My wife Beth is always on me about buying books, and I have to say it, she has a point. My "To Read" bookshelf have over 100 books on it. But my retort is, "There are worse habits to have." And I've discovered buying used books for a lot of what I'm reading now. I just picked up a four volume biography of General Marshall, hardcover, used and in good condition, for less than fifty dollars.
I am currently re-reading The Leader's Bookshelf by retired US Navy Admiral James Stavridis, and R. Manning Ancell, which is a review of fifty books on leadership. I read the summary of Dereliction of Duty by retired Army Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, and yes, I immediately got on Amazon and ordered a slightly used copy. I promise Beth, I will get to it.
But while I was reviewing this, I found this article by General McMaster, and found it fascinating. I agree with the general that Ronald Reagan did the proper thing in challenging the Soviet Union. In the Gipper's immortal words, Reagan, “Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win; they lose.” Rawhide was always to the point.
Now with China rising as our new major advisor (Although Putin is trying to make Russia the Soviet Union 2.0), I find this article very insightful.
Among the best remembered summits of the 20th century are those of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. Reagan’s commitment to dialogue with America’s primary adversary and what then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz called his “personal chemistry” with his Soviet counterpart were hallmarks of his presidency. But even more important was the fact that Reagan had a clear strategy for victory in the global contest with the Soviet Union.
Reagan’s approach — applying intensive economic and military pressure to a superpower adversary — became foundational to American strategic thinking. It hastened the end of Soviet power and promoted a peaceful conclusion to the multi-decade Cold War.
Now it is useful to ask if a similar approach would be equally successful in America’s contest with an even more formidable rival, the People’s Republic of China, a challenger with whom the free world’s economies are intertwined and increasingly interdependent.
In 1983, Reagan approved National Security Decision Directive 75, which set the course for an assertive, competitive approach to the Soviets, in contrast to the “live and let live” aspirations of détente...
...Working from (George F.) Kennan’s original intuitions (on containment), the operational approach that Directive 75 emphasized was “external resistance to Soviet imperialism” and “internal pressure on the USSR to weaken the sources of Soviet imperialism.” Rather than trying to reduce friction with the Soviets as prior administrations had done, Directive 75’s aim was “competing effectively on a sustained basis with the Soviet Union in all international arenas.” Within nine years, the Soviet Union collapsed, worn out by economic pressure, an arms race it could not win and internal political contradictions.
The goal of a competitive strategy versus Chinese Communist Party aggression should be different. The United States and like-minded liberal democracies must defend against the expansion of the party’s influence, thwart its ambitions to dominate the 21st century global economy, and convince Chinese leaders that they can fulfill enough of their aspirations without doing so at the expense of their own people’s rights or the sovereignty of other nations.
These efforts must apply Reagan’s fundamental insight — to win against a rival of China’s magnitude requires sustained pressure against the true sources of the adversary’s power.
China is an economic juggernaut. Through its engagement with the United States and other major markets, it has made itself central to global supply chains, moved to dominate strategic industries and emerging technologies, and built up a military designed to win a war with the U.S. and its allies. Numerous multinational corporations and global financial institutions pump capital, technology and know-how into China. This transfer of capability and competitive advantage can be used against the free world to devastating effect. As the CCP puts it, China is poised to “regain its might and re-ascend to the top of the world.”
To foil China’s plans for preeminence, the United States and its partners should restrict investment into Chinese companies and industries that support the CCP’s strategic goals and human rights abuses. The U.S. should work to block China’s access to Western technology in areas that contribute to military advantage and to construct a new global trade and supply chain system that reduces dependency on China. With India, Australia and Japan, the U.S. must also maintain preponderant military power in the Indo-Pacific to convince Chinese leaders that they cannot accomplish their objectives through threats or the use of force....
H.R. McMaster, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was national security advisor from 2017 to 2018. He is the author of “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World.” Jonathan D.T. Ward is the author of “China’s Vision of Victory” and the founder of Atlas Organization.
Gentlemen, you are dead on. The Chinese government's attempt to push the United States off being the center of the economic, political, and military power on the Earth must be fought. And the fist thing Washington must understand is we are in Cold War II, and we need to be engaging and countering our enemy, not detente at best, and helping them destroy us at worse.
However, the powers that be on the left in general, and in the Democratic party specifically, are vehemently against that. They believe the United States was not legitimately the global superpower it is, and they must manage the decline of America (and the West in general). And Joe Biden will do this part. Actually, he will be a stand in like Wilson after his stroke, or William J Lepetomane in Blazing Saddles. A point made countless times, Jack Kennedy would not recognize his party today. And there are no Democrats who sticks to the wisdom of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in our relations with the Soviet Union, "I'm a liberal, but I'm not a damned fool!"
Hopefully the Democratic Party has a reformation, if only to keep the GOP honest (amnesty and environmental extremism anyone?). Otherwise we may have already passed the end of the beginning and are heading to the beginning of the end.
