 10 years, Once war starts time is actually on the US’ side when it comes to fighting against a conventional force.
2. The US isn’t worried about being attacked by members of its own coalition, perhaps the weakness of certain members, but that doesn’t divert resources. Meanwhile China has to watch out for India, Japan,and Russia to name a few big ones.
3. We faced the USSR, we faced the Spanish Empire, we faced the British Empire. you have no clue what you’re talking about. China has never fought an equal enemy on the sea, the US has.
4. China has fallen for its own propaganda, casting these small countries as the nemy and the US as the irrational imperialist, when China is the one with the seven dashed line and the missiles pointed at Taiwan, it would be funny if it didn’t have such dire consequences. China is isolating itself by viewing everyone as either less than equal to it or as an enemy. China is on its own path to self destruction.
Sailor
Anon, I’m with you. Many of us, who treasure the freedom of information and have balanced views of what are going on, are with you.
There are many Chinese commentors who are members of the 50 cent army – the online propaganda specialists. They get paid for putting senseless comments to discredit those who oppose or raise concerns about China’s policies. Their job is to divert public attention away from immerging issues the Chinese Communists don’t want the world to know. They make up stories in their tweets and posts to brainwash public opinions the same way their own government has been doing to their own populace. Want to know what they are? Go to this link http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/online-12092011145353.html
Just ignore their trash posts.
Reason
Ya! Anon and Sailor, u do s good tarring all the decent commentators who came out in defence of China and the Chinese as 50-mao trolls when it truth we are the trolls and sockpuppets recruited by the CIA and Pentagon; of course for more than 50 mao. Otherwise how could we be stationed here 24/7 ridiculing and mocking and slandering all these good guys? Ha Ha. Greetings from Reason, Cam, TOm Tran, Saigon, etc., etc., ..!!!
John Chan
@Anon,
Napoleon had a lot of friends too when he marched toward Moscow, his friends contributed soldiers, horses, and cannons too. After the disastrous retreat back to Pairs, his friends knew Napoleon was weaken for good, then they form a new coalition and got rid of him for good. That is reality of international politics.
I guessed Napoleon was as confident as the USA right now about his friends. We’ll see whether USA can beat the Napoleon’s fate with better luck.
John Chan
@Sailor,
Labeling others bloggers with opinions not to your liking is bigotry, authoritarian and not treasuring freedom of speed and information. A bigot claiming to have balanced views is a fallacy.
If you do not like other bloggers’ opinions, you can present your point of view to rebut them, but merely labeling without presenting your own argument and claim higher moral high ground is pure hypocrisy.
John Chan
It is unfortunate that the authors abuse this forum to trash Norman Friedman who gave their book an unsatisfactory review; the authors should focus on what the readers of this site are interested of, which is meaningful thought to promote debate among the readers. Settling scores between the book writers and their book reviewer should have no place here, and the editor should not burden the readers with such squabbling.
Suppose PLA has put in layered anti-access/area denial to hold off US Navy from interfering its dealing with disputes in South China Sea; also suppose PLA has calibrated a carrier fleet to suppress the striking power of the opponents in those disputes; finally suppose PLA uses low intensity force to resolve the disputes in the SCS; it would be more interesting if the authors can use their well breadth knowledge to provide their thoughts on what possible ways that USA Navy can do to interfere PLA’s operation recovery of those islands in the nine-dotted line.