Considering the Chinese Air Force's Best Response

RAND released a report on the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) asserting that "the main driver for Chinese military aerospace power development is the PLA's view that it needs to be prepared to deter and, if necessary, defeat the United States in a high-end clash." And, it states that the Chinese Air Force is closely following U.S. Air Force capabilities and copying or innovating in areas necessary to accomplish its objectives.

The author recommends that the U.S. Air Force should respond by monitoring advancements in Chinese military aerospace capability so it can exploit weaknesses and avoid further capability transfers. These are reasonable suggestions, but the U.S. should also consider how its own behavior may be encouraging Chinese military development.

If the Chinese are truly focused on developing their capability to compete with the U.S., it may be possible to reduce the impetus for additional Chinese military build-up by decreasing the negative rhetoric and providing less overt demonstrations of U.S. capability. The Chinese are responding to U.S. efforts to maintain Command of the Commons. In turn, the U.S. observes the increase in Chinese military capability and responds with additional investment that the Chinese then copy. We find ourselves in a tit for tat scenario of escalating responses. So, rather than overtly label China as a military threat which encourages further Chinese military modernization, the U.S. could preserve the effectiveness of its current capabilities by considering the best response of those concerned with U.S. military advantages. This is especially important at a time when the U.S. is already facing significant national security challenges.

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
—Will Rogers

Congressional Research Service Report on Additional Troops for Afghanistan →

The website EveryCRSReport.com publishes Congressional Research Service reports which Congress does not make available to the public. These reports contain succinct analysis to inform Congress on policy issues.

Recently, a report examined the issue of placing additional military forces in Afghanistan. The bottom line:

Given the complexity of the campaign, along with the imprecise nature of U.S. goals for the region and absent a definitive statement from the Trump Administration regarding its priorities, it is currently difficult to evaluate the likely impact that additional forces may have.

The image below shows an Airman assigned to watch over Afghan workers employed at Kandahar Air Field. It is important to consider the opportunity cost of using highly skilled military forces in this role. Many foreign governments require the U.S. to employ local workers as a condition for hosting military bases. Low productivity and the need for constant monitoring drain resources.

Before assigning additional troops to Afghanistan, the U.S. should ensure that military personnel in theater today are effectively utilized.

U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Corey Hook (https://flic.kr/p/aaiZTY)

Using tariffs to protect national security →

President Trump has directed the Secretary of Commerce to use authorities in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to determine if domestic steel production capacity is sufficient for national defense requirements. And:

Pursuant to section 232(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1862(b)), if the Secretary finds that steel is being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security, the Secretary shall, in the report submitted under subsection (a) of this section, recommend actions and steps that should be taken to adjust steel imports so that they will not threaten to impair the national security.

Adjusting steel imports suggests imposing tariffs (or quotas). Scott Summer provides an excellent breakdown of the inherent problems with imposing steel tariffs for national security reasons.

Though steel, along with many other commodities, is essential for national security, tariffs will hurt other manufacturers by driving up the cost of an important raw material.

Overall economic prosperity contributes more to national security than any particular industry.

Hearing on Military Pilot Shortage →

Today, the HASC Military Personnel subcommittee heard testimony on the shortage of military pilots. Representative Mike Coffman (@RepMikeCoffman) noted "there needs to be an econometric reevaluation [of bonuses] on an annual basis" to adjust incentives in light of the dynamic commercial market for pilots.

The services are also examining non-pecuniary incentives to entice experienced pilots to remain in service. These include lengthening assignments, reducing adminstrative workload, and offering alternative career paths so pilots can remain in the cockpit.

One novel proposal under development would allow military pilots to take career intermissions and begin civilian aviation careers. This may allow military members to begin to accumulate seniority with an airline prior to leaving military service.

It is unclear how the new Blended Retirement System will affect pilot retention.

Air Force's Fundamental Problem →

As Gen (ret.) Larry Spencer writes in a recent Op-Ed, the Air Force faces the fundamental problem of economics: scarcity (PDF link). He asks:

How does the nation exploit the Air Force’s wide array of options, and satisfy the unlimited demands for Air Force capabilities with increasingly scarce resources that are allocated to the Air Force?

He contends the solution is to convince elected leaders to provide more resources. As it turns out, all of government faces the fundamental problem and, next year, a continuing resolution is likely. So, a more tenable approach is for the Air Force to optimize under its current budget constraint. This involves making informed decisions. The service should invest in clearly understanding marginal costs and benefits across its portfolio.