Unlock the US Election Countdown newsletter for free
The stories that count on money and politics in the race for the White House
The writer is a director of the Marathon Initiative and led the Pentagon’s 2018 national defense strategy.
It is increasingly common to hear Americans say that we need to focus more on China and Asia and less on Europe. Unsurprisingly, this perspective is not always welcome. Commentators often accuse such advice of being rooted in “isolationism”, “weakness” or the personal agendas of given leaders.
It’s not. It is rooted in deep structural realities. The fact is that the United States will have to prioritize China and Asia over Europe in the coming years, regardless of who is responsible – Asia’s primacy and rising power of China oblige him to do so.
Many opponents of a refocus on Asia like to wrap themselves in the legacy of the Cold War. But while the logic of Cold War strategy – preventing any potentially hostile power from dominating the world’s most important industrialized region – once led America toward Europe, today it indicates that America must focus on Asia.
Moreover, America’s most important rival is itself in Asia: China. Although China’s economy is smaller than that of the United States in terms of purchasing power parity, it is comparable, if not larger, in terms of the more geopolitically relevant purchasing power parity. China’s military has grown at a breathtaking pace as the country finds itself at the forefront of key military and dual-use technologies.
No one knows what Beijing will decide, but China appears to be doing almost everything consistent with preparing for war with America. It is trying to put its economy to the test of sanctions and conditioning its population so that it is ready to face the storms that are coming.
Any responsible US administration must therefore prepare for the possibility of war with China. U.S. policy should ideally seek to prevent conflict by having the demonstrated ability to deny China a successful invasion of Taiwan (or any other ally in Asia). Unfortunately, this ability is not something one can assume. Indeed, credible sources indicate that America is on the verge of losing such a war.
Many will admit this, but believe that America should still be able to provide the bulk of defense for its allies in Asia and Europe. But that’s just not realistic. It is a fact that the United States does not have a military large enough or designed enough to fight two major wars, especially if fighting broke out simultaneously with China and Russia. And there is a very significant overlap between the need for a fight for Taiwan and that in Europe, the lack of resources for everyone, and the urgent demand for the United States to make up lost ground in Asia.
Unfortunately, these deficits cannot be filled quickly or easily. So what is the right strategic response?
Despite the captivating speeches of congressional leaders and the press, a foreign policy of American primacy is simply not possible. We don’t have the army to do this, and even if the budget were available, we wouldn’t be able to deploy enough of them in time. At the same time, there are growing concerns about the size of America’s deficits, with many warning against increasing our already high debt load. Primacy is therefore not a serious option.
But neither is isolationism. Retreating to our own shores and letting the stakes fall where they can lead to a China-dominated Asia, with serious consequences for the U.S. economy. Our interests in Europe and the Middle East would not be any better off.
The answer lies between these two extremes, in strategic prioritization: facing the reality of scarcity and the need to make difficult choices, focusing resources and will where America’s most important interests are threatened: Asia.
But this does not mean abandoning Europe. Rather, it is about encouraging our European allies to take primary responsibility for their own defense. In 1988, West Germany alone had an army consisting of 12 active divisions and three reserve divisions. If we are serious about following the example of the Cold War, then European rearmament is the way to go.
The best way forward is to face reality and recognize that Europe must jointly take the lead in its own defense and its transition within the framework of a reformed but more sustainable NATO. Unfortunately, this will involve vulnerabilities: the United States must hold back European forces that Asia may need, even in the event that Russia attacks first. Indeed, if the United States ties or loses key forces in Taiwan’s defense in a smaller European fight, it will ask China to attack. But this does not mean abandoning Europe; it means working together on a plan to manage these vulnerabilities as best we can.
Is this a perfect solution? No, but we are not in a world of perfect solutions. Those who claim we are are perhaps the most dangerous of all. Better to face reality and implement strategies accordingly. This is the only responsible way.
