The Pentagon Plays Its China Card

Abstract

gon planners wish to make a case for funding the most advanced (and expensive) weapons systems, especially for the navy and the air force, they focus on China as a potential adversary. The Pentagon, after much delay for rewriting, finally released its annual report to Congress on China's military power in mid-July.1 However, in failing to compare systematically China's capabilities with those of the United States and Taiwan, the document makes an exaggerated case for a Chinese military threat. It is true that China has been modernizing its military, and China s rapid economic growth has fed a concomitant increase in its defense spending. Yet the constituent parts of the Pentagon document dissolve on closer analysis. China's military, especially its navy and air force, remain so feeble compared to those of the United States and its allies that the Pentagon's case can only be made by eschewing any comparisons with U.S. forces. Such was not the case with the Pentagon s reports on Soviet military power, issued annually for some years during the latter part of the Cold War, which were full of useful graphs and tables comparing U.S. and Soviet forces. Even though those assessments typically exaggerated Soviet capabilities, defense analysts at least recognized the need for comparison. The Pentagon's China report, in contrast, offers little more than simple numerical comparisons of Chinese and Taiwanese forces and is largely devoid of analysis.2 Lacking comparative perspective, the report nonetheless tries to imagine ways in which Chinese military power might be used against Taiwan or the United States, but with little regard for possible counteraction. Like the sound of one hand clapping, the scenarios presented in the report seem to presume that China could attack with impunity against passive targets. Deterrence is neglected. There are many deterrents to war beyond mere balance of forces. Most countries are deterred from waging war most of the time because of the human and economic costs. In the case of the three countries be-