So will US allies that look to Washington for guidance. For example, Japan assembled a world-class military during the Cold War, yet came to depend on the US military for the offensive firepower forbidden to it under Japan's post-World War II "peace constitution." The deferential attitude this encouraged left the Self-Defense Forces reliant on US military doctrine and strategy.
Like their US counterparts, Japanese strategists show few signs that they think strategically about how to use military power for political ends.
Taiwan can avoid the pitfalls of dependency on a senior ally, if only it will. But the outlook isn't good, judging by the wrangling over the arms package Washington offered Taipei back in 2001. Proponents and opponents of the deal have not cast their arguments in strategic terms -- what armaments will best help Taiwan achieve its foreign-policy goals -- but in terms of cost, the intricacies of the budget process for the procurements, and so forth.
Some strategically and historically minded questions government and military officials should ask to move the debate along are: How have island nations defended themselves against powerful neighbors in the past? Can small nations expect justice from large ones absent credible means to defend themselves?
James Holmes is a senior research associate at the University of Georgia's Center for International Trade and Security.
RSS