Thread by @drfarls

This column is frustrating. washingtonpost.com/opinions/globa…

There are a few big claims that I can't exactly disagree with:

1) Wargames have shown China has a path to victory
2) Bureaucratic politics matter in US defense
3) Major US platforms have vulnerabilities that China can take advantage of

But all of those deserve extremely big caveats. Regarding the first, I know of first-hand and have heard of second-hand numerous wargames where the US military cleans the PLA's clock, so to speak.

Everything, and I mean (almost) everything) depends on the assumptions you have at start, and it turns out we have a better sense of our own vulnerabilities than the Chinese do, and less of a sense of their vulnerabilities than they do.

Moreover, it's good practice to assume the enemy is a foot taller than they actually are, because of course you want to be better than you need to be.

And this often means assuming away all of the friction on the enemy side, even when we have *very* strong reasons to suspect that the enemy will have lots and lots of friction.

I mean, say what you will about Forever War, it does tend to keep many of the more important muscles in shape. The last time the PLA on purpose killed someone who wasn't Chinese is what, 1979?

So there's gonna be a lot of friction in the Chinese war machine, and it's going to play out in ways that are difficult to predict and difficult to model at a wargaming level.

With respect to bureaucratic politics, a couple points to make:

1) China has it too!
2) The bureaucratic arguments have content; they're usually between folks arguing in good faith about effectiveness.

On the first... Soviet style systems have lots and lots of redundancy and entrenched bureaucratic politics and useless waste, and at core the PLA has a Soviet foundation. So there's gonna be a lot of inefficiency.

Which is fine! Inefficiency isn't always bad and sometimes supports redundancy etc. But can't assume well-oiled machine.

With regards to the second, Ignatius abstracts some massive debates on the effectiveness of carriers and the effectiveness of the F-35 into the "bureaucratic inertia and entrenched interests" bog. Which... okay, these things exist.

But if you want someone who's not a bureaucratic inertia or an entrenched interest to testify as to the utility of aircraft carriers and stealth fighters, I would advise you to consult with... the Chinese, who are spending gonzo money on stealth fighters and aircraft carriers.

This brings us to the third point; US systems have vulnerabilities.

Yes! I concur wholly.

The 1990s was a wonderful decade, in which the US could dictate terms to peer competitors at their 12 mile limit, and beyond.

Tragically for so many reasons, the 1990s aren't coming back. We can't guarantee effortless victory over the biggest countries in the world anymore.

But here is where I depart from Brose and Ignatius: There is not a doctrinal or technological fix for this problem. China is big and powerful! It can hurt us no matter how smart we are!

This, fundamentally, is a return to "normal" defense politics. The '90s ain't coming back. Kurt Cobain, Chris Cornell, Scott Weiland... they all dead, folks.

There is no one simple trick to military primacy at China's 12 mile limit anymore. If we want to have a war there's going to be vulnerability, we're going to lose ships and planes, and we will run the risk of defeat.

Coming to terms with this does not mandate any specific approach to defense planning, defense spending, or strategic planning. Folks with different ideological priors can confront this reality with different solutions.

But it helps not to pretend.