“The fighting between the U.S.-funded army of Israel and the U.S.-funded army of Lebanon seems to be another such consequence of U.S. policy. When the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and Israel began fighting last year, the Lebanese government tried its best to stay out of the fray. It reportedly even pulled troops away from the border when Israel announced a ground invasion and ordered Lebanese citizens to evacuate north of the Awali River. But on Thursday, the Lebanese army announced that it had, in fact, been sucked into the conflict.
“One of the soldiers was martyred as a result of the Israeli enemy targeting an army center in the area of Bint Jbeil South, and the center’s personnel have responded to the source of fire,” the army stated on social media. An official in Lebanon told Agence France-Presse that it was the first time the Lebanese army fired on Israeli forces throughout the war.
Two hours before, the Lebanese army had announced that one of its soldiers was killed by Israeli fire while “carrying out an evacuation and rescue mission alongside the Lebanese Red Cross in the town of Taybeh-Marjayoun,” down the road from Odaisseh, a town that several Israeli troops were killed trying to enter on Wednesday morning. The Red Cross said that four of its paramedics were injured, and the Israeli army said that it would be investigating the incident.”
The Indo-Pacific is important to the U.S. for economic, security, and credibility reasons. If China dominates East and Southeast Asia, it could cut off trade and investment to, from, and through the region. This could greatly weaken the United States and make Americans poorer. With China’s home base secure, it can focus on extending its power outward to Africa, the Middle East, Hawaii, the American Pacific coast, the Caribbean, etc.. The U.S. would be seen as abandoning partners and allies in the region, and the U.S. would not be trusted around the world, which would weaken U.S. security and cost the country economically.
But, if the U.S. left the region, would China dominate? China is surrounded by strong countries that don’t want to be dominated. Many Southeast and East Asian countries identify themselves partly by not being Chinese. Countries want to be independent and free from the domination of any power, especially one that has shown its willingness to throw its weight around for its unenlightened self-interest. Without the U.S., it’s possible that Japan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, and India would band together, cooperate, and massively build up their militaries to serve as a successful deterrent to Chinese hegemony.
The problem with that notion is, the countries of the region show little sign of doing it. India mostly cares about India, not leading a balancing coalition in East and Southeast Asia. Many Southeast Asian countries already show signs that they’d submit and bandwagon rather than taking on the daunting task of balancing China. Despite some issues, they don’t see China as a threat. South Korea has its hands full with North Korea, and already handles China with soft gloves. Australia is fairly far away and much smaller than China. Japan has shown the best signs of leading a balancing coalition, but Japan is considerably smaller than China and even its military buildup is actually quite small. While China is going on a massive military buildup, the countries of East and Southeast Asia are not growing their military spending as a percentage of GDP.
If the U.S. left the region, the most likely outcome would be a Southeast Asia gradually more and more controlled by China. Taiwan would either be subsumed by China or quickly develop a nuclear arsenal. South Korea would develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent to North Korea just as much as to deter China, and Japan would also go nuclear to ensure itself against nuclear blackmail. China would be more free to punish any country around the globe economically, including the United States, and more free to extend its power out into the world.
There’s a possibility that Japan, India, and Australia would lead a counter balancing coalition that many countries in the region would join. But, China has so much leverage, that this doesn’t seem likely.
Without the U.S., the chances of war increase. China will be emboldened to take military actions. It would increase its demands on Taiwan and likely invade if Taiwan remains defiant. China would want to conquer Taiwan before it developed nukes. Tensions between Japan and China would be very high, and Japan may retaliate aggressively against any slights to make sure China knows Japan will fight hard to defend its interests. This could spark an all-out war between Japan and China. Such a war would be devastating to the world economy and make most Americans poorer.
Despite that China is not a Communist system, it is still led by an ideological Communist Party. Communist Parties believe in brutal authoritarianism for the sake of worldwide people’s revolution. They don’t care about international norms or the sovereign rights of foreign countries. China today is essentially the continuation of the series of Chinese empires that have been around since before Christ. Such empires see other countries as inferior. They expand and conquer unless stopped by internal or external force. They expect submission from their periphery. China’s aggressive actions in international organizations, in the South and East China seas, in sanctioning countries for evil reasons, in forcing Americans to limit their free speech outside of China if they want to do business in China, and its determination to force the free and democratic people of Taiwan to submit to its authoritarian rule…in these actions China has showed it is not truly a peaceful nation who just wants free trade and harmony. Harmony to a Chinese empire means obeying the Chinese emperor. The U.S. is not safe from a country whose population is quadruple that of the United States, whose economy is by some measures larger than that of the U.S., who is modernizing and growing its military at a rapid pace, and who is massively creating advanced nuclear weapons. Would the United States rather try to convince countries to keep trading with it, and convince China to not bully it, while China controls the most important economic region in the world, by having Hawaii and the U.S. mainland armed to the teeth and prepared for a war off its coasts…, or would it be better to support allies and partners with common interests by standing strong with them in Asia, and maintaining a balance of power in Asia using U.S. strength combined with countries who do not want their region dominated by China?
The most likely outcome of the U.S. leaving East Asia is Chinese domination that will have negative ripple effects across the globe. The second most likely outcome is a huge war between China and Japan that will have negative ripple effects across the globe. The third most likely, but quite unlikely, is the countries of Southeast and East Asia massively ramping up their militaries and cooperation to successfully balance China without a major war. If the U.S. wants to avoid Chinese domination or seeing a major war in the region, it needs to fully engage diplomatically, economically, and militarily to convince China that aggression is not the best action and so we can continue to negotiate a world where China and the U.S. live together, and with their neighbors, in peace and prosperity.
China Is Beating the U.S. in the Battle for Influence in Asia Susannah Patton. 2022 6 6. Lowy Institute. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/china-beating-us-battle-influence-asia Trade, investment, China influence in East and SouthEast asia is surpassing that of the USA. Persistent Chinese diplomacy. Strategic investments. China Has
“Three of America’s four major military services failed to recruit enough servicemembers in 2023. The Army has failed to meet its manpower goals for the last two years and missed its 2023 target by 10,000 soldiers, a 20 percent shortfall. Today, the active-duty Army stands at 445,000 soldiers, 41,000 fewer than in 2021 and the smallest it has been since 1940.
The Navy and Air Force missed their recruiting goals, too, the Navy failing across the board. The Marine Corps was the only service to achieve its targets (not counting the tiny Space Force). But the Marines’ success is partially attributable to significant force structure cuts as part of its Force Design 2030 overhaul. As a result, Marine recruiters have nearly 19,000 fewer active duty and selected reserve slots to fill today than they did as recently as 2020.
A decrease in the size of the active force might be less worrying if a large reserve pool could be mobilized in the event of a major war or national emergency. But recruiting challenges have impacted the reserve components even more severely than the active duty force. The National Guard and Reserves have been shrinking since 2020. Last year, the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve each missed their recruiting targets by 30 percent. The Army Reserve had just 9,319 enlistees after aiming to recruit 14,650 new soldiers. Numbers for the Navy Reserve were just as bad — the service missed its enlisted and officer targets by 35 and 40 percent, respectively.
Should a true national security emergency arise, America lacks the ability to mobilize as Israel and Russia have done. The Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) — comprising former active duty or selected reserve personnel who could be reactivated by the Secretary of Defense during wartime or a national emergency — is designed to act as a bridge from the AVF to a revived draft. Almost forgotten even by servicemembers, the IRR earned brief notoriety when some servicemembers were “stop-lossed” during the Iraq War — pulled from the IRR and returned to active duty involuntarily, usually to deploy again.
Today, there are just over 264,000 servicemembers in the entire IRR. The Army’s IRR pool has shrunk from 700,000 in 1973 to 76,000 in 2023. Forget building new units in wartime: the IRR is now incapable of even providing sufficient casualty replacements for losses from the first battles of a high-intensity war.
And even if more Americans could be encouraged to sign up, they may not be able to serve. Before Covid, fewer than three in 10 Americans in the prime recruiting demographic — ages 17 to 24 — were eligible to serve in uniform. Those numbers have shrunk further since the pandemic began. Only 23 percent of young Americans are qualified to enlist without a waiver, based on the most recent data. Endemic youth obesity, record levels of physical unfitness, mental health issues exacerbated by the Covid pandemic, and drug use have rendered the vast majority of young Americans ineligible for military service. Scores on the ASVAB — the military’s standardized exam for recruits, which tests aptitude for service — plummeted during the pandemic.”
…
“The recruiting crisis is a greater national security threat to the United States than the wars that currently dominate the headlines. If there is one lesson America’s leaders should take from the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, it is that troop mobilization and depth are still essential for fighting wars. As both Israel and Ukraine have learned, no amount of high-tech wizardry has changed this enduring reality of warfare. Should the United States fail to fix its military recruiting, it will risk losing a great power war — with enormous consequences for all Americans.”
“Senior White House figures privately told Israel that the U.S. would support its decision to ramp up military pressure against Hezbollah — even as the Biden administration publicly urged the Israeli government in recent weeks to curtail its strikes, according to American and Israeli officials.
Presidential adviser Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk, the White House coordinator for the Middle East, told top Israeli officials in recent weeks that the U.S. agreed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s broad strategy to shift Israel’s military focus to the north against Hezbollah in order to convince the group to engage in diplomatic talks to end the conflict, the officials told POLITICO.
Not everyone in the administration was on board with Israel’s shift, despite support inside the White House, the officials said. The decision to focus on Hezbollah sparked division within the U.S. government, drawing opposition from people inside the Pentagon, State Department and intelligence community who believed Israel’s move against the Iran-backed militia could drag American forces into yet another Middle East conflict.”