War can change a country. It can even change even the entire world. As the US-UK coalition forces are sweeping across Iraq, Washington is not only changing its principles for using force but also creating a brand new warfare system. Amid the "shock and awe" gunfire, a new fight for hegemony over both land and sea has quietly begun, waiting to become the new face of global geostrategy once the US-led war on Iraq ends.
The "land power" ideology has deeply affected the strategic designs of European and Asian countries ever since British geostrategist Halford Mackinder (1861-1947) proposed the concept of a European "heartland" in the 19th Century. Occupying Europe's "heartland" -- Eastern Europe and central Russia -- as well as gradually extending power to the sea, became every country's goals.
In response to the potential threat brought about by the above concept, US strategist Alfred Mahan (1840-1914) proposed the concept of "sea power." Mahan believed that US security would likely be threatened mainly by the land powers in Europe and Asia, and that it was therefore necessary to build a defense line along the rim of Europe and Asia so as to ensure US security.
As a result of the appearance of these two ideologies, the struggles for land and sea supremacy led to two world wars. After World War II, the US also built the strategy of "containment" based on these concepts, which has influenced US principles for using force ever since the Cold War era.
The US adopted the strategy of deterrence as its principle for using force in the Cold War era. This strategy centered on "defense" in the hope of stopping the spread of communism. Nevertheless, the purpose of US military action in that era was to protect democratic countries from being invaded by communist countries. It did not intend to destroy other countries. Nor did it intend to overthrow other regimes.
After the Cold War ended, Washington adopted "the strategy of deterrence and containment" as its core strategy for containing regional conflicts that might spread within certain geographical regions. Thus, the US principle of using force still centered on "defense." It did not send troops overseas unless a foreign country invaded another. This also made it possible for the world's leading powers to be willing to send forces for peacekeeping purposes under the UN mechanism.
However, the US-Iraq war broke out after Washington replaced its traditional deterrence principle with a "pre-emptive strike" strategy. This has deeply threatened those major land powers. After all, a pre-emptive strike is offensive-oriented in nature and is different from conventional defense measures. The definition of an enemy is no longer ideology-oriented. Rather, it depends on the geographic strategic interests or threats of a nation to be attacked. Hence, if the land powers send troops to assist Washington this time, they themselves may also be defined as enemies and become targets after the war is over.
In this strategic situation, the fierce confrontation between the pro- and anti-war camps, caused by the US-Iraq war, shows that each country is basing its decisions on its strategic position -- not merely humanitarian concerns or oil interests. In fact, the US has become a security threat for the land powers after gaining a strategic position in Central Asia after the war in Afghanistan. If the US further obtains a strategic position of Iraq, it can easily control the land powers in the future.
As a result, a significant contrast can be seen between the anti-war land powers -- led by France, Germany, Russia and China -- and the pro-war countries -- led by the US and the UK and including Spain, Australia, Japan, South Korea and even Taiwan. Each of these nations quickly chose a side in the war according to its own geographic position. Backed by the support from those sea powers, the US has insisted on attacking Iraq based on its unilateralism.
In view of this strategic development, the reconstruction of Iraq will not be the only problem left behind by the war. The US will be faced with a completely altered international warfare system. If the land powers continue to actively confront the sea powers together for the sake of their geographic strategic interests, a fight for land and sea supremacy will certainly become the key to the world's warfare system in the future. It's not an ideological confrontation between democracy and communism, nor is it a clash of civilizations. Rather, it's a return to the traditional geopolitical contest.
Of course, given that all the warring sides took "offense as the best defense" in the two previous world wars, it will be hard to rule out a third world war in an era of traditional geopolitical contest.
Wang Kun-yi is an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of International Affairs and Strategic Studies, Tamkang University.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Congressman Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) led a bipartisan delegation to Taiwan in late February. During their various meetings with Taiwan’s leaders, this delegation never missed an opportunity to emphasize the strength of their cross-party consensus on issues relating to Taiwan and China. Gallagher and Krishnamoorthi are leaders of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. Their instruction upon taking the reins of the committee was to preserve China issues as a last bastion of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Washington. They have largely upheld their pledge. But in doing so, they have performed the
It is well known that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) ambition is to rejuvenate the Chinese nation by unification of Taiwan, either peacefully or by force. The peaceful option has virtually gone out of the window with the last presidential elections in Taiwan. Taiwanese, especially the youth, are resolved not to be part of China. With time, this resolve has grown politically stronger. It leaves China with reunification by force as the default option. Everyone tells me how and when mighty China would invade and overpower tiny Taiwan. However, I have rarely been told that Taiwan could be defended to
It should have been Maestro’s night. It is hard to envision a film more Oscar-friendly than Bradley Cooper’s exploration of the life and loves of famed conductor and composer Leonard Bernstein. It was a prestige biopic, a longtime route to acting trophies and more (see Darkest Hour, Lincoln, and Milk). The film was a music biopic, a subgenre with an even richer history of award-winning films such as Ray, Walk the Line and Bohemian Rhapsody. What is more, it was the passion project of cowriter, producer, director and actor Bradley Cooper. That is the kind of multitasking -for-his-art overachievement that Oscar
Chinese villages are being built in the disputed zone between Bhutan and China. Last month, Chinese settlers, holding photographs of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), moved into their new homes on land that was not Xi’s to give. These residents are part of the Chinese government’s resettlement program, relocating Tibetan families into the territory China claims. China shares land borders with 15 countries and sea borders with eight, and is involved in many disputes. Land disputes include the ones with Bhutan (Doklam plateau), India (Arunachal Pradesh, Aksai Chin) and Nepal (near Dolakha and Solukhumbu districts). Maritime disputes in the South China