Aspen Strategy Group

America's New-Old Concerns:
China and Russia

America's new-old concerns: China and Russia
By Ze'ev Schiff

The United States has undergone a genuine military and strategic overhaul since its defeat in Vietnam War and bungled attempt to release American hostages in Iran. Its military successes in the Gulf War and Kosovo, together with the break up of the Soviet Union, have led to the development of a sense of enormous, almost limitless, power. At the same time, observers say that America's NATO allies are no match for it in military strength.The feeling is that the United States is ahead of everyone in the military technology revolution, allowing it to control broad stretches of battlefield, keep abreast of what is going on and attack the enemy with utmost precision.

An experienced group of strategists, including some of the finest such experts in America, recently met in Aspen, Colorado to prepare a list of recommendations for the next president. This group concluded that the United States now has a rare opportunity, not conferred on many nations, to shape the world as it would like to see it. Victory in the Cold War has imposed on the United States a responsibility for the future of the world, the strategists agreed, and the army is only part of the solution.

An invitation to the last session of the meeting was extended to three foreigners - a British citizen, a Frenchman and an Israeli - and offered an exclusive glimpse of what America is concerned about, and what it perceives as the greatest threats it faces today. The Middle East was not a major topic of discussion. Surprising as it may sound, Israel's negotiations with its Arab neighbors and the Palestinians, and the possibility of the collapse of those negotiations, did not preoccupy the Americans at all. Israel is perceived as an ally which sometimes makes mistakes and is not always careful to submit truthful reports. However, other allies and other regions, such as Europe and Asia, were of far greater interest to the American strategists.

But there was something that could be defined as a matter of concern for Israel: the news that Washington does not really have a satisfactory answer regarding what to do if Iran, and possibly Iraq, turn out to have nuclear arms. If this is so, Israel will have to make its own decisions. On the other hand, it was clear to all those participating in the Aspen meeting that Israel cannot solve the problem by itself. Efforts to stop India and Pakistan from developing nuclear weapons have failed, and the same will probably be the case with Iran.

The strategists were particularly pessimistic about Pakistan, where control over nuclear armament is very problematic. One way or another, it is clear that the international non-proliferation treaty, in its current format, has come to an end.

The debate focused more on whether America should employ nuclear weapons in response to some other form of mass destruction (chemical or biological warfare). There was no consensus, but some argued that the United States was also entitled to carry out a preventive nuclear strike if it became clear that a chemical or biological attack was imminent and could not be prevented with conventional weaponry. Most of the experts said that introducing weapons of mass destruction will totally change the battlefield, and that the military technological revolution will not help much in this regard.

At the moment, Russia's nuclear policies are a subject of debate. As the conventional strength of the Russian army has declined, officials in Moscow are beginning to feel that being the first to use nuclear weapons is no longer an impossibility. Certain threats that were once low on the scale for the United States have risen to a more prominent position. The Americans are talking more and more about biological warfare, which may one day be more dangerous than nuclear warfare. Terms like "catastrophic terror" and "biotechnology" were heard over and over as the strategists discussed possible threats.

The threat posed by an information war against the United States was also mentioned. This is not a new matter, either in terms of defense or offense, but several speakers emphasized that the United States is not properly prepared for such an eventuality, and noted that American deterrence is not employed to the same extent here as in other spheres.

Topping the list of serious threats is the possibility of China turning hostile to the United States. Until today, China has avoided building up a nuclear arsenal, but this could change. The strategists found it difficult to explain why China sees the United States as a dangerous rival. The fear today is more one of losing control due to some military misunderstanding between China and Taiwan, with the United States being dragged into the conflict.

In second place is the danger posed by Russia. The United States is not afraid of a Russian attack, as it was during the Cold War, but fears that Russia could collapse and turn into something akin to the Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s, or the Ottoman Empire in its years of decline. Third place is occupied by the threat of uncontrolled proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, there is the threat of a "non-symmetrical" war (catastrophic mass terror, for example), in which the United States will find it difficult to wield its power against a much smaller opponent.

The strategists also discussed better ways of dividing up resources channeled into the defense budget. In contrast to other countries, the U.S. defense budget is well-endowed, and the question is merely what it should concentrate on. America's defense budget today is four times larger than that of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Serbia and Sudan put together.

Despite all this wealth, proposals have been made to stop pouring gargantuan sums into piloted aircraft, tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, which also require huge, complicated logistical systems. Money should be spent instead on making the U.S. army lighter, more precise and more deadly. As time goes by, superiority on the battlefield will be less dependent on military hardware and more dependent on control strategies, command and intelligence. This is a debate that will continue to reverberate long after the White House ushers in a new president and the Pentagon, a new secretary of defense.

The Aspen discussion could not end without addressing the casualty issue and the American public's low tolerance in this regard. In the last two wars, in the Persian Gulf and Kosovo, Americans became accustomed to zero losses. There is no comparison between this and the price America paid in Vietnam and Korea. The fear is that the American people will no longer settle for anything but a deluxe war, fought entirely from the air. Not everyone agreed that Americans are different now, from what they were during, say, World War II. Some strategists said it all depends on the country's leadership: If leaders do not properly explain the objective of a war, the public will not be prepared to take losses.

© copyright 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved