Book Review: Robert Spalding, War Without Rules: China’s Playbook for Global Domination (Sentinel, 2022)

People’s Republic of China People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy’s Aircraft Carrier, Type 001A Shandong (Hull 17), the PLA Navy’s second aircraft carrier, but the first built domestically (above). In War Without Rules: China’s Playbook for Global Domination (Sentinel, 2022). retired US Air Force Brigadier General Robert Spalding discusses China’s military concept of unrestricted warfare. Spalding points out the concept may also include the use of armed force with its arsenal of weapons as the Type 001A Shandong, it is a military concept designed for the use of non-military forms of warfare: psychological, media, information, technology, cyber, financial, political, social, and espionage. The aim of unrestricted warfare is to weaken the US internally and to exploit its vulnerabilities. Spalding says there can be no doubt that the ultimate goal of the Communiet Party of China is world dominance. From his perspective, that does not bode well for the US.

People’s Republic of China President and Communist Party of China Party Secretary Xi Jinping promises the Chinese people that China will supplant the US as the world’s dominant power in every sector. (Surely, it would be out of character for Xi to assure the Chinese people something as mundane as French King Henry IV declared one day in 1598 as France was just beginning to emerge from its ruinous religious wars: “Je veux que chaque laboureur de mon royaume puisse mettre la poule au pot le Comanche.” (I desire that every laborer in my realm should be able to put a fowl in the pot on Sundays.). Reference is commonly made to that statement with the phrase, “poulet au pot.”) One might imagine that some similitudes of the romanticism á la the French Revolution, megalomania, or some bizarre combination of both, perhaps in concert with others, have driven the zeal of Communist Party of China’s leadership over the years to achieve this goal. Xi will very likely have a lot of other unsettling things to say as time goes on. As attaining the dominant position in the world has been a long sought goal but never reached, some experts, scholars, and policy practitioners still look askance at the whole idea. China’s ambitions and capabilities as they concern attaining this lofty goal no longer sit in the realm of the theoretical or left to philosophical meanderings. Xi is clearly determined to achieve it under his leadership. If China were ever to make the dream of dominance come true, it would not be so willing to relinquish that position. Beijing would doubtlessly do whatever it took to stay on top.

Although the idea of China being the world’s dominant power may be a pleasurable thought in Beijing, the moral and ethical implications are remarkably overwhelming. The idea of China achieving that goal is a frightening prospect, terrifying leaders in other countries whether its friend or foe. The subject of this review is Robert Spalding’s War Without Rules: China’s Playbook for Global Domination (Sentinel, 2022). In his book, Spalding says there can be no doubt that the ultimate goal of the Communiet Party of China is world dominance. From his perspective, that does not bode well for the US. A retired US Air Force Brigadier General, Spalding, in War Without Rules, expresses his most recent meditations about China’s efforts to achieve dominance overseas and even greater control at home. He offers more answers on how the US and its allies might respond to that effort. Spalding states in his “Introduction”: It is not enough to know what your enemy wants. One needs to understand his strategy. In this regard, Washington has been, to use Spalding’s words, “really confused.” He says the US is “primed to fight in one way-all-out war-and see aggression through the same lens.” The indications and implications of this is that the US over the years has failed to discern and accept the Chinese are doing something very different and thereby, Washington has failed to act appropriately. To that extent, War Without Rules is a further attempt by Spalding to get the word out to US political leaders about what China is doing. Yet, more than a book about China’s concepts, intentions, and actions to knock the US off its perch as the dominant power in the world, greatcharlie found that War Without Rules is a book that stirs the reader’s curiosity. The reader is caused to inquire further into the author’s judgments and give greater consideration of their own views on the matter. Such books are figurative catnip for greatcharlie.

Robert Spalding retired from the US Air Force as a brigadier general after more than 25 years of service. If US Air Force officers were listed by achievements–perhaps they are somewhere in the Pentagon, Spalding would surely be among the luminaries. His Air Force biography provides the best picture of the experience and knowledge he possesses. Spalding is a former insider, who worked within the deepest points, most grave points of the US military and other national security bureaucracies. It must be noted that as a former flag officer and B-2 Stealth bomber pilot and unit commander, he was among a him in unique, elite caste of military officer, not quick to speak out, does not lightly show emotion, at least publicly or react because of it, not the type to fret over a perception without the full facts, and whose views when expressed should be taken very seriously.

Overview

In War Without Rules, Spalding frames the problem in getting Washington to understand how China has been steadily moving in the direction of achieving dominance in his Introduction by stating: “From our standpoint, we use military force to achieve a political outcome.” To that extent, he continues: “So they’re constantly in a state of war, they never exit time to peace. And that means they’re always fighting for advantage, they’re always fighting . . . to gain an advantage over their opponent, and . . . are willing to do whatever means necessary.” Spalding states that over those years he came to two key realizations: first, the number one goal of the Chinese Communist Party is the survival of the Chinese Communist Party; and, second, the number one threat to achieving that goal is American democracy. Spalding observes that although there may not be full agreement in the US that China is an enemy, China certainly views the US as its enemy, an existential one. Much as with Spalding’s preceding work, Stealth War: How China Took Over While America’s Elite Slept (Portfolio, 2019), which greatcharlie reviewed in its November 30, 2021 post, Wat Without Rules is not about moving from choppy waters to calmer times. It is about preparing the US, using all tools of its power, to best handle what is happening with China and the worst that will most likely, or will eventually, come from its direction.

Unrestricted Warfare: the Playbook 

The central element of Spalding’s discussion on China’s efforts to dethrone the US as the world’s dominant power is the concept of “unrestricted warfare.” That concept is laid out in a 1998 book entitled Unrestricted Warfare authored by two People’s Republic of China People’s Liberation Army (PLA) colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Spalding essentially uses War Without Rules to parse out the text which was once relatively unknown in the West. In each of the chapters of War Without Rules, Spalding presents excerpts from Unrestricted Warfare along with his interpretations and assessments of the text.

Spalding explains the concept of unrestricted warfare, or what the two authors call a “cocktail mixture of warfare” and define as “warfare which transcends all boundaries and limits.” Spalding points out that while China’s version of unrestricted warfare may also include the use of armed force, it is a strategy that prioritizes the use of non-military forms of warfare: psychological, media, information, technology, cyber, financial, political, social, and espionage. (The espionage element will be considered in greater detail later in this review.) The aim of unrestricted warfare is to weaken the US internally and to exploit its vulnerabilities. (Spalding would call unrestricted warfare in War Without Rules as “beyond-limits combined war.” As the term seems to best reflect the flavor of strategy’s meaning in Chinese, greatcharlie shall hereinafter refer to the strategy of unrestricted warfare more thoroughly as “beyond-limits combined war.”) Since under what was a new concept in 1998 the battlefield is everywhere, for the PLA, everything can be weaponized. On a short list of things weaponized, Spalding includes computers, drugs (fentanyl), financial markets, viruses (COVID-19), social media platforms, universities, scientific organizations, NGOs, trade, and media outlets. To create a foundation for the conceptualization of their new approach, Spalding explains that the two PLA colonels “pulled together centuries of Chinese thinking about warfare and made it relevant in a modern context.” To that extent, Spalding goes as far as to state that the book, Unrestricted Warfare, preached a new version of a very old Chinese formula for victory first set down in print thousands of years ago by Sun Tzu, who wrote in Art of War (c. 5 B.C.), which focused on military organization, leadership, and battlefield tactics, that the acme of skill was to defeat an enemy without fighting.

Spalding insists Unrestricted Warfare is “the main blueprint for China’s efforts to unseat America as the world’s economic, political, and ideological leader.” He states further, it is “the key to decoding China’s master plan for world domination.” Spalding points out that the two colonels wrote the book at a time when the US was enjoying its brief “unipolar moment,” having recently achieved victory over the Soviet Union in the Cold War and won a one-sided military victory in the First Persian Gulf War. And China had not yet attained economic and military superpower status. Much as their superiors in the Communist Party of China, the sense of ardor of the two PLA colonels were respectively inflamed by what they witnessed in the Gulf War and they became more determined than ever to find a way to enhance their country’s capabilities and raise its status globally. Given what Spalding says Unrestricted Warfare endows, it is a wonder why its two authors were allowed by their masters to publish, nonetheless write such a piece in an unclassified context. There must have initially been some nervousness in China’s Ministry of Defense and the Communist Party of China over security concerns. Some time and effort was presumably put into parsing out how the US and its allies would react if a copy got into their hands.

Cynics and conspiracy theorists would doubtlessly go as far as to say Unrestricted Warfare may be a false document, a piece of disinformation, generated by one or more national governments wanting to create a picture of a virulent, predatory China hellbent upon dethroning the US as the global superpower in any way possible. To that extent, they ostensibly insinuate that Spalding has taken the bait and run with it to an extreme. They would perchance offer a caveat to the effect that readers not allow themselves to be bewitched by Spalding the “dream-weaver” or the “teller of tales”. Other detractors of Spalding’s opus would hypothesize that if political leaders were sufficiently impressed by the length and breadth of Chinese activities depicted in the book, it would open the door to greater overwatch and responsibilities for counterintelligence services in the US Intelligence Community and federal law enforcement. Thereby, the document was very likely created within the intelligence industry to influence political support for enhancing their respective powers, broadening their respective missions, and increasing their respective resources. That would be quite a judgment on the character of the men who run the intelligence services and federal law enforcement organizations in the US. Anything is possible from an industry in which many of its professionals as a practice must deny their own names and concealing their accomplishments and contributions is de rigueur. So many “capers” are still kept close to the vest by top executives and managers. Then again, some could say conversely that any effort to create second thoughts on Unrestricted Warfare could possibly be the work of the opposition, a misinformation campaign of some sort.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Having said that, it might be helpful to remind such cynics that Spalding in part resolves the provenance of Unrestricted Warfare by laying out the manner in which events have unfolded and continue to unfold and how Chinese activities “follow the script” of Unrestricted Warfare practically to the letter. Spalding notes that Unrestricted Warfare has been used at China’s military academies. It would be unusual for a “misinformation tool” to be placed on syllabi in such educational institutions. Surely, that evidence alone should help carry his argument well-outside the realm of conjecture and settle it down into reality for most. All that being stated, greatcharlie reckons that diving any deeper into such matters, would be counterproductive, and that it would be best to “stay on mission” and discuss the good readers will find in War Without Rules.

As a book concerning the course of China’s implementation of beyond-limits combined war, War Without Rules, to an extent, is a book about both the past and present. Yet, more importantly, it is an argument concerning the type of future the US and the rest of the world’s industrialized democracies really want. Spalding leaves doubt that he believes the idea of Chinese dominance is unacceptable given the nature of China’s totalitarian government. He feels the growing concern about China within Washington and the capitals of its allies is warranted. Spalding insists that much more must be done by those capitals to convince China that the matter of it becoming the world’s dominant power is simply out of court. In his view, too many mistakes have been made already by them, especially by Washington, that have allowed China to advance quite a bit in that direction. Spalding makes considerable reference to the political leaders, business leaders, senior government officials, and distinguished scholars, academics, and technical experts who exercise the lion’s share of authority within their countries. Western elites called themselves keeping an eye on Beijing, but Spalding explains for far too long have assumed the military is China’s main weapon in a war. To his amazement, he observed they somehow or another failed to realize that money can be a stronger weapon. To the detriment of the interests of their own respective countries, through interactions with China, particularly economic through commerce, finance, and trade, have lavished Beijing with enough money to wage a beyond-limits combined war against them which the Communist Party of China fully intends to win! 

In Act II, scene iv, of William Shakespeare’s The Life and Death of Richard the Second, a Welch captain speaks these words of doom and gloom to the Earl of Salisbury: “The bay-trees in our country are all wither’d / And meteors fright the fixed stars of heaven; The pale-faced moon looks bloody on the earth / And lean-look’d prophets whisper fearful change; / Rich men look sad and ruffians dance and leap, / The one in fear to lose what they enjoy, / The other to enjoy by rage and war:” Rest assured, War Without Rules is not a manifestation of a sense of doom and gloom concerning China held by Spalding. War Without Rules does not present a “scare story”, pour employer une phrase populaire. Spalding certainly is not whining about China in War Without Rules.  From what greatcharlie is aware of, operating with such a mindset would hardly be Spalding’s way of thinking or doing things. Despite his strong feelings, his discussion is more intellectual than overtly emotional. Afterall, he is a consummate professional from the US foreign and national security policy realmand for warriors such as Spalding, “strength of character consists not only of having strong feelings, but maintaining one’s balance in spite of them!” Spalding has a mind and will to win.

In a 1978 October 13, 1978 Wall Street Journal article entitled, “U.S. Monetary Troubles” by Lindley H. Clark Jr., Paul Samuelson, the Nobel laureate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, recalled that John Maynard Keynes once was challenged for altering his position on some economic issue. “When my information changes,” he remembered that Keynes had said, “I change my mind. What do you do?” Spalding admits initially having been somewhat dismissive, himself, about the Unrestricted Warfare and viewed the precepts revealed by the two PLA colonels as somewhat fanciful or lofty. Spalding notes in the Introduction of War Without Rules: “When I first read the Chinese war manual Unrestricted Warfare in 1999, I thought it was wacky. I was flying B-2 Stealth bombers out of Whiteman Air Force Base in western Missouri and reading a lot about war. As an Air Force officer, I thought it was part of my day job to understand the bigger picture–even though the prevailing attitude in the military was ‘Just fly the planes.’ ” Torah Lishmah! Spalding’s whole perspective changed once he discerned China was putting everything he read into motion, and doing it well. Spalding spoke truth to power at the Pentagon and the White House then, and speaks of only what he knows to be the truth in War Without Rules now.

At the time of this review, a 212 page translation of Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America, Reprint ed. (Echo Point Books & Media, 2015) has been made available for purchase on Amazon.com. The description provided for the book on Amazon is as follows: “Two colonels in the People’s Liberation Army, Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗). Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent, such as the United States.” Having examined Unrestricted Warfare, greatcharlie would wholeheartedly agree that the audience best situated to parse it out in the round would be academics, other scholars, and practitioners in the province of foreign and national security policy. Any level-best effort by those somewhat unfamiliar with these matters, which would be laudable. Still, Unrestricted Warfare is made more easily understood through Spalding’s lens, colored by his expertise and experience. Spalding’s examination of the book via War Without Rules better enables readers with the chance to gain knowledge on a matter that would essentially be limited to those thoroughly steeped in China policy, Chinese defense issues, Chinese military culture, and military science. To that extent, his book will remain an important resource in every personal, public, academic, and institutional library.

The Roman historian Titus Livius (59 B.C.-A.D. 17), known as Livy, provided in Greek, a history of Rome that begins with the earliest legends of Rome before the traditional founding in 753 B.C. through the reign of Emperor Caesar Augustus during his own lifetime. In Book XLIV, sec. 15 of that history Ad Urbe Condita (From the Founding of the City) (c. 28 B.C.), he writes: “Plerumque ipsam se fraudem, etiamai initio cautior fuerit, detegere.” (A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.) Increasing sunlight has been shone upon China’s activities, not just on the coronavirus disaster or in the domain of foreign and national security policy, but the totality of its malign actions. Included among those actions would be: predatory investment scams directed against trusting governments of often small and less industrialized countries; intrusions into sovereign waters for mass fishing; intellectual property theft from companies and research labs that have invested millions in research and development into; and, demands of censorship insisted upon of those in any arena who have received funding from, or are doing business with, China, Beijing must accept that as a result of such actions, impressions of China have not generally been positive worldwide. Communist Party of China leaders have doubtlessly come across the many statements made internationally about Chinese government spokespersons, diplomats, and other officials. To that extent, the Communist Party of China can hardly be happy about the damage being done worldwide to China’s reputation through books such as War Without Rules. Spalding’s voice is surely one that is looked upon as something better than annoying by the Communist Party of China. Spalding is among an ever growing group of China specialists who are determined to uncloak the fraudulent intent of China established decades ago. They put China’s intentions in full view of the world to see. Perhaps what specialists as Spalding present on China might be perceived as nothing less than affront or rebuke. It could only have been worse it his voice emanated from Taiwan. Then Beijing would have considered his act of writing and publishing the book as one more betrayal.

Spalding holding up copies of War Without Rules (left) and Stealth War (right). Although packed with excellent suggestions, War Without Rules, as with his preceding work, Stealth War, is not about moving from choppy waters to calmer times. It is about preparing the US, using all tools of its power, military, diplomatic, economic, political, and information (media) power, to best handle what is happening with China and the worst that will most likely, or will eventually, come from its direction. Given the success of Stealth War, Spalding was undoubtedly pre-empted to write another work of such magnitude. Surely, he was not lumbered by that task, and welcomed the opportunity to gnaw further at the issue of China ambitions and maligned actions and intentions. War Without Rules is every bit as brilliant as its predecessor. It is another superb exposition of Spalding’s pragmatic thinking.

The Author

In War Without Rules, readers are presented with the perspectives and insights on US-China relations through the lens of a man with years of experience on such matters. While hesitant to rewrite the biography of the author from its aforementioned November 30, 2021 post in which it reviewed Stealth War, greatcharlie believes that only by presenting his singular education and military experience in that way can the reader get a true sense of qualifications to inform readers on the subject matter.

Robert Spalding retired from the US Air Force as a brigadier general after more than 25 years of service. If US Air Force officers were listed by achievements–perhaps they are somewhere in the Pentagon, Spalding would surely be among the luminaries. His Air Force biography provides the best picture of the experience and knowledge he possesses. Excluding his list of educational accomplishments, it reads as follows: “General Spalding received his commission through Fresno State University’s ROTC program in 1991. He earned his doctorate in economics and mathematics from the University of Missouri at Kansas City in 2007. The general attended undergraduate pilot training in 1993, and was subsequently assigned as a B-52 Stratofortress co-pilot in the 5th Bomb Wing at Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota. He subsequently transitioned to the B-2 Spirit at Whiteman AFB, Missouri. In 2001, he was selected as one of three Air Force Olmsted Scholars, and was a distinguished graduate of Mandarin Chinese language training at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. Afterward, the general attended Tongji University in Shanghai as a graduate research student. He then returned to Whiteman AFB as a B-2 evaluator pilot and assistant director of operations for the 393rd Bomb Squadron. The general was then assigned to the Office of Secretary of Defense’s Prisoner of War Missing Personnel Office as the military assistant for the deputy assistant secretary of defense. During the Iraq surge in 2007, General Spalding deployed to Baghdad and directed the Personal Security Coordination Center. After a stint at the Air War College at Maxwell AFB, Alabama, he was reassigned to the B-2 at Whiteman AFB. While at Whiteman AFB, he was the chief of safety, operations group commander and vice wing commander. He was then selected as a Military Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. General Spalding then served as the chief China strategist for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, Washington DC. His next assignment led him back to China as the Senior Defense Official and Defense Attache to China in Beijing, China. Prior to his current assignment he served at the White House as the Senior Director for Strategic Planning at the National Security Council, Washington D.C.”

Spalding is by no means an outsider, with special access, looking in on the situation. He is an erstwhile insider, who worked within the deepest points, most grave points of the US military and other national security bureaucracies. It must be noted that being a former flag officer and B-2 Stealth bomber pilot and unit commander, which placed him in unique, elite caste of military officer, not quick to speak out, does not lightly show emotion, at least publicly or react because of it, not the type to fret over a perception without the full facts, never speak idly, and whose views when expressed should be taken very seriously. 

On Stealth War

Spalding’s Stealth War was promoted as a book which discusses how China has quietly waged a six-front war on America’s economy, military, diplomacy, technology, education, and infrastructure, and has been winning. It might be enough for greatcharlie just to describe Spalding’s exceptional achievement with Stealth War as providing piercing judgments, a novel-like reporting of actual events, and a clarity that allows him to cast a cold eye on China policy analysis and intelligence analysis and its practitioners, both past and present. However, Spalding, even more, has interestingly taken his own dissatisfaction, disappointment, and anger over how badly the US has handled China, placed his country in some considerable degree of danger, and safely expressed it on paper, turning it into a positive force to better understand how things have taken shape and how atrocious events are unfolding right before the eyes of every US citizen.

Although packed with excellent suggestions, Stealth War, as with War Without Rules, is not about moving from choppy waters to calmer times. It is about preparing the US, using all tools of its power, military, diplomatic, economic, political, and information (media) power, to best handle what is happening with China and the worst that will most likely, or will eventually, come from its direction. Given the success of Stealth War, Spalding was undoubtedly pre-empted to write another work of such magnitude. Surely, he was not lumbered by that task, and welcomed the opportunity to gnaw further at the issue of China ambitions and maligned actions and intentions. War Without Rules is every bit as brilliant as its predecessor. It is another superb exposition of Spalding’s pragmatic thinking.

If you were fortunate enough to have read Spalding’s Stealth War, you are certainly primed and ready to approach the heady revelations of War Without Rules with an open mind. However, if you have not had the chance to read his preceding work, you can still jump right in War Without Rules. If Spalding had written War Without Rules solely to communicate with professionals within the US foreign and national security policy bureaucracies or the respective bureaucracies of US allies, his target audience still would have been somewhat sizable, and in of itself a market satisfying enough for his publisher. 

However, knowing the considerable level of interest in China across an array of issues is presently high, the targeting of a larger general audience was very likely insisted upon by his publisher. Of course, publishers make money selling books. Spalding, himself, was evidently willing to reach a far greater audience with his work, but his priority in writing this book apparently went beyond turning a profit. As Spalding explains in his “Introduction”, in attempting reach a larger audience, his intention was  to make average citizens, particularly in the US, better aware of China’s malign aims and objectives and tactics. An attendant benefit of that would possibly be mobilizing them to get their representatives in the US Congress and especially the White House to mitigate its creeping influence.

As part of his effort to reach a greater audience with War Without Rules, Spalding intentionally presents his discussion in a way as to coast the most interested China policy wonk as well as someone who has not read a book on China beforehand comfortably through the subject matter. Spalding does not take for granted how much the reader can absorb from what he teaches. As part of his effort to control that process, he carefully apportions how much of the story he feels would be appropriate. When he feels the reader should be ready for more, Spalding ratchets up the complexity of discussion and his anecdotes. Spalding surely accomplished that presumed mission, as his text is informative, lucid, challenging and accessible.” One can only imagine an individual with his richesse connaissances is holding back considering how much more he could have potentially ruminated upon. To that extent, while all should find War Without Rules a browsable, satisfying meditation, Spalding’s lack of profundity might disconcert some.

Previous Reviews

As Beijing pushes ahead with its varied malign efforts, books as Spalding’s War Without Rules surely deserve a look from the eyes of many. In most reviews readily available online, appreciation is shown toward Spalding’s willingness to share the meditations of his praiseworthy exploratory mind. Reviewing War Without Rules for the New York Review of Books, Francis Sempa, who at the time was Assistant US Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, explains that China, according to Spalding, is the enemy of the US, and its statesmen and strategists to “know” the enemy better and to appreciate the enemy’s strategy. Sempa points to Spalding’s view that the aforementioned US statesmen and strategist need to appreciate that we are at war with China, though not yet “a shooting war”, and suggests it is uncertain whether they will recognize that reality. Sempa notes Spalding’s evidence that China is waging war lies in the tactics and strategies set forth in Unrestricted Warfare. Citing what Spalding gleaned from that text, Sempa similarly explains that unrestricted warfare, or what the Chinese authors call “beyond-limits warfare,” includes psychological, media, information, technology, cyber, financial, political, social, and espionage warfare. to. Revealing even more from the text of War Without Rules, Sempa explains Spalding believes that China’s practice of waging war with non-military means lulled the US into a false sense of security after the Cold War by convincing US elites that China was liberalizing politically and that the US could benefit financially by “engaging” China rather than containing or confronting it. Sempa notes that a lot of American elites did (and still do) benefit financially from engagement with China. Overall, the review was favorable. Yet, Sempa notes, too, that Spalding failed to mention another factor that imperils US security–the gradual formation of a new Sino-Russian strategic partnership, which developed and expanded while the US was distracted by wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He says additionally that China has also engaged in a massive military build-up and has extended its influence throughout the Indo-Pacific region via its Belt and Road Initiative. Sempa declares: “Unrestricted warfare also includes geopolitics.

Reviewing the book for the journal of the US Naval Institute, Proceedings, a Lieutenant Cregge states that War Without Rules is “no doubt a blistering critique of the Chinese Communist Party.” Cregge cites Spalding’s explanation that two Chinese PLA colonels, Unrestricted Warfare, provide the playbook for a broad, undeclared Chinese war against the US. Beyond a translation of the two colonels concepts to English, War Without Rules seeks “to explain the challenging prose, logic, and colloquialisms” of Unrestricted Warfare that remain. Through his own description, Cregge notes that the colonels reflected on, among many other topics, how the face of war “would change”, given the US preeminence demonstrated both in its coalition victory in the First Persian Gulf War and its commanding position in the international economic and diplomatic orders. Cregge states that for those interested in examining an array of examples of Chinese coercion against the US-led international order, War Without Rules provides such cases “in spades.” He also notes that for more skeptical China doves, it may be less convincing. Criticizing the War Without Rules, Cregge proffers the book’s compelling argument suffers for two reasons. He explains that many modern examples of Chinese unrestricted warfare against the US rely on seemingly arbitrary citations. He further asserts the book’s partisan perspective is evident throughout, which may further estrange some policymakers or voters, despite a desire, quoting Spalding, that “we should all be China hawks.” Cregge admits that these particular critiques do not argue that the information asserted is necessarily wrong. Cregge additionally criticizes the book saying that given the weight of accusations against Chinese and US organizations and even named individuals, a comprehensive citation regime and bibliography would have greatly reinforced War Without Rules.

Providing a review of War Without Rules for The Epoch Times, that also makes use of quotes from an interview Spalding provided Epoch TV’s “China Insider” program, journalists Hannah Ng and David Zhang report his book walks readers through the principles outlined in the Chinese publication, revealing the regime’s belief that there is no sector of life outside the realm of war. Spalding, they note, determined that this approach stemmed from a doctrine laid out by two Chinese colonels back in 1999 in their book, Unrestricted Warfare. Seeking to boil the matter down further, Ng and Zhang state that according to Spalding, the notion of war espoused by the Chinese communist regime is completely different from ideas in the West. Citing Spalding, the reviewers note that from the Western standpoint, military force is used to achieve a political outcome. However, the “Chinese Communist Party” sees the outside world as always in a state of war. Thus, China is constantly in a state of war with it. That necessitates always fighting to gain an advantage over their opponent, and are willing to accomplish that through any means necessary. To push back against this unconventional war imposed on the US, Ng and Zhang say Spalding called for the country to decouple from China. Quoting Spalding once more, the reviewers write: “If we can decouple from China . . . get them out of our economic, political, academic and natural systems and begin to reinvest in our own citizens, reinvest in infrastructure and manufacturing in science and technology and STEM [science, technology, engineering, maths] education, you’re going to start to see opportunities arise that haven’t been there for decades in the United States.”

Interestingly enough, more than just reviews exist of Spalding’s book. As of the time of this writing, a couple of unofficial “study guides” for War Without Rules have been made available for purchase on Amazon.com at prices oddly not far short of the cost for the book itself! The study guides are in effect synopses of a synopsis of a book. (Without pretension, greatcharlie hopes readers will not find that its review of War Without Rules should be placed within that category, too.)

The August First Building in Beijing, Headquarters of the People’s Liberation Army (above). The central element of Spalding’s discussion on China’s efforts to dethrone the US as the world’s dominant power is the concept of “unrestricted warfare.” That concept is laid out in a 1998 book entitled Unrestricted Warfare authored by two People’s Republic of China People’s Liberation Army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. Spalding essentially uses War Without Rules to parse out the text which was once relatively unknown in the West. In each of the chapters of War Without Rules, Spalding presents excerpts from Unrestricted Warfare along with his interpretations and assessments of the text. Spalding insists Unrestricted Warfare is “the main blueprint for China’s efforts to unseat America as the world’s economic, political, and ideological leader.” He states further, it is “the key to decoding China’s master plan for world domination.”

The Chapters of War Without Rules

War Without Rules is 256 pages in length, and has 11 chapters. The chapters are well-arranged and titled as follows: Chapter 1: “Know Your Enemy”; Chapter 2: “A New Way of War”; Chapter 3: “The Magic Shoes of Technology”; Chapter 4: “The Weapons of Revolution”; Chapter 5: “The War God’s Face Has Become Indistinct”; Chapter 6: “Desert Storm: ‘A Military Masterpiece”; Chapter 7: “America’s Weakness”; Chapter 8: “Weaponizing the International Order”; Chapter 9: “Deploying All of the Above”; Chapter 10: “Calling It War”; and, Chapter 11: “Fighting Back with New Rules”. One might figuratively call each chapter a “deep penetration strike” against what the former B-2 Stealth pilot presumably views as Washington’s record of willful ignorance and to a degree, political apathy.

With the aim of not spoiling the readers’ own experience reading War Without Rules, greatcharlie will not provide a sizable review covering chapter by chapter. Instead greatcharlie delights to simply peek, to gaze therein on those parts of his admirable work that it found fascinating and captivating. The same approach was taken in its review of Stealth War. At the same time, Spalding has done a more than admirable job at breaking down the blueprint for China’s effort to attain dominance, Unrestricted Warfare, in order to allow all readers to grasp the work. There was concern in writing this review that an unintended consequence of summarizing his effort would be to gut Unrestricted Warfare to the point that its essence would be significantly obscured to readers. Thus, with a focus on keeping the discussion to the more significant lessons learned from the Gulf War by the two PLA colonels, greatcharlie presents a somewhat fulsome discussion of what it has determined to be its “top 3” chapters. They include: Chapter 4: “The Weapons Revolution”; Chapter 7: “America’s Weakness”; and, Chapter 11: “Fighting Back with New Rules”. Of course, greatcharlie believes every reader will best select for himself or herself, the chapters that content them most.

Chapter 4: “The Weapons Revolution”

In Chapter 4: “The Weapons Revolution”, Spalding explains when Unrestricted Warfare was written China did not have Stealth bombers, am adequate Navy. He notes that the colonels saw promise in what China did have in abundance. Those resources include: a billion people, computer programmers, devious hackers, financial speculators, currency reserves. Spalding, himself, adds what would be recognized as the issue de jure doctors studying exotic viruses. Spalding says the colonels explained all of these, organized and tasked to maximize their potential, could be used as weapons and must be seen as such. Effecting the possible disruption, destruction, and potentially gaining control all areas of the opponents society would be possible to the degree that the opponent’s ability to fight wars in the standard way would be broken. The opponent would be destroyed from the inside similar to an erstwhile healthy individual struck by an unseen virus. The colonels explain that with the weaponization of its abundant resources, China could strike at the very hearts of its opponents. To that extent, the two colonels suggest that fully accepting such ideas requires one to adopt “a new way of thinking about warfare.” Spalding remarks that unlike ships and planes, these weapons needed no upgrades as a result of being suited for the last conflict. The colonels write: “In the past, all that was needed was the invention of a few weapons or pieces of equipment, such as the startup and the Maxim machine gun, and that was sufficient to alter the form of war, whereas today upwards of 100 kinds of weapons are need to make up a certain weapons system before it can have have an overall effect on war. However, the more weapons that are invented, the smaller any individual weapons role in war becomes, and this Is a paradox that is inherent in the relationship between weapons and war . . . Other than the all-out use of nuclear weapons, a situation which is more and more unlikely and which may be termed nuclear war, none of the weapons, even those that are extremely revolutionary in nature possess the right to label future warfare. . . .”

Interestingly, Spalding does not delve too much into the idea that such claims by the two colonels seemed more than just skance as an effort to justify the state in which the Communist Party of China had left their country’s defense, its security. After reading the above passage, greatcharlie thought that perhaps the two colonels overlooked, or worse, dismissed an important aspect of the human element of warfare as it concerns the way weapons are often innovatively used to the extent one could call their influence on the battlefield revolutionary. Imaginably, in the PLA, the sort of go-ahead mentality that has led to innovation in the use of weapons in Western armies, does not fit well. That is doubtlessly the case in all the bureaucracies of China’s totalitarian, Communist government system. The ability of research and development teams, commanders, and soldiers, sailors, and marines to find new ways to exploit available high-tech and information warfare technologies in often absolutely brilliant ways, cannot be discounted, or worse, dismissed so readily. 

In World War II, the decision by German Army commanders to level their long range, high velocity firing, 8.8 cm Flak 18, an 88mm anti aircraft gun, at opposing forces in the North African desert in 1941 changed the picture concerning artillery range, speed, and destructive effort through the war. Batteries of 88s were successful at supporting movement of tank and infantry units and breaking up attacks by opposition forces. In terms of weapons systems as a category, airplanes were initially used in observation and reconnaissance roles. The two colonels mention the contribution of the renowned Italian air war theorist General Giulio Douhet relatively in passing in Chapter 4: “Desert Storm: A Military Masterpiece”. They do not discuss just how genuinely revolutionary his precepts on potential use of the airplane in war were. Spalding surely would have included any comments by the two colonels on US Colonel William “Billy” Mitchell if they had deigned to mention the contribution of his ideas on air power and the need to make airplanes an integral part of US defense in preparation for the next war. It took an impressive degree of inner strength it took for these commanders to subject themselves to being “the voice crying in the wilderness,” a phrase that perhaps alien to the ears of the two colonels (Certainly not to Spalding!). The impact of the airplane was multiplied exponentially when it was eventually used as an asset for tactical and strategic attacks against an enemy. They can destroy enemy positions along the forward edge of the battle area, provide close air support for troops in contact with an opponent or move to a point deep in an opponent’s rear. When attacking an opponent’s units in depth, diverting, disrupting, or destroying attacking forces before they are even in contact with friendly troops, and destroying command, control, and communication centers and lines of supply. In a strategic attack role, airplanes can disrupt and destroy an opponent’s ability to even wage war, affecting the opponent’s ability to produce weapons, train troops. Further, airplanes can serve in an air defense role, friendly forces on the ground and at sea, and provide air cover for other airplanes in strategic attacks.

The two colonels sort of obedient, lock-step, short-sighted thinking on sophisticated weapons systems was further apparent in their statements about high-tech and information warfare. In another quote from Unrestricted Warfare provided by Spalding, it was explained: “Even if in future wars all the weapons have information components embedded in them and are fully computerized, we can still not term such war as ‘information warfare’ . . . because, regardless of how important information technology is, it cannot completely supplant the functions and the roles of each technology per se. For example, the F-22 fighter, which already fully embodies information technology is still a fighter, and the “Tomahawk” missile is still a missile, and one cannot lump them all together as “information weapons” nor can a war that’s conducted using these weapons be termed information warfare. Computerized warfare in the broad sense and information warfare in the narrow sense are two completely different things. The former refers to the various forms of warfare which are enhanced and accompanied by information technology, while the latter primarily refers to war in which information technology is used to obtain or suppress information. . . .” 

Spalding explains the two colonels believe huge investments in cutting edge weapons was a misallocation of funds and a dangerous distraction from what really matters in international conflicts. To that extent, Spalding looked at US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the administration of US President George W. Bush falling into what the colonels saw as a self-made trap as his focus was on constantly improving US weapons systems in terms of accuracy and lethality, an approach called the Revolution in Military Affairs. Intriguingly, on this point, politics seems to be playing more of a role than some sort of singular military thinking. Lending support to the idea that the Communist Party of China has the country on the right course militarily, better than imagined, because it has not heavily invested in weapons technology as the US, could have simply been a manifestation the two colonels belief, trust in, and loyalty toward the decisionmaking of China’s leadership. L’élan de générosité des croyants. On the other hand, China has always lagged behind a bit with the US in terms of its own research, development and deployment of its “big weapons”. It appears the two colonels have gone a bridge too far in suggesting that China would only need to innovate and adapt by exploiting nonmilitary resources to surpass the US and drive it from the top of the world order. Under a totalitarian, Communist government system in which even the commas of a text would be repeatedly scrutinized, placating the leadership and Communist Party of China’s military thinkers by pandering would surely be de rigueur especially if one hopes to have a position in a bureaucracy, advance in it, or even more, stay healthy and safe. Robust expressions of appreciation and optimism over the decisionmaking of the Communist Party of China’s leadership are expected. Speaking truth to power is just not the norm in China. To that extent, as alluded to earlier, it is likely the two colonels were once more taking on the role of “justifiers” in that last passage.

The US Air Force F-22 “Raptor” Stealth Fighter (above). Spalding explains the authors of Unrestricted Warfare believe huge investments in cutting edge weapons as the F-22 was a misallocation of funds and a dangerous distraction from what really matters in international conflicts. To that extent, Spalding considers the idea that Donald Rumsfeld, US Secretary of Defense in the administration of US President George W. Bush fell into what the colonels saw as a self-made trap because his focus was on constantly improving US weapons systems in terms of accuracy and lethality, an approach called the Revolution in Military Affairs. On this point, politics seems to be playing more of a role than military thinking. The two colonels could possibly be lending support to the idea that the Communist Party of China has the country on the right course militarily, better than imagined, because it has not heavily invested in weapons technology as the US. China has always lagged behind a bit in its own research development and deployment of its big weapons.

Further criticizing the US weapons acquisition process, according to Spalding, the authors of Unrestricted Warfare further explain there is a general unwritten rule that an army fights the fight that fits its weapons. They assert that very often it is the case that only after a military acquires a weapon does it begin to formulate tactics to match it. They go on to say, with weapons coming first, there is a decisive, constraining effect on the evolution of tactics. However, as the Roman Emperor and Stoic philosopher, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus was quoted as saying: “Because your own strength is unequal to the task, do not assume that it is beyond the powers of man; but if anything is within the powers and province of man, believe that it is within your own compass also.” One only need consider how the thinking of commanders as Heinz Guderian on the use of tanks, or panzers in his case, impacted German military strategy and tactics through World War II. In 1937, when he was a relatively obscure officer in the German Wehrmacht, Guderian wrote Achtung-Panzer!: The Development of Armored Forces, Their Tactics and Operational Potential. It was a seminal text that pointed out that in the next war, the importance of the tank with the very crucial addition of motorized infantry had to be recognized by the German Army. After carefully studying armor for 15 years, he insisted through Achtung-Panzer! [Beware the Tank!] that if tank forces were “full of verve” and “fanatically committed to progress” they would “restore the offensive power of the army.” Such ideas were adopted by the German Army, the result of which would be laying the foundation for the German Blitzkrieg. Such was the revolution on the battlefield Guderian had envisioned. He was given the opportunity to put his ideas into effect. Guderian commanded the XIX Corps during the invasion of Poland in 1939 and France in 1940, and commanded Panzergruppe Guderian during Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia in 1941.

Similar thoughts were espoused by other military thinkers in the West between the world wars who influenced the way World War II fought and won. then US Army Colonel George S. Patton published a piece entitled,“Tanks in Future Wars”, in the Cavalry Journal (May, 1920), pages. 342-346, in which he explained the War Department must focus on tanks as an armored force and not place them piecemeal among infantry and artillery. He concluded, “The tank corps grafted onto infantry, cavalry, artillery, or engineers will be like the third leg of a duck; worthless for control, and for combat impotent.” Reportedly, Patton was immediately told to cease and desist by the powers that were if he wished to have a career in the US Army. Patton famously led the US 3rd Army on its armored and mechanized rampage through France in 1944 and its drive into Germany in 1945. Captain Dwight Eisenhower, wrote a piece for the Infantry Journal entitled, “A Tank Discussion,” (November 1920), pages 453-458, in which he sought to make the case for keeping tanks as part of the equipment of the infantry units. Eisenhower became the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and great say in how the war was fought in Europe. In the United Kingdom, Captain B. H. Liddel Hart and Brigadier J. F. C. Fuller also mused about a revolution in armored warfare after World War I recognizing how the nature of warfare had changed with the introduction of the airplane, poison gas, and longer range artillery, and that machinery was stronger than wool. The British Army was experimenting with armored units under General Percy Hobart beginning in the 1920s. (In 1926, Fuller who served in the Tank Corps in World and participated in both the Battles of Arras and Cambrai, was given command of an Experimental Force (Tank)  brigade at Tidworth, on the Salisbury Plain. He ran into some difficulties while there.)

After examining in the round the situation of US and NATO Allies in Western Europe which faced a massive Warsaw Pact force in the East and thoroughly reviewing the US military experience in Vietnam, in the late 1970s and early 1980s US military theorists and planners sought to move away from the notion of fighting a battle of attrition, hoping to hold the line against an armored and mechanized heavy surges across the. Inner-German Border into the North German Plain, the Fulda Gap, and the Hof (Hessian) Corridor. They developed the Airland Battle concept which included an emphasis on maneuver, the operational art, high-mobility, high-tempo operations, innovation, flexibility, agility, capabilities, and military acumen, leadership, intimate knowledge of the battlefield, enhanced command, control, communication, and intelligence, the attack in depth, firepower, greater lethality, and the better use of existing weapons systems and the introduction of new, more capable weapons systems with the belief that they would have a considerable multiplier effect on the battlefield.  Notable among those weapons systems were the F-15 Eagle fighter, F-16 Falcon fighter, A-10 close support fighter, M270 MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System), the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter, AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank, the M2 and M3 Bradley fighting vehicles, the HMMWV (Humvee), and many more pieces of impressive gear. Later would come rather exquisite weapons systems such as the F-117A “Nighthawk” Stealth fighter and the E-8A Joint STARS (Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System). Special operations forces would be better developed in order to successfully engage in direct action behind opposition lines and alongside allied forces, and provide security for critical facilities and equipment and engage in other sensitive missions. The Airland Battle concept was manifested in the US Army’s formidable FM 100-5 Airland Battle Strategy.

For all of the advanced military thinkers mentioned and beyond, it was more often not an easy route to establish a strategy-resources match. They, too, were voices crying in the wilderness in the beginning. However, they managed to get the right attention. Through research, testing, and applying lessons learned from every failure, their theories were validated, the right weapons were procured, and the result was success in its use, though not completely successful for some as Guderian, fortunately for the world, given the politics of his country and the off-kilter way higher authorities prosecuted the war in which they were used. The renowned poet of Ancient Rome, Publius Ovidius Nāsō, known as Ovid (43 B.C. – 17 A.D.) wrote: Cui peccare licet, peccat minus. (Who is allowed to make mistakes, makes fewer mistakes.) In the environment in which the two colonels functioned, it is apparent that creating a theory on war then hoping funds would be  appropriated for their development was unheard of. It is hard to imagine some burgeoning, truly innovative military thinker in China leaping up to suggest ways of fighting wars that were beyond what was immediately understandable to superiors, required the use of weapons systems China did not have, and would have called for massive expenditures on defense.

General Heinz Guderian (top) in a half-track modified for use as a mobile command center during the Battle of France, 1940. According to Spalding, the authors of Unrestricted Warfare explained the general unwritten rule is that an army fights the fight that fits its weapons. They further assert that very often it is the case that only after a military acquires a weapon does it begin to formulate tactics to match it. They go on to say, with weapons coming first, there is a decisive, constraining effect on the evolution of tactics. One only need consider how the thinking of commanders as Heinz Guderian on the use of tanks, in his case, panzers, influenced German military strategy and tactics. In 1937, when he was a relatively obscure field officer in the German Wehrmacht, Guderian wrote Achtung-Panzer!: The Development of Armored Forces, Their Tactics and Operational Potential. It was a seminal text that pointed out that in the next war, the importance of the tank with the very crucial addition of motorized infantry needed to be recognized by the German Army. His ideas were adopted, they would serve as the foundation for the German Blitzkrieg. Such was the revolution on the battlefield Guderian had envisioned.

Spalding repeatedly remarks that in this chapter of Unrestricted Warfare, the two colonels rebuke the practice of developing weapons to meet the requirements of a theory for a new tactic, doctrine, or grand strategy. The two colonels began to sound more as cynics as Spalding quoted their reflections on US weapons systems design. It seemed more of the same self-serving perspectives seemingly aimed at placating the Communist Party of China. Perhaps coming across weapons systems then being forced to find ways to use them is a problem faced by the armed forces of countries which “garner” foreign military technologies and research, development, and plans by clandestine means.

There are points on which Spalding apparently fully agrees with the two colonels’ assessments. He stated that in Somalia, for the first time in history, unilateral access to superior weapons technology stopped conferring a big advantage to the dominant power. Spalding quotes from Unrestricted Warfare: “Customizing weapons systems to tactics that are still being explored and studied is like preparing food for a great banquet without knowing who is coming, where the slightest error can lead one far astray. Viewed from the performance of the US military In Somalia, when they were at a loss when they encountered Aidid’s forces [the ragged gunmen of warlord Mohammed Aidid, who tried to force foreign troops out of Somalia in the early 1990s], the most modern military force does not have ability to control public clamor, and cannot deal with an opponent who does things in an unconventional manner.” Far be it for greatcharlie to serve as an ideal apologist for the US armed forces over Somalia, Afghanistan, or Iraq–it lacks the faculty, but casting ones mind back, one might recall the outcomes of those campaigns were determined more by resources made available, how resources were utilized, and how those campaigns were fought, than by the nature of the varied resources of the US armed forces themselves. Spalding goes on to say the US nuclear arsenal would be useless in small-scale deployments as Somalia and in the counterinsurgency campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cutting edge conventional weapons developed via Rumsfeld’s Revolution in Military Affairs would also have little effect according to Spalding.

However, looking at the matter realistically from the two colonels’ position, applying China’s abundance of certain nonmilitary resources much as weapons was,  for so long, the only prospect China had for possibly defeating a larger, more powerful, more advanced industrial power as the US. The US had choices concerning the development of weapons system and strategies, China really did not. Interestingly enough, if the matter were considered forthrightly, those resources in abundance which are discussed in Unrestricted Warfare were resources already in existence. Thus, the beyond-limits combined war concept was developed around those abundant resources. As with any theory, the colonels could hardly have been certain that the application of these resources would yield all the desired results.

French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte is quoted as saying: “You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war.” Spalding notes in this chapter that through beyond-limits combined war, China has been acquiring technology without paying a cent toward developing it, carefully taking control of the world’s shipping businesses, infiltrating US corporations and scientific laboratories, using US investor dollars to finance its factories and companies-and then insisting that any profits stay in their country. However, in War Without Rules, Spalding has spotlighted China’s ongoing open and clandestine efforts to implement beyond-limits combined war. To that extent, the prospect that China might quietly succeed completely as originally envisioned ostensibly no longer exists. There is time for the US and other industrialized powers to put things right, but no time to waste. An array of defenses can be further organized and calibrated to thwart China’s beyond-limits combined war.

As War Without Rules was written before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Spalding writes about nuclear weapons arsenals without knowledge that Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin now speaks of using them to respond what he perceives as the US and NATO’s attempt to conquer Russia, rob it of resources and squeeze it to death, much as its was outlined in what is known commonly as the Gerasimov Doctrine. The US faces the real prospect of having to use its nuclear weapons in response to a strategic attack from the Russian nuclear triad. Spalding writes that for superpower as the US, the only real value of the nuclear triad now is as a deterrent. China understood this early on and mostly stayed out of the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. Until recently, the Communist Party of China chose to maintain a minimal nuclear arsenal, just enough to deter any other nation’s potential nuclear strike. By keeping its stockpile modest and its nuclear budget limited, the Chinese avoided the massive expenses that helped bring down the Soviet Union. However, as their wealth has grown, the Chinese have added to their nuclear stockpile, creating alarm and some confusion among Western analysts. 

Spalding, laying his thinking process bare for the world to read, asks the following questions: Are new silos and warheads just a deepening of their deterrence or is this a change of strategy  in creating an offensive nuclear capability? Is it perhaps a ruse, with empty silos or hollow missiles meant to provoke the US and others to waste yet more billions? Mais dans nos cœurs, nous n’y croyons pas complètement. From the colonels perspective in 1998, nuclear war is obsolete, but this may be an area in which the Chinese leadership has moved beyond that notion.” Spalding then adds, “And even if they are simply increasing their deterrence, does that mean we have to increase our lethality.”

Earlier in this very same chapter of Unrestricted Warfare, Spalding notes how the colonels warn against making statements and acting in ways concerning weapons systems development and deployment which can up the ante with an opponent and result in unforeseen negative consequences. Spalding includes the following passage from Unrestricted Warfare: “Marshal [sic] Olgarkov, the former chief of the Soviet General staff [Nikolai Olgarkov was chief of staff from 1977 to 1984], was acutely aware of the trend of weapons development in the “nuclear age” and when, it an opportune time, he proposed the broad new new concept of the “revolution in military technology,” his thinking was clearly ahead of those of his generation. But being ahead of his time in his thinking hardly brought his country happiness, and actually brought about disastrous results. As soon as this concept . . . was proposed, it further intensified the arms race which had been going on for some time between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was just, at that time, no one could predict that it would actually result in the break up of the Soviet Union and its complete elimination from the superpower contest.” It does not appear China will disintegrate as a result of increasing its nuclear arsenal. However, from what the colonels emphasize here, it is unlikely the Communist Party of China is bluffing, playing some game, by investing in the construction of nuclear missile silos, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and a far greater sea launched ballistic missile capable submarine fleet.

Chapter 7: “America’s Weakness”

Spalding begins Chapter 7: “America’s Weakness” explaining that in Unrestricted Warfare, the two colonels were diligent students of the US military. When they performed a post-mortem of the first Gulf War, and discovered a number of missed opportunities by the US that were considerable. What caught his attention was the view of the two colonels that US bombers were used in the war that were nothing less than “flying mountains of gold” which they also said made the US arrogant while they exposed the morbid US fear of casualties as a fundamental weakness. Spalding cites the following passage from Chapter 4 of Unrestricted Warfare: “Large-scale use if costly weapons in order to realize objectives and reduce casualties without counting costs–the kind of Warfare that can only be waged by men of wealth-is a game that the American military is good at. ‘Desert Storm’ manifested the Americans unlimited extravagance in war, which has already become an addiction. Airplanes which cost an average of US$25 million each carried out 11,000 wanton and indiscriminate bombings in a 43-day period, destroying the headquarters of Iraq’s Socialist Party with each US$1.3 million Tomahawk guided missiles, taking aim at foxhole with precision guided bombs worth tens of thousands of dollars . . . even if the American generals knew as soon as they began that they need not spend so much on this unrestrained US$6.1 billion dollar battle banquet . . . their own extravagance would still not have been prevented. An American made bomber is OK Ike a flying mountain of gold, more costly than many of its targets. Shouldn’t hitting a possibly insignificant target with tons of American dollars arouse people’s suspicions?”

Spalding states that although Unrestricted Warfare was published four years before what he calls Gulf War Two, that war’s mismanagement and heavy price in lives and dollars is something they could have predicted. He notes that it began with the same intensity of the first Gulf War, routing the overmatched army of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein rapidly. However, he say what came next, an asynchronous guerilla war fought by remnants of the Iraqi Army along with what he says the colonels would call non-state actors. The mission of the US opponent was to kill US soldiers and create a body count that the US public would not tolerate.

Here once again, the colonels offer the more of the same self-serving perspectives seemingly aimed at placating their commanders in the PLA. Spalding notes as much in this chapter stating:  “These are military men, writing first to a military audience.” The two colonels also again do their level best to establish a clear pattern of purpose and consistency in everything done by the Communist Party of China. Surely, the US spends great amounts on defense. Political leaders have sought to address the problem with defense contractors. Still,, survivability of US soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines is put at a premium. Survivability of the planes they fly,, the ships in which they sail, and tanks in which they fight is an important factor in weapons system research and development. However, at the point in China’s defense development, the leadership was hardly interested in doing the same. This of course left the PLA far less advanced and in fact underdeveloped as a force. The implications would most likely have been dreadful for Chinese troops if they had been asked to fight in the army they had against an advanced industrial power or powers. More than anything else, this chapter of Unrestricted Warfare as with others, is window into the breast of two Chinese Communist military apparatchiks.

Two PRC PLA Navy Upgraded Type 094A Nuclear Submarines underway (above). Spalding writes that for a superpower as the US, the only real value of the nuclear triad now is as a deterrent. China understood this early on and mostly stayed out of the nuclear arms race during the Cold War. Until recently, the Communist Party of China chose to maintain a minimal nuclear arsenal, just enough to deter any other nation’s potential nuclear strike. By keeping its stockpile modest and its nuclear budget limited, the Chinese avoided the massive expenses that helped bring down the Soviet Union. However, as their wealth has grown, the Chinese have added to their nuclear stockpile, creating alarm and some confusion among Western analysts. Spalding asks the following questions: Are new silos and warheads just a deepening of their deterrence or is this a change of strategy  in creating an offensive nuclear capability? Is it perhaps a ruse, with empty silos or hollow missiles meant to provoke the US and others to waste yet more billions? From the colonels perspective in 1998, nuclear war is obsolete, but Spalding says it is possible that China’s leadership has moved beyond that notion.

Further focusing singly upon the US military with regard to the overall picture of US national security, Spalding indicates the two colonels use beyond-limits combined war as measure to gauge the development of US theory on warfare. Spalding cites a passage from Chapter 4 of Unrestricted Warfare which says the following: “Formulation of the ‘joint campaign’ originally came from the ‘Number One Publication in November 1991 of the United States Armed Forces Joint Operations’ regulations issued by the US Military Joint Conference . . . This regulation exposes the four key elements of the ‘joint campaign’ –centralized command, equality of the Armed Forces, complete unification, and total depth while doing battle. It has made clear for the first time the command control authority of the battle zone unified commander; it has stipulated that any one military branch can 5ake a leading role based on different situations; it has expanded air/ground integrated battle’ into ground, sea, air, and space integrated battle; and it has emphasized implementation of total depth while doing battle on all fronts.” Citing the colonels further, they go on to explain: “The limitations of this valuable thinking , however, lies in that its starting point and ending point have both fallen onto the level of armed force and have been unable to expand the field of vision of ‘joint’ to all of the realms in which humans can produce confrontational behavior. Surely, this a direct reference to their idea of weaponizing almost every enterprise and endeavor in which China can come into contact with the US.

Pushing ahead, the two colonels consider total dimensional warfare, a theory bandied about in the US Army’s Training and Doctrine Headquarters concerning non-military combat operations and referenced the 1998 edition of the compendium, The Essentials of War, which emphasized “a single principle covering all types of the Amy’s military operations.” Spalding quotes them as writing: “Their practice [the US Army] is to no longer distinguish between non-combat operations and general military operations, but to differentiate battle operations into four types–attack, defense, stabilization, and support–and return the original manuscript to such responsibilities of non-combat operations as a rescue and protection and reassembling the old set of combat operations, in order to . . . altogether discard the concept of “total dimensional warfare.” In evaluating their own imperfect assessment of thinking in the US Army which they apparently conflate with thinking across the board in the US Armed forces and the US Department of Defense, Spalding further cites the two colonels as saying: At face value, this a move of radical reform and simplification by simply cutting the superfluous. In reality, however, this is . . . poor judgment. At the same time as the theoretical confusion brought by the unripe concept of ‘non-combat military operations’ was eliminated, the rather valuable ideological fruits that they had accidentally picked were also abandoned on account of the newly revised compendium. . . . Further criticizing the thinking of US military thinkers, the two colonels admonish: ” ‘Total dimensional war’s’ understanding of battle is already much broader than any previous military theorist, but as far as its innate character is concerned, it still has not escaped the ‘military’ category. For example, the ‘non-military combat operations’ concept . . . is much broader in meaning than military operations and can be placed along with comparable war realms and patterns outside the field of vision of American servicemen. It is precisely this large domain that is the area for future servicemen and politicians to develop imagination and creativity–with the result that it also cannot count as truly meaning ‘total dimensional.’ “

In evaluating what the two colonels have stated, Spalding interestingly states in agreement that just considering warfare from the point of view of the application of military force is insufficient. He points out that from his experience on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon that a US President “has numerous levers of power under his control, which can easily lead to overreliance on military options.” Going further he states: “At the end of the day, our system is still geared to leaning on the military and hard power as our best deterrent. That leaves the rest of the playing field open to the Chinese way of war.

All the ways in which that Spalding says China has engaged as beyond-limits combined war–taking every enterprise and endeavor in which one country can come into contact with another, social, political, diplomatic, military, commercial, financial, scholarly,  scientific, and informational, and weaponizing them–would be activities that fell in the province of a country’s intelligence services. Intelligence services engage in a incredibly broad array of both open and clandestine, and covert activities, using appropriated tools and available resources, to create or exploit opportunities to act in support of the policies and the interests of their countries. Legions of agents or operatives are recruited by intelligence services worldwide to work to meet collection requirements and otherwise in various fields and in a multitude of organizations too large for most services to maintain sufficiently trained staffs of professional officers and agents to cover. Recruited spies are selected for their facilities and tabs are kept on the lot of them in reasonable, undetectable ways to avoid the potential double-cross. The Roman historian and politician, Publius Cornelius Tacitus, known as Tacitus (c. A.D. 56 – c. A.D. 120), remains widely regarded as one of the greatest Roman historians by modern scholars. His final work, Annales (The Annals) is a history of the Roman Empire from the reign of Tiberius to that of Nero, the years A.D. 14–68. In Book I, chapter 58, he writes: Proditores etiam iis quos anteponunt invisi sunt. (Traitors are detested even by those whom they prefer.)

The weaponization of the ordinary, the day-to-day, in the intelligence world has been taken to extremes in the spy genre of film, particularly with the series, “James Bond” in which a shoe would become a telephone, a pen would become a pistol, a car would become a submarine, and so on.

It is understandable that China’s state-run and private sectors would work together to act against foreign opponents and imaginably even friends. It would appear from Unrestricted Warfare  and War Without Rules they call it beyond-limits combined war. Cynics might make the case that Spalding has gone a long way in War Without Rules to make what is actually rather mundane appear novel and intriguing. On a more practical level, and to avoid unnecessarily offending any US or foreign intelligence service, the operations of the erstwhile foreign intelligence service of the Deutsche Democratische Republik (German Democratic Republic, also known as East Germany or GDR) during the Cold War are discussed here to provide an example of an intelligence service engaged in beyond-limits combined war.

Generaloberst Markus Wolf, chief of the erstwhile German Democratic Republic’s (East Germany’s) foreign intelligence service, Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (the Main Directorate for Reconnaissance). All the ways in which that Spalding says in War Without Rules that China has engaged as beyond-limits combined war–taking every enterprise and endeavor in which one country can come into contact with another, social, political, diplomatic, military, commercial, financial, scholarly,  scientific, and informational, and weaponizing them–would be activities that fell in the province of a country’s intelligence services. For instance, East Germany’s foreign intelligence service Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (the Main Directorate for Reconnaissance), with frightening efficiency, operated against its Western opponents to collects as much information possible in preparation for any conflict in Europe between East and West, and be in position to potentially break down the societies of the Eastern Bloc’s opponents from within. Throughout the Cold War, his agents poured into West Germany and when possible countries beyond, secured key positions, and reported on, and influenced the activities of, a multitude of organizations in a broad spectrum of areas, social, political, diplomatic, military, commercial, financial, scholarly,  scientific, and informational.

For 34 years, Generaloberst Markus Wolf was the very successful head of GDR’s foreign intelligence service Hauptverwaltung Aufklärung (the Main Directorate for Reconnaissance), commonly referred to as the HVA. With frightening efficiency, he developed an array of tactics, techniques, procedures and methods for operating against his Western opponents in advance of any eventual conflict in Europe between East and West, or to break down the societies of opponents of the Eastern Bloc. Throughout the Cold War, his agents poured into West Germany and when possible countries beyond, secured positions, reported about, and influenced the activities of a multitude of organizations in a broad spectrum of areas, social, political, diplomatic, military, commercial, financial, scholarly,  scientific, and informational. 

Wolf described the work in his memoir, Man without a Face: The Autobiography of Communism’s Greatest Spymaster (Times Books, 1997). In Chapter 4, he recounts the process of penetrating non-military combat targets for exploitation. He explains: “Once accepted in West Germany, agents usually began their assignments with an inconspicuous period of manual labor to help overcome the bureaucratic barriers of getting established in the West. We therefore preferred candidates with craftsman’s skills or practical experience in a profession. Almost every one of the students and budding scientists who emigrated in the early years found employment in research facilities or companies of interest to us–the Federal government’s nuclear research facilities in Julich, Karlsruhe, and Hamburg; the Batelle Institute in Frankfurt-am-Main, which had been set up by the United States; Siemens, Germany’s largest electronics company; and IBM Germany or the giant German chemical companies BASF, Hoescht, and Bayer. Because we assumed that Germany’s traditional arms manufacturers would–after the storm over German militarization died down–eventually resume military production, we also placed people in companies such as Messerschmidt and Bölkow.” With specific regard to the controllers, they were not mere handlers of spies in the West but expert psychologists who prided themselves on their close personal ties to their charges on the ‘invisible front’.” (For those interested in more on Wolf and the HVA, see the November 13, 2019 greatcharlie post entitled Book Review: Markus Wolf, Man without a Face: The Autobiography of Communism’s Greatest Spymaster (Times Books, 1997) for a bit more detail on the matter.)

As a brief thought, perhaps some push back would have been caused in the minds of two the colonels if they had been made aware of the fact that the US Intelligence Community includes a number of organizations from the armed forces and the Department of Defense, to include the US National Security Agency, and human intelligence elements that are staffed in great measure by US military personnel and led by military commanders. From that fact, perchance they would even admit that the US armed forces for quite some time, have been engaged to some degree in beyond-limits combined war worldwide.

Chapter 11: “Fighting Back with New Rules”

In Chapter 11: “Fighting Back with New Rules”, Spalding unleashes one insight after another on how the US should respond to beyond-limits combined war. He explains the US needs a defense to meet an offensive we are only beginning to understand beyond-limits combined war. China is quite different as an opponent than the Soviet Union because it has become the factory of the US providing cellphones to toys. Through its theft, China is becoming competitive in the most high-tech areas such as super computing and artificial intelligence. They have a space program and a rapidly growing military. They have suddenly developed a nuclear arsenal that could potential match that of the US.

Taking lessons from Unrestricted Warfare, Spalding writes the US can begin to exploit a range of economic problems. China has a government of one man, one rule which has never worked. He says world opinion is turning against China due to its blatant aggression. He suggests the same principles of Sun Tzu which the authors of Unrestricted Warfare espoused, should be used to respond to the strategy: Know the face of war: it is combined, unrestricted war that seeks victory through no violent means, but does not rule out violence; Know your enemy, his strengths and weaknesses; Join your forces to meet the threat: create one-mindedness”. Focusing the many parts of our government on the single objective of stopping China is essential; and, The people must be in harmony with their leaders.

Spalding says the US needs to map out a globally inclusive strategy built on three pillars: protect, rebuild, and inspire. These three pillars would found a robust effort to reshape the international order away from the totalitarian form of government upon which China is built and wants to impose on the world and toward the promotion of human rights, democracy, civil liberty, rule of law, and economic prosperity. Exploitation of labor and environmental challenges must also be confronted as global supply chain reorient to nations that support competitive markets, strong labor protections and environmental standards. 

Protect

Refine and export tools that encourage those nations that play by the rules of fair and open markets to tighten collaboration in economic, financial, trade, and information flows. The ability of rule breakers to use the US and partner countries to exploit the free system’s near open borders to avoid tariffs and other protections. Examples Spalding provides for such activity includes: making tariffs permanent for the Communist Party of China-led economy and contingent upon an annual vote in the US Congress,  which would consider whether China is a human rights violator and if it has a market based economy. On finances, he suggests the US Department of Labor allow every person in the US who participates in a public or private pension fund to opt out of sending their investment dollars to China and designate that portion of their funds be invested manufacturing in their local communities.

Rebuild

Spalding recommends a massive movement in fiscal spending “away from guns toward butter.” By focusing on infrastructure, our industrial base, energy, STEM education, and research and development, the US will rebuild its core economic and science and technological superiority to lead the world once again. Explaining that idea, Spalding says $100 billion from the defense budget could be shifted to a massive research and development and reindustrialization effort focused on quantum computing, artificial intelligence, machine learning, 5G and telecommunications, “the internet of things”, nuclear and carbon-free energy, data science, cryptocurrency, biopharma, robotics, logistics, manufacturing, and transportation. Those investments would be protected with a robust counterintelligence program designed to ensure the benefits of these investments only accrue to the US and its allies and partners.

Inspire

Spalding states that the US should join with “developed” allies and partners to create a strategic economic development plan that seeks to promote collective economic prosperity tied to democratic principles. He proposes that idea be brought to fruition via the creation of an organization able to work with like-minded developed countries to identify and promote the economic prosperity and institutional integrity of like-minded developing partners. 

Among further recommendations in this province, Spalding says a Global Development Fund for Democratic Infrastructure Investment should be developed with a mandate to analyze the global trading routes and infrastructure to invest in a robust, resilient international logistics architecture, which would promote free trade, secure and verifiable customs procedures, and the collective economic prosperity of like-minded countries. Attendant to that, he states an international data-tracking system should be developed to inform where the US, allied countries, and their respective companies are investing to assist smaller companies and institutional investors to allow them to take advantage of the accompanying economic growth prospects. Spalding feels that by linking “a resurgent economic and science and technological powerhouse” with democratic-allied and partners countries, the US will forge a new consensus, which will begin to drive positive outcomes in international institutions such as the UN and World Trade Organization. Together, this coalition of free countries with strengthened economic, financial, trade, and informational ties, girded with a robust military alliance focused on deterrence, will fuel a rebound in the growth of democracy around the world 

Spalding insists that there are many specific actions that extend from those strategic concepts that cover all aspects of US society. He concisely examines a few realms among which those actions could occur: political; economic; diplomatic; information; education; military; consumers; and voters.

As it is generally taught in US military educational institutions, for the US to achieve optimal outcomes following a military conflict–in the case with China, non-combat military operations, it must converge all four elements of national power—diplomacy, information, military, and economics (DIME)—into a cohesive, multi-domain campaign plan before, during, and following military confrontation. Here are Spaldings recommendations that concern those elements.

Diplomacy

Spalding praises the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad Alliance: US, Japan, Australia, India) As a strong deterrent to Chinese aggression. It can be strengthened and expanded. As large as Chin’s military might is, when combined with the US, the countries of Asia including South Korea and Vietnam are more than a match. He calls the Australia, United Kingdom,, US (AUSKUS) Agreement an important step in linking the US, United Kingdom and Australia in more than a mere military alliance. The sale of US nuclear submarines to the Australians is an action the Chinese colonels would admire if grudgingly. It draws a line in the sand declaring that China’s actions will be countered. Spalding believes the agreement and the sale have the effect of forcing allies who have maintained close ties economically to China to choose sides. Spalding says the decision really boils down to whether the would prefer to have the US military or the PLA defend their interests in Asia.

US President Joe Biden announcing the AUKUS pact and nuclear submarine deal on September 15, 2021. On screen for their respective announcements on the pact and deal are United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in Canberra. Spalding calls the Australia, United Kingdom, US (AUSKUS) Agreement an important step in linking the US, United Kingdom and Australia in more than a mere military alliance. The sale of US nuclear submarines to the Australians is an action the Chinese colonels would admire if grudgingly. It draws a line in the sand declaring that China’s actions will be countered. Spalding believes the agreement and the sale have the effect of forcing allies who have maintained close ties economically to China to choose sides. Spalding says the decision really boils down to whether the would prefer to have the US military or the PLA defend their interests in Asia.

Information

Spalding notes one of the greatest successes of China has been the use of information warfare. To challenge that success, Spalding suggests the US government should encourage US-based social media companies to assist more robustly in countering Chinese Propaganda. Facebook, Google, Twitter, and others are committed to publishing accurate information. However, a constant flood of Chinese falsehoods, intended to create political dissension should fall well outside their guidelines. In more sophisticated realms, Spalding says the US needs to protect the next generation of data. For example, one key step the US should pursue is universal encryption. By ensuring that all data in a free society are encrypted, and by developing platforms that allow for safe processing of encrypted data, the West can successfully compete with China in artificial intelligence.

Military

Spalding recognizes that while the two colonels did not envision, at least I. Unrestricted Warfare, a Chinese military thar could confront the US, that day appears to be nearing. Still, he notes that the theory of Unrestricted Warfare is that military expansion is just a ruse to provoke even greater spending by rivals. Starting with their second rate aircraft carriers and the proliferation of missile silos that may or may not hold nuclear warheads, the Chinese military may be more Potemkin than not. On this point through his words, Spalding does not connect the cause for China’s military build up as preparation for the possible invasion of Taiwan. Still, Spalding says he believes China will make a move on Taiwan soon. That would require the US to plan the evacuation of Taiwanese civilians and resupply of Taiwan’s military as well as a plan to destroy the country’s high-tech manufacturing capabilities for computer chips.

Yet, Spalding says there remains some small wrinkle in his own thinking that says under Unrestricted Warfare, that the military invasion on the ground would be China’s last option given it has quite a few nonmilitary options at its disposal. If China truly seeks to avoid a shooting war, perhaps the leadership of the Communist Party of China might attempt to find satisfaction in peace.

Casting its mind back to the aforementioned Livy and his Ad Urbe Condita (From the Founding of the City) (c. 28 B.C.), greatcharlie is reminded of a passage in Book XXX, section 30, in which the historian presents the exordium of the Carthagian general before Roman generals whose forces werecamp outside of the city of Carthage, itself. He wrote: Maximae cuique fortunae minime credendum est. in bonis tuis rebus, nostris dubiis, tibi ampla ac speciosa danti est pax, nobis petentibus magis necessaria quam honesta. melior tutiorque est certa pax quam sperata uictoria; haec in tua, illa in deorum manu est. ne tot annorum felicitatem in unius horae dederis discrimen. cum tuas uires tum uim fortunae Martemque belli communem propone animo; utrimque ferrum, utrimque corpora humana erunt; nusquam minus quam in bello euentus respondent. non tantum ad id quod data pace iam habere potes, si proelio uinces, gloriae adieceris, quantum <dempseris>, si quid aduersi eueniat. simul parta ac sperata decora unius horae fortuna euertere potest. omnia in pace iungenda tuae potestatis sunt. (The greatest good fortune is always the least to be trusted. In your favorable circumstances, in our uncertain situation, peace, if you grant it, will bring you honor and glory;8 for us who sue it is necessary rather than honorable. Better and safer is an assured peace than a victory hoped for. The one is in your own power, the other in the hands of the gods. Do not commit the success of so many years to the test of a single hour. Bear in mind not only your own resources but also the might of Fortune and the impartial god of war. On both sides will be the sword, on both sides human bodies. Nowhere less than in war do results match men’s hopes. You will not add so much glory, if victorious in battle, to what you can now have by granting peace, as you will lose in case of any reverse. The fortune of a single hour can lay low honors already won, and with them those in prospect. In making peace.)

Economic

Spalding says that China has been getting away with so much for so long, forcing it to play by the rules will cause a shock. From the US side, Spalding explains that there are thousands of details that the US Department of Treasury and the US Securities and Exchange Commission could enforce. Congress has been aggressive about proposing new restrictions, such as requiring companies to certify that there is no forced labor in their supply chain. Spalding believes legislation is needed that will alter the view in the corporate sector that it is in its best interest to promote a country that defies free markets and the rule of law. Spalding says the US growth strategy must be looked upon as a matter of national security. US manufacturing that has gone overseas to China must be brought back.

To an extent, top US civilian authorities and military, intelligence, and law enforcement elements of the US foreign and national security policy bureaucracies as well as other policy circles–to include businesses, universities, think tanks, and news media houses, to name a few–are now regularly discussing the matter, at least publicly, displayed concern in studies and reports and more importantly in the spectrum of policy approaches toward China. He also had a haunting suspicion that very few were aware of what was happening. Far less aware of it all was the US public, going on day-to-day believing they were safe and secure from China and every other country for that matter, and the well-being of the country was in the diligent, conscientious, and thoughtful hands of their elected leaders.

Surely the dead-enders among some elected officials, China policy experts, and business executives of firms in the US well-tied and still benefitting immensely from China’s opportunities surely would rebuff what Spalding has been saying. Imaginably, some, perhaps hurt particularly by his insinuations of failing in their respective duties to place concern for their company employees and their country as paramount, would likely look upon him–perchance given what greatcharlie after many years has come to understand about human nature– disdainfully and mock him as something akin to the character of Scottish writer Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows (1908), “Mr. Toad”  He writes: “The clever men at Oxford / Know all that there is to be knowed. / But they none of them know one half as much / As intelligent Mr Toad!

In more direct action, Spalding proffers in this section that the US should seek opportunities to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative, through which it provides countries loans with the aim to gain political leverage. In many cases, countries that have defaulted on those loans have been left with no choice but to give China long-term access to mineral resources or their ports. Spalding calls it a form of economic colonialism which must be countered.

With regard the other 4 points in which he suggests action should be taken: political, education, consumers; and voters, Spalding says the following: 

Political

Spalding states plainly that the US Needs a single coherent team that would manage its opposition, China. He implores that it can no longer reside in twenty agencies. China comes at the US as one force, thereby, the US Needs to be one force to oppose it. He notes that ultimately, a decision on this matter must come from the US President, but the foreign and national security bureaucracies must go in on it, too.

Education

Spalding believes that there is great value in Chinese students’ coming to the US to study, but the system has been abused and needs to be tightened. However, he notes that the point of such exchanges is to encourage the Chinese to learn our values and way of life. The Chinese government has directed many instead to maneuver into positions from which they can steal US technology. Spalding feels the US government has some leverage on this matter as China does not have the capacity or quality of schools to educate the hundreds of thousands of top students that emerge from its secondary school system each year. He reports that US universities earn billions of dollars by admitting them. He insists the universities, themselves, need to do a better job of vetting who is allowed in, and the federal government probably needs to help. Spalding believes denying Chinese students access to any Chinese apps such as WeChat in the US is one solution. Those apps, he explains, are censored and curated by the Communist Party of China. Spalding says the Communist Party of China’s controlling links to the exchange students must be broken, otherwise they will end up doing its bidding without truly understanding or appreciating democracy. Subita causa, fellitur offectue. (Upon removal of the cause, the effect is removed.) 

Spalding notes that related to this is the growing number of academic espionage cases involving professors and graduate students stealing property. Although both Spalding in War Without Rules and greatcharlie earlier here noted that that US counterintelligence and law enforcement has been following China’s activities albeit all are elements of its beyond-limits combined war strategy, alas, effort to identify and neutral Chinese operatives and their networks have not gone so well. With each successful military and civilian intelligence, industrial, and private effort, and there have been far more than a few, the Chinese learn much about the US security measures and how to penetrate government bureaucracies and private organizations from defense contractors to elite universities. Through that incrementalist approach they have enabled themselves to act at will in the US, pilfering research and development and gaining access to US policy planning, contingency plans, and decision making. Some might state derisively that Beijing now knows more about what is transpiring within many US government bureaucracies, businesses, hi-tech firms, and universities than those who have worked in them for decades. The most apparent evidence of that is when equivalents planned products of sensitive and highly classified US research and development projects are constructed and almost mockingly displayed in official parades and technology fairs and conventions as China’s latest technological achievements. China is dead wrong for stealing industrial and high-tech secrets. However, the operational elements of foreign and national security policy bureaucracies of the US and its allies and partners are wrong for failing consistently over two decades to put a halt to China’s fruitful espionage efforts. Rather than reporting goose chases to headquarters, it appears some investigating agents more often press dead ends and repeatedly sift through the same dust, creating a type of self-inflicted wound to their respective organizations’ efforts. More than yielding nothing, such practices result in further darkening their powers to make headway on new cases by using lessons learned based on failures and looking at facts from new angles. 

It is difficult to discern just how much reliance Spalding would place in the US counterintelligence services and law enforcement to thwart China’s unrestricted warfare operations against the US in the various no military realms. To that extent, he rarely mentions them in War Without Rules. Perhaps something more might be read into Spalding’s final statement in this section, “Our counterespionage efforts have improved, but I suspect there is much more that can be done.” Perhaps it is useful to mention that in Chapter 3: “The Magic Shoes of Technology”, Spalding notes that in September 2021, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Christopher Wray stated before the Congress regarding threats to the US that there were more than two thousand ongoing investigations into Chinese espionage in the US. Spalding quotes Wray as saying: “We’re opening a new investigation that’s tied back to China about every 12 hours, and it covers pretty much every sector of the economy in every state in the nation.” Spalding then writes: “The colonels who wrote Unrestricted Warfare would be proud.” (For more on the efforts by US counterintelligence services and law enforcement to fend off beyond limits combined war by China, see greatcharlie’s August 31, 2021 post entitled, “Sidelights on Nicholas Eftimiades, A Series on Chinese Espionage, Vol. I: Operations and Tactics (Vitruvian Press, 2020))”.

Consumers

Spalding says once again here that US citizens must understand their country is at war with China. It is a war China started, and citizens must avoid doing anything that would make China stronger. He notes, given the fairly common reports in the newsmedia about human rights violations, that China”s actions must be opposed. However, opposing those violations is only one weapon to use against them. Spalding suggests boycotting Chinese products, and avoiding stores that do not sell alternatives made in the US and “democracy-friendly” countries. As War Without Rules was written before current high inflation levels were reached, Spalding suggests “paying a little more and buying a little less as long as products come from the US and reputable countries.”

Voters

Spalding makes the statement highlighted by another reviewer: “We should all be China hawks.” Out of fairness, one might better understand what Spalding meant with these words by citing added to them was a discussion of his concern over what those who seek political office have on their minds about China. He notes the governors have made all kinds of deals with China where the benefits unintended went one way. Spalding feels those whose actions support China over the US interests should be viewed as unpatriotic. That would be particularly true given China’s actions and intentions via unrestricted warfare, beyond-limits combined war. Spalding urges citizens to hold their elected representatives accountable. He albeit aggressively states that China’s actions should be presumed guilty until proven innocent, which is an idea most readers of War Without Rules who adhere to the precepts of the US Constitution, as greatcharlie, would likely feel uncomfortable with. Any pressure that the Communist Party of China can put upon political leaders through corporations that have business ties in China must be thwarted.

Spalding also has a section in this chapter entitled “What Does Victory Look Like?” In it, intriguingly, Spalding does not sound much as the warrior out for blood that some have portrayed him given what is written in this chapter. Rather than explain further, greatcharlie will allow readers to discover what he says and reach their own judgments. Ex inimico cogita posse fieri amicum. (Think that you may make a friend of an enemy.)

Nicolas Malebranche was a 17th century French Oratorian priest and rationalist philosopher. In his works, he sought to synthesize the thought of St. Augustine of Hippo and René Descartes, in order to demonstrate the active role of God in every aspect of the world. Reportedly, after Malebranche read Descartes’ Traité de l’homme, he turned towards a study of mathematics and physics. In his reaction to Descartes’ book is recounted: “The joy of becoming acquainted with so large a number of discoveries caused him such palpitations of the heart that he was obliged to stop reading in order to recover his breath.” Alas, greatcharlie will not go as far as to declare War Without Rules was the manifestation of Divine inspiration through Spalding. Still, as readers may have detected throughout this review, greatcharlie enjoyed reading every bit of the book. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that greatcharlie whole-heartedly recommends War Without Rules to its readers.

It is almost assured that after the first reading War Without Rules, one would most likely go back to the book and engage in that stimulating process repeatedly. There is no telling what insights and how many might be brewed up from within readers after they have had a chance to read through it. Hopefully Spalding will keep on writing books. While writing books may not be as enthralling to him as flying a B-2 Stealth bomber, he nevertheless, is damnably good at it. Vires acquirit eundo. (We gather strength as we go.)

By Mark Edmond Clark

The Defection That Never Was: Meditations on the Dong Jingwei Defection Hoax

People’s Republic of China Vice Minister of State Security Dong Jingwei (above). Beginning in February 2021, Dong became the subject of a rumor alleging that he, along with his daughter, defected to the US. The possible implications of his supposed defection were staggering. It was eventually revealed and proved that the rumor was pure fiction.  Never before has Dong’s name, or any other Chinese counterintelligence official’s name, been bandied about in the US newsmedia or worldwide in the manner it has been lately. An attempt is made by greatcharlie to some degree how this all came about and what was the purpose of it all.

Rumors of the alleged defection of Dong Jingwei, a vice minister of the People’s Republic of China Ministry of State Security–China’s relative equivalent to the Central Intelligence Agency, were the subject of intense discussion in the US newsmedia and social media particularly in June 2021. Allegedly, Dong fled China in February 2021 and handed himself over to US intelligence officials. Dong would have been one of the highest-ranking officers from China’s Intelligence Community, and the Chinese government in general ever to defect to the US. Yet, alas, the rumored defection never occurred.

People’s Republic of China President and Communist Party of China Party Secretary Xi Jinping, is now highly selective, positively picky, about those who serve in national security positions in his government. Considering what would be the most likely nature of the man or woman who would be able to serve as his Vice Minister at MSS for counterintelligence, it is hard to form a mental picture of where the rumor that Dong had defected to the US with his daughter, or who, or better, what organization, may have actually given it wings. It is harder to understand how those who ignited the rumor of Dong’s defection intended to benefit from its formulation and promotion. It is hardest to envision who among those with any knowledge of the Chinese government and the national security apparatus would believe, would ever consider defecting to the US no matter what the circumstances may be within the Communist Party of China or in his personal life. One could imagine Dong would be a deadender, sticking with the Party and his country until the rattle. There is always the possibility–though there are absolutely zero newsmedia reports anywhere that suggested some proceeding mental health episode had befallen him–that Dong may have been overwhelmed by some cacoethes. Barring that, there was no earthly reason to believe that he would defect, and to the US nonetheless. The puzzle now having been “resolved”–the whole truth is out there somewhere, greatcharlie gives a go at parsing out some of these issues hoping it does not come off as l’esprit de l’escalier. In that process, greatcharlie, albeit, steps out on shaky ground to present some unsolicited–and hopefully not unwanted–suggestions on how similar false reports in the future might be given appropriate consideration. Unusquisque mavult credere quam iudicare. (Everyone prefers to believe than to think.)

Some might conclude after noting the topic of this post that this is one more by greatcharlie on Chinese espionage in the US. Some, perhaps duly, might also grumble to the effect: “Now greatcharlie is all China, all the time!” While greatcharlie approaches the defection that did not happen out of academic interest, this examination, much as those of proceeding posts, is part of an ongoing effort by greatcharlie to give consideration of what it could offer to contribute to development more effective approaches to such hostile intelligence collection efforts against the US. Indeed, with the objective of being transparent, greatcharlie must disclose that on the matter of Chinese espionage in the US it is partisan, giving its complete support to the US, the homeland. Readers will likely discern facts are interpreted from that perspective. However, no information is skewed or bent with preconceived ideas or bias.

Who Is Dong Jingwei?

Dong was born on November 18, 1963. He is presently 57 years old. In China it would be of some significance to note that he is of Han nationality. As for his studies, he has earned a master of science degree. The only publicly reported member of Dong’s family is his daughter, Yang–also known as Dong HuaHua on social media, who as part of the defection hoax was said to have allegedly fled China with him. She is the ex-wife of Alibaba executive Jiang Fan, who now heads the company’s powerful e-commerce platforms, Tmall and Taobao. 

Dong is a member of the Communist Party of China. Highlights of his career include service as the Secretary of the Party Committee and Director of the State Security Department of Hebei Province. He is a Member of the Party Committee and, of course, Vice Minister of the Ministry of State Security. With some reluctance, greatcharlie calls attention to the reporting of the popular online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Referencing Intelligence Online, Wikipedia explains that heading the State Security Department in Hebei was significant for Dong because it was a province which has reportedly produced many of Xi’s securocrats.” Loyalty to superiors, age and regional background apparently won him favor with senior party officials under Xi. He then became part of the “Xi Jinping Clique,” one of the main political factions within the Communist Party of China. By 2018, Dong was close to Xi. Other important Communist Party of China titles, and accolades as much, provided to Dong include: Representative of the 18th and 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China; and, Member of the 13th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó Guójiā Ānquán Bù (Ministry for State Security of the People’s Republic of China) or the MSS, where Dong is vice minister, is an intelligence service responsible for foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and internal security as well. Their impact stems mainly from providing consumers in Beijing to include the Communist Party of China leadership, the Party’s key organs responsible for foreign and national security policy, and ministers and senior executives of appropriate ministries and organizations of the State Council, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with data that may shape their decisions.

As noted in greatcharlie’s July 31, 2020 post entitled, “China’s Ministry of State Security: What Is this Hammer the Communist Party of China’s Arm Swings in Its Campaign against the US? (Part 1),” the primary targets of the MSS hands down are its chief competitor, the US, the Russian Federation, Australia and New Zealand. The advanced industrialized countries of Western Europe would also fall under its watchful eyes. In the countries of Eastern Europe, China has achieved some prominence in their space. China must equally measure its national interests, and particularly its national security against Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore. Taiwan, which Beijing declares is part of China, is a special case and a very important MSS target. The second rung of competitors would include India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Mongolia. India has doubtlessly garnered a bit more attention from MSS due to its ongoing border struggle with China. MSS has stepped up intelligence operations throughout Africa to support and facilitate its effort to extend its geopolitical influence and acquire oil, rare Earth minerals, and fish. Africa is estimated to contain 90 percent  of the entire world’s supply of platinum and cobalt, 50 percent of the world’s gold supply, 66 percent of the world’s manganese, and 35 percent of the world’s uranium. Africa accounts for almost 75 percent of the world’s coltan, which is a key mineral required for the construction of electronic devices, including cell phones. Well over 10,000 Chinese firms are operating on the continent with 25 percent located in Nigeria and Angola. China has also expanded its military presence in Africa, rivaling the level of US military equities there.)

In defining counterintelligence, James Olson, the former chief of Counterintelligence for the Central Intelligence Agency and author of To Catch a Spy: The Art of Counterintelligence (Georgetown University Press, 2019), which greatcharlie reviewed for its January 2021 post, states that it “consists of all the measures a nation takes to protect its citizens, secrets and technology from foreign spies.” The primary mission of MSS counterintelligence is the infiltration of all the foreign special service operations: intelligence and counterintelligence services, as well as law enforcement organizations worldwide. MSS shares the counterintelligence role with Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó Gōng’ānbù (Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China) or MPS. MPS is an intelligence service under the State Council in charge of the country’s internal and political security and domestic intelligence.

The achievements of MSS in the US have certainly been no mean feat, and should not be underestimated. As discussed in the February 26, 2021 greatcharlie post entitled,”Suggestions for Resolving the Conundrum of Chinese Intelligence Operations in the US: Fragments Developed from a Master’s Precepts,” the tide of essentially unchallenged Chinese espionage has lapped up so much information, eroded so many formerly reliable defenses, that each day the situation moves closer to the tragic and the terrible. Hopefully, among possible dissenters, an interest, not solely due to exigency, will grow on the idea. Chinese intelligence services have hampered the work of US businesses, research and development firms, high-tech firms, academia, and the federal government itself. They have created spy networks within institutions critical to US economic security and defense. They have attempted to inconvenience the US in its efforts to improve bilateral and multilateral relations in under-developed, less industrialized countries and even long time friends of the in certain regions, and multilateral institutions that the US actually had a hand in creating. One might speculate that having achieved countless victories with near impunity inside the US, Chinese foreign intelligence services now very likely conduct counterintelligence exercises in the field, likely in a nondisruptive way vis-a-vis ongoing operations, to ensure that in their present state, their intelligence networks are free from US counterintelligence detection and interference and that no intelligence service from anywhere could play havoc with them.

Dong (above)  once headed the State Security Department in Hebei, a province which has reportedly produced many of Xi’s securocrats.” Loyalty to superiors, age and regional background apparently won him favor with senior party officials under Xi. He then became part of the “Xi Jinping Clique,” one of the main political factions within the Communist Party of China. By 2018, Dong was close to Xi. Other important Communist Party of China titles held by Dong include: Representative of the 18th and 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China; and, Member of the 13th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference.

As with all other elements of the intelligence industry, counterintelligence work requires wisdom, reason, and logic to be performed well. It is not the nature of intelligence services to regularly use force and aggression to halt an opponent, shut down its networks, thwart its operations, and intercept its intelligence officers, operatives, and informants. The intellect is the tool used for doing so. It stands to reason that in order to be a successful vice minister for MSS counterintelligence. Dong must be a man who has a deep understanding of how people tick, how they fit in and feel where they live and work, and how they can get the ones they have targeted tangled up in their respective espionage enterprises.

In attempting to ascribe certain traits to Dong given his role at MSS, those considered by greatcharlie may appear to be mere abstractions. However, the few traits listed here along with a reliable intuition and challenging experiences within his own intelligence organization may very well have enabled Dong to perceive likely thinking, decision making, planned approaches, and actions within adversarial intelligence services. These same traits perhaps have also assisted Dong in successfully navigating the top rung of China’s national security apparatus and to perform well at the side of leaders of the Communist Party of China.

One might first postulate that Dong possesses the traits of clarity, purpose, and focus. Surely, Dong puts his intentions forward for the best outcome possible. Clarity would allow Dong to concentrate with intention on what is ahead, on what needs to be done. One might expect that Dong believes by now that serving in MSS, performing executive duties for counterintelligence is his purpose. To that extent, purpose was likely revealed to Dong when he discovered the ability to use intuition to understand what may be clear to others. He would be able to focus on what truly matters, and understand what needs to be avoided, such as anything that might frustrate, seriously inconvenience, hamper, or inevitably destroy his organization’s efforts

Dong would be an intelligence officer and political leader of great energy,enthusiasm, and creativity. That energy is transmitted through the MSS. In the US, it would be transmitted not only to officers in the field but to errant citizens and Chinese émigrés recruited to serve the purposes of the intelligence service. He would exude a positive attitude that encourages officers, operatives, and informants to do their utmost in the field. He would be able to find unlocked potential in situations and determine ways to uncover what may be hidden away

What Was Reported on Dong’s Alleged Defection

Relate retero. (I tell what I have been told.) Some simple falsehoods went some way to explain and support what was from the outset a questionable story. From what can be gathered about the episode, stories about Dong’s alleged defection initially emanated from conservative websites in the US. Newsweek points decidedly to a June 4, 2021 report from the conservative political commentary website, RedState, as a source of the rumor. Discussion within conservative circles reportedly became even more intense as days passed. There was considerable discourse on Dong’s defection found in Chinese-language, anti-Communist newsmedia outlets in the US and on Twitter.

Among those who reported on the defection, there was general acceptance of the sequence of events. The defection scheme as laid out was indeed mad-capped. Dong allegedly defected in mid-February, flying from Hong Kong to the US with his daughter, Dong Yang. Dong supposedly provided the US government with information about the Wuhan Institute of Virology that allegedly impacted the position of the administration of US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Han Lianchao, a former People’s Republic of China Ministry of Foreign Affairs official who defected in the wake of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Dong’s defection was raised by the Director of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China Yang Jiechi, and People’s Republic of China Foreign Minister Wang Yi at the US-China Summit in Anchorage, Alaska in March 2021. On June 16, 2021, Han, citing an anonymous source, alleged that in Anchorage, Yang and Wang demanded that the US return Dong to China, but US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken refused. Subsequent reports, coupled with analyses by China specialists continued as Dong’s precise whereabouts remained unknown. Speculation had even reached Chinese social media threads after Dong had not been seen or photographed for several weeks.

While preparing a story on the alleged defection, SpyTalk, an online news site offering reports on national security topics, with an emphasis on US intelligence operations, had sought comment from the State Department last week, however, it did not respond. In the first public clarification put out by the US government on the affair, a US official, speaking anonymously, “reached out” to say reports of Dong’s defection were not true. With regard to Dong’s whereabouts, he stated “We can’t confirm or deny where he is exactly,” but hinted he remained in China. The official refused to go any further. When SpyTalk asked why the Biden-Harris administration sought to knock down rumors of such a high level defection, an ultra-sensitive issue, the official reportedly stated, “that’s more of a policy question”and referred SpyTalk to the White House. Reportedly, the National Security Council did not respond to SpyTalk’s request for comment.

Notably, Newsweek reported on June 22, 2021 it was informed by a US government official that the reports about Dong’s defection “are not accurate,” without elaborating. A second US government source, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the rumors were “absolutely untrue.” Yet, such reporting still did not cause those insisting on the defection to retreat back, away from the issue. It is always a capital mistake to reach conclusions before having all of the facts on a point at issue.

The Chinese government, itself, delayed publicly addressing the stories about his alleged defection. Then on June 23, 2021, officials of the People’s Republic of China Embassy in Washington informed that Dong made a recent public appearance despite rumors that he had defected to the US four months ago. According to minutes released by the Communist Party’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, Dong was among five Chinese officials who attended the 16th meeting of the Security Council Secretaries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Member States on June 23, 2021 Reports of the meeting were also shared on Weibo, China’s largest social media service.

Sources of the Hoax: Views on That in the Newsmedia

The Daily Beast quoted Robert Manning, a former top Asia specialist in both Republican and and Democratic administrations for more than 30 years as saying the decision of the Biden-Harris administration’s willingness to address such a normally highly secretive issue was “to excise an unnecessary additional irritant in the still downward-spiraling bilateral relationship” between the US and China. The Daily Beast also reported another possible motive was to beat back a Republican campaign to deflect blame for the COVID-19 pandemic in the US from the erstwhile administration of US President Donald Trump to China’s Wuhan Virology Lab and, by extension, Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has been critical of the former president’s response to the disease. In the same vein that the motivation may be domestic politics, the Daily Beast reported that a leading China watcher suggested the objective was to head off Republican accusations that the Biden-Harris administration was “hiding a defector who has info on the lab leak or [other] embarrassing stuff.” Essentially amplifying what was aforementioned here, the Daily Beast explained reports of Dong’s defection originated in conservative circles here and abroad that have been critical of the scientific consensus that the COVID-19 pandemic was transmitted from animals in Wuhan’s “wet market.”

On June 4, former Fox News reporter Adam Housley tweeted that “US intelligence has a Chinese defector with Wuhan info. and China is trying to produce variants that suggest it came from bats to cover up that coronavirus originally came from a lab.” Housley’s report was referenced by RedState, which alleged that “a person believed to be among the highest-ranking defectors ever to the United States from the People’s Republic of China has been working with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for months.” Citing anonymous sources “inside the intelligence community,” The Daily Beast further reported that Red State cautiously claimed “the defector has direct knowledge of special weapons programs in China, including bioweapons programs,” and that the alleged information had created “a sudden crisis of confidence in Dr. Anthony Fauci.”

In a June 24, 2021 Washington Times story, it was suggested by a former National Security Agency counterspy that the defection rumors were “part of a Chinese disinformation effort to distract attention from growing international concern over reports the coronavirus pandemic may have originated in a Wuhan laboratory.” If that intriguing possibility is true, it would seem that the other shoe dropped when Dong was seen at a meeting with the head of MPS later in the month. It might be said the some in the US newsmedia are so expectant and desirous of good news for the US on the Chinese espionage front, that some outlets were even ready to jump at a contrived one. he US Intelligence Community did not flinch in response to the defection reports at any point until,  as aforementioned, one US official spoke “just looking to correct the record.” 

Other Suggestions

One can only imagine–if he was actually unaware that the fiction of his defection, would be laid on so thick in the newsmedia worldwide–what Dong’s immediate reaction was when he received news that he was the subject of a farce that put his loyalty and honor in question. Dong was imaginably a little put out. It may have also caused him some embarrassment, some loss of honor. While the truth of Dong’s loyalty to the Communist Party of China and his country would eventually be made very clear, he would surely recognize that once his name was associated with he would indubitably feel was a damnable rumor, that taint would still stick, even if only to some small degree, long afterward. 

 Perchance that the defection rumor was contrived by MSS, then it would be accepted honorably as an unavoidable sacrifice he had to make with the aim of protecting China. Perhaps some monitoring should be done to see if somewhere along the line in the near future, there is some sudden mention of Dong awarded some high honor for his “service” from the Communist Party of China. Perhaps he would receive the award from Xi, himself. That may very well signal, and could help support the idea, that the defection story was indeed part of some nefarious MSS scheme.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. (Who watches the watchmen.) Dong has unlikely gotten lost in any hurt. Yet, one might speculate that perhaps somewhere, someone believes Dong pretends to have an inner strength, nerve, that he actually lacks. Though the true source remains publicly unknown, so far to greatcharlie’s knowledge, no one has been denounced at least publicly in China for having responsibility for igniting the rumor against Dong. One could hypothesize that if the source of the rumor was actually in China, it may have been the case that Dong recognized attempting to establish blame among any rivals for the episode would only be corrosive, and trying to reconcile with some sense his own guilt for leaving himself open to the of such a rumor would be self-defeating. In such a hypothetical case, an expression of such acrimony within days of the celebrations of the Centennial of the Communist Party of China taking place in Beijing on July 1, 2021, would unlikely be of any benefit to Dong politically, professionally, or personally. To that extent, in the eyes of Communist Party of China leaders, he likely would do himself much honor by deciding to hold his tongue at this time, if he even needed or desired to speak out at all.

Arthur Conan Doyle in “Adventure IV. The Boscombe Valley Mystery” of his twelve short stories in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes published in the Strand Magazine (1891) had his main character, the damnably good detective Holmes, state the following which is apposite here: “Circumstantial evidence is a very tricky thing. It may seem to point very straight to one thing, but if you shift your own point of view a little, you may find it pointing in an equally uncompromising manner to something entirely different.”

Xi Jinping’s Counterintelligence Concerns

Xi has placed considerable focus on police, judges, prosecutors, public security, and state security officers as part of a new Communist Party of China drive against graft, abuses and disloyalty in their ranks. Xi has ordered China’s security forces to be loyal to the Party, serve the people and be impartial in law enforcement. Xi also demanded the police force forge iron-like discipline and conduct. In his address at the ceremony, Xi lauded the major contributions made by the Chinese police to safeguarding national security, social stability and people’s interests, He called them a mighty force that can be fully trusted by the Party and the people, and spoke highly of the major contributions made by the Chinese security forces to safeguarding national security, social stability and people’s interests. Xi also called upon the security forces to uphold the Party’s absolute leadership.

People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping (above) has placed considerable focus on police, judges, prosecutors, public security, and state security officers as part of a new Communist Party of China drive against graft, abuses and disloyalty in their ranks. Xi has ordered China’s security forces to be loyal to the Party, serve the people and be impartial in law enforcement. Xi also demanded the police force forge iron-like discipline and conduct. Clearly, Dong has been mindful of Xi’s concept and intent and obedient to the new counter-espionage regulation that came into effect in April 2021.

Would Beijing Call It a US Counterintelligence Plot?

As discussed already here by greatcharlie and in previous posts, little progress has been made in halting it or even making a discernible dent in Chinese intelligence operations. Many minds in the US national security bureaucracies are certainly working fiercely on this matter of utmost importance, but it seems too few facts have been collected for them to run on to break new ground or produce anything worthwhile. Trails of espionage may lead to the MSS and PLA, directly in many instances, but those who commit the devilry of spying on Beijing’s behalf, in the US and from China, are seldom caught. With estimates as high as 25,000 Chinese intelligence officers, operatives, and informants on the loose in the US, it is difficult even the most partisan US observers such as greatcharlie to deny China has secured a massive advantage for itself. Publicly, there appears to be not much of anything comparable achieved to knock back Chinese espionage.

Dong’s team and counterintelligence executives and managers of the other Chinese intelligence services surely study the tactics, techniques, procedures, and methods of US foreign intelligence and counterintelligence services. They would seek to better understand and prepare for expectant future attempts to covertly insinuate operatives into the Chinese foreign and national security apparatus, including particularly both the clandestine posts and covert networks of civilian and military Chinese intelligence services and Communist Party of China organs operating overseas.

Dong and his counterintelligence managers at MSS doubtlessly understand the situation the US Intelligence Community has faced, scoring few victories and suffering many defeats in the intelligence struggle with China, and they very likely recognize that US foreign intelligence and services are anxious to turn the situation around and get some things going. They have likely concluded US foreign intelligence and counterintelligence services are under stress and are bound to take risks to score a victory or win the whole ball game. 

To that extent, one might imagine it could plausibly be claimed within MSS headquarters that whole episode was a US counterintelligence artifice, designed to twinkle out Chinese intelligence service officers and operatives based on the their reactions by some the following: movements–attempt to leave US; communications–sending communiques by codes and encryption to provincial departments and municipal bureaus to confirm rumors and see instructions on next actions; contacts–reaching out to network managers in distress or panic; and, email, text, call, and meet other intelligence officers to parse out situation as reported. Alternatively, also with a counterintelligence purpose, the US could be said to have attempted to smoke out prospective defectors among those officers and operatives, attempting to convince them that some “tower moment” for Chinese intelligence service operations in US had occurred and the moment had arrived to choose to remain part of Communist Chinese system or seek refuge in the US. 

Dong and his manager further parsing out the matter might have speculated that beginning in February 2021, he may have been out of pocket for an extended period or on medical leave for some illness. Such speculation could go further to suggest the US Intelligence Community became aware of the situation, which would have been a chilling prospect in itself for MSS counterintelligence, and sought to capitalize on it 

What might cause Dong and his managers some discomfort even though the whole defection story was revealed as a hoax, and if it was the actual source of the hoax, is that for a while at least there appeared to be good news about success against China. Even if proven false, it would be good to have such positive news reach the ears of the US public, and Beijing would not want that. Further, even though the truth is out, the belief may exist among many in the US public that the “super secret” US Intelligence Community may have truly scored the specified success, and now, for reasons unknown, want to conceal it. Among conspiracy theorists in the US, the imagination may have also been given fuel to run wild and the whole matter of the defection will linger for a while. Chinese intelligence services would likely hope that some sense of discouragement might reach into the psyche of the US public over how Chinese espionage in their country appears unstoppable, even though it may be an issue somewhat outside of the average citizen’s day-to-day concerns.

As for the Communist Party of China, propaganda elements might eventually seek to use the whole circumstance to an advantage against the US. The goal would be to embarrass the US by making it appear as if the US Intelligence Community conjured up a story of defection because that has had no real successes at all against China. What would then perhaps be called “the big US lie” or something to that effect would doubtlessly be denigrated by Beijing through declaring it as being too contrived, unsubtle, poorly executed, and further evidence of how little the US Intelligence Community knows about the Chinese intelligence services. Then again, there may just be silence from Beijing.

A Novel MSS Counterintelligence Tactic to Smoke Out “Disloyalty in the Ranks?”

It would appear Dong may have actually been expecting to face something out of the ordinary from US and other foreign counterintelligence services much as discussed here, and it factored into MSS calculations on operations against the US. According to a story in the June 18, 2021 edition of the South China Morning Post, a report on a seminar on a counter-espionage regulation that came into effect in April 2021 was posted on Changanjian, the social media account operated by China’s top law enforcement agency, the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China. At the seminar, Dong urged the country’s intelligence officers to step up their efforts to hunt down foreign agents and insiders who collude with “anti-China” forces. A read-out from the seminar quoted Dong as explaining: “The promulgation of such regulations provides us, the principal agents responsible for counter-espionage work, with the legal means to prevent, stop and combat criminal activities that would jeopardize our national security.” Dong went on to state: “This will reinforce our responsibility in counter-espionage work, and enable us to do a better job in organising and mobilising all social forces in waging ‘people’s warfare’ against espionage activities.”

In addition to Dong’s expressions on catching foreign spies, the actual report as posted stated that the intelligence officers must also go after “insiders” and “people who bankroll their activities behind the scene.” On that point, the report additionally noted: “At present, infiltration and spying activities by foreign intelligence agencies and hostile forces have increased significantly.” It went on to say, “In particular, there are individuals who have willingly become ‘insiders’ colluding with foreign intelligence agencies and hostile forces and engaging in anti-China activities.” The South China Morning Post story lastly noted the insistence in the report that “All state security agencies must stand firm … deepen and carry out our various counter-espionage work to safeguard our national security.”

Given what was stated by Dong at the June 18th seminar on the counter-espionage regulation that came into effect in April and the report on the event, it may be grotesquely improbable, yet all the same conceivable, that the defection hoax was actually an MSS loyalty test on a grand scale to as was suggested, to step up their efforts to hunt down foreign agents and insiders who collude with “anti-China” forces.

Attempting to look at thinking in MSS from the outside, trying to put moments and trifles from recent events in order and give them a deeper meaning, greatcharlie hypothesizes that Dong and his counterintelligence managers at MSS could not be certain of how the US Intelligence Community, and other foreign intelligence services for that matter, might apply pressure to its officers and operatives. For them, that is always the pinch. To do something more than just study the matter, they may have created a scenario that would likely shock MSS personnel in the field: the defection of the MSS Vice Minister, for counterintelligence nonetheless. That might explain why Dong’s good name was thrown into the mix of something so repugnant. Dong and his managers could test what may have been a working theory on the likely causality of some occurrence, in this case it would have been collusion with anti-China forces, and see if it could be confirmed by facts through investigation. Indeed, Dong and his managers would have wanted to see for themselves how officers and operatives in the field would respond to a very deceptive approach that perchance in their minds could have plausibly been attempted by US counterintelligence.

Many of the MSS foreign intelligence networks and operations in the US, and elsewhere overseas, are run by MSS Provincial departments and municipal bureaus. It would most likely be the case that foreign intelligence and counterintelligence managers of those departments and bureaus would have understood that there would be no reason to leave their locations or try to leave the US in the case of such a defection. It would stand to reason that their identities as spies would likely remain unknown for the time being and everything would be handled by Beijing to prevent their capture and keep them safe. That would likely be instilled in training and before deployments. Expectedly, as a result of training, loyalty and dedication, equanimity and sangfroid would be displayed by officers and operatives. However, through experience one might postulate Dong could have felt that there are patterns one can discern that establish order in the human mind. An unexpected blow to the MSS leadership as a defection of its chief of counterintelligence, which they depended upon for their very lives, might surprisingly elicit inordinate behavior among trained officers and operatives.

Dong might have conceptualized further that if one of his officers or operatives had even considered going over “to the other side” or perhaps might have already been in “friendly contact” with so-called “anti-China” force, the former might fear of being uncovered by an alleged defecting chief of MSS counterintelligence might impel them to act, the latter might want to use the situation to capitalize on the connection already made and go to the other side. (After reading what is presented here, perhaps some may accuse greatcharlie of having too much imagination, others may say, too little.)

A Thought about Future Defections by Foreign Intelligence to the US

As expressed in previous posts by greatcharlie, how the US handles every defection will surely shape decisions by officials to defect in the future.What US counterintelligence services do with defector would certainly have value for MSS to the extent that it could be used to discourage, plant in minds of officers and operatives that turning to the US would not be a wise choice. What prospective defectors might gather from the whole Dong business is that his or her defection could easily become a very public matter, very quickly in the US and eventually worldwide. It could be imagined by them that facts concerning who or what, when, where, how, and why would somehow be leaked to the news media. Rather than a serious concern, their defection might be presented and looked upon at least among some in the US as a banal amusement. Bookmakers in Las Vegas may very well have been taking bets on the outcome of it all: “Did he or did he not defect?, and “Will he stay in the US or be returned to China for one of our spies?” Regardless of the rank or position a prospective defector might be, he or she would hardly get the impression that the way Dong’s name was tossed about was nothing to signify, but rather unseemly. They would perhaps recognize that they would have little cause to expect any better treatment for themselves. None of this should be looked upon as exaggeration or fanciful if the Dong episode might be considered at all instructive. Using the backdrop of this episode as a gauge, one can only imagine what would go through the mind of an intelligence officer of adversarial country, wanting to defect when thinking about the treatment and well-being of his or her family members and himself or herself, how seriously their situation would be taken by the US, and what would be their final disposition. That may not portend well for the US Intelligence Community or prospective defectors. Hopefully, that will not be the case.

The Way Forward

Praeterea qui alium sequitur nihil invenit, immo nec quaerit. (Besides, he who follows another not only discovers nothing but is not even investigating.) Despite pronouncements of Communist precepts that are designed to allow the society to evolve socially, economically, and politically, declarations to maintain an orderly society though a system of justice demanding obedience and assurances from the Communist Party of China on the smooth running of the state and conduct of government affairs aimed at supporting a high quality of life for the people, visible and publicly released reports of scientific achievements in the medical field to high-tech, greater endeavor in the vast ocean and into space, and the notices of accomplishments externally on foreign affairs and guaranteed that the country cannot be threatened, bullied, or taken advantage of ever again, China is nonetheless a nontransparent society. What one knows about China is what Beijing says is true. Independent observations that defy its realities are anathema in Beijing, and can be responded to harshly. There is plenty of secrecy. The frugal release of information on the Wuhan virus is the latest best example of that. Beijing, without fail, will double down further in secrecy when it comes to national security. Yet, to discerning eyes, what the world observes China doing also speaks volumes about what is highly likely being decided behind the scene. That was especially true in this case when ostensibly a man viewed widely in the Communist Party of China as one of the country’s most loyal and dedicated servants, was accused of what could be called the unthinkable. 

While Dong’s name has never been bandied about in the US newsmedia or worldwide in any way close to the manner it has been in just days before thus writing. For those somewhat familiar with such matters, greatcharlie’s editor, himself, being simply an enthusiast and nonpracticioner, well-separate from the intelligence world, the notion that that he of all people in Chinese intelligence would defect would be a bombshell neatly as big if Alexander Bortnikov of the Federal’naya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsi (Russian Federation Federal Security Service) or FSB, was said to have defected instead. That is simply unimaginable. 

Revenons à nos moutons. The hope of US counterintelligence should be “simply” to come into positive contact with an officer, operative, or informant with an albeit some leaning toward an idealistic vision of China as the dominant power and shape of the world for the future, but with reservations, serious reservations. Those sentiments would need to be worked on. The next best hope would be to find the officer, operative, or informant who is not doing things for an ideal, and whose reasons for turning on China would be venal. 

Given the peculiarities of the world of intelligence, this analysis should not be considered too extravagant. The desire of greatcharlie is that nothing in this post would be deemed too fanciful by readers and a bit of their curiosity on the topic at hand would be satisfied. Admittedly, it would be doubly satisfying to know what is presented here might  resonate with a few in US counterintelligence services grappling with the Chinese espionage conundrum. However, if greatcharlie has not achieved the latter, the 18th century French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher, François-Marie Arouet, known by his nom de plume Voltaire, sums up its sentiment in Poème sur la Loi naturelle (1756), Quatrième partie: Je n’en dirai pas plus sur ces points délicats. / Le ciel ne m’a point fait pour régir les États, / Pour conseiller les rois, pour enseigner les sages.” (I will not say more on these delicate points./ heaven made me not to govern states, / To counsel kings, to teach wise men. Spero melior. (I hope for better things.)

Food for Thought for US Companies Maintaining Robust Operations in China despite Beijing’s Strained Relations with Washington

The Great Wall of China (above) actually consists of numerous walls built over two millennia across northern China and southern Mongolia. The most extensive version of the wall dates from the Ming dynasty. Despite the Great Wall’s construction, China has always been relatively open to contact and trade with foreigners. The Communist Party of China would explain that due to such openness, in more recent times, China was the victim of Western “imperialist,” “capitalist” countries that reaped huge benefits from it. Many foreign companies currently operate in China, but their host, quite different from the past, is a world power. The Communist Party calls China’s success the vindication of an ancient civilization after a ‘century of humiliation.” China desires to take the title of the dominant power in the world and in its quest has created a challenging situation with the US. US companies in China must closely watch how US-China relations “progress,” and well-consider what prospective outcomes could mean for them.

Many in the US government’s foreign and national security policy bureaucracies and the US Congress with the responsibility to monitor what China is doing apparently do not want to tell too much about its actions and intentions and what its intelligence services are doing against the US, possibly for fear of metaphorically frightening the horses,  the US public. The Communist Party of China has at least demonstrated to itself that it had all the cleverness to outwit, outmaneuver, and surpass some preceding US administrations in its quest to establish the People’s Republic as the world’s dominant power. China’s accomplishments in that direction are now recognized by many policy experts as being far more significant than once realized. Relatively recent, popular books on US-China relations cut to the foundation of that which was perhaps previously satisfying and assuring in US policy circles about Beijing’s actions and intentions. While is far from exhaustive, among list of such books that greatcharlie has read or reread on the matter are: Michael Pillsbury, The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower (Henry Holt and Company, 2015); Steven Mosher, Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order (Regnery Publishing, 2017); Robert Spalding, Stealth War: How China Took Over While America’s Elite Slept (Portfolio, 2019); and, Bill Gertz, Deceiving the Sky: Inside Communist China’s Drive for Global Supremacy (Encounter Books, 2019). Those with a keen interest in what has popularly been called “The China Threat” surely possess copies of one or more of these texts and likely have frequently made a long arm for copies in their libraries for reference. Though recognizing their popularity, greatcharlie would not dare hint at some rank or order of them for it would only open the door to judgments of its choices which is beside the matter. For its April 30, 2021 post, greatcharlie reviewed Gertz’s Deceiving the Sky. Of course, a treasure trove of excellent, recent academic books on US-China relations have been presented by university press and think tank publishers, which includes a few greatcharlie has appreciated and recommends: Michael E. O’Hanlon and James Steinberg, A Glass Half Full?: Rebalance, Reassurance, and Resolve in the U.S.-China Strategic Relationship (Brookings Institution Press, 2017); Elizabeth Economy, The Third Revolution: Xi Jinping and the Chinese State (Oxford University Press, 2018); Clyde Prestowitz, The World Turned Upside Down: America, China, and the Struggle for Global Leadership (Yale University Press, 2021); and, Ryan Hass, Stronger: Adapting America’s China Strategy in an Age of Competitive Interdependence (Yale University Press, 2021).

Despite readily discernible differences of each text, their respective discussions harmonize on the point that China is in the midst of implementing a strategy to supplant the US as the world’s dominant power. Some say the deadline for this takeover is 2049, the one-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic, but others believe it may come earlier. (Some policy circles in the US have assessed dispiritedly that it has happened already.) To that extent, on an additional common point, the authors explain how preceding US administrations, with an apparent tinge of romanticism, misguidedly believed that the US could somehow guide and manage China’s industrialization, trade and overall economic development and thereby impact its political and social development. They also explain how, in some instances, the US government has unwittingly assisted China in achieving its goal of world dominance. In fact, each author essentially declares that China is a national security challenge for the US and its allies. China has made that very clear by building island seabases to secure claims of sovereignty over waters in the South China Sea, conduct overflights of the airspace and naval incursions into the waters of US allies in the region, regularly organize parades of their latest weapon systems, and marches of tens of thousands of men, stupefying to the eyes. The authors by in large suggest that the US should implement a more competitive strategy toward China, as it really is, to get a handle on it, by using all instruments of national power and urging US allies in Asia and outside to do the same. The efforts of the aforementioned authors, and many authors of notable books not discussed here, to expose China for the danger they believe it poses is driven not by antipathy but rather by evidence. There is materiality on the balance of negative probabilities which they have dug up in their research and revealed in their works. 

Given what generally presented, it would appear that China may not be the safest country for US companies to operate in at the present. Being steeped in matters concerning China, and they certainly are, one might presume that senior executives of firms there have already formed positions. Perhaps the best answer for senior executives of US companies is to consider moving their operations to a country that presents no risk or at a minimum, far less risk than China at the moment while the opportunity still exists. Yet, as many US companies are operating robustly in China, clearly moving out is not the course that all senior executives would agree upon. With un fil di voce, greatcharlie, cautiously takes on the task of shining some light on why they would continue operating in China despite problems their firms could face as a result of a collapse in US-China relations or even conflict between the two countries. Some not so subtle changes in attitudes and behaviors of Chinese officials toward the US in recent times are examined to develop insights on specific reactions that should be expected from Beijing. The possibility is considered that Beijing may have plans to make their companies targets of its wrath in the event such dark days come. Simply with the possibility of trouble on the horizon, it would seem their respective companies will soon become targets of China’s public security and intelligence services in very apparent ways. Along with think tank scholars, academics, policy analysts, and military and diplomatic officials, journalists, and students that would hopefully be an interested audience for this essay, greatcharlie would hope that senior executives of US companies with considerable operations in China, might take note as it directly concerns their efforts. Absent from the discussion is any mention of the identities of companies that have placed themselves in, or may have in some way fallen into, a somewhat precarious position in China as greatcharlie believes that information is immaterial, away from the heart of the matter. As for the senior executives of US companies, they are only referred to in the third person as the sole goal here is to touch upon the likely prospective broad range of thinking among them, not to throw the spotlight upon anyone. Make no mistake, greatcharlie is not offering any business advice to anyone. It is stated without pretension that such would be out of its province, and any impressions of the kind caused by this writing should not be given flight. The aim is to provide a look at some important issues from a new angle, provoke thought, and contribute to the greater discourse on the matter at hand. Non enim parum cognosse, sed in parum cognito stulte et diu perseverasse turpe est, propterea quod alterum communi hominum infirmitati alterum singulari cuiusque vitio est attributum. (For it is not having insufficient knowledge, but persisting a long time in insufficient knowledge that is shameful; since the one is assumed to be a disease common to all, but the other is assumed to be a flaw to an individual.)

People’s Liberation Army forces on parade in Beijing (above). In the past, US administrations believed the US could somehow guide and manage China’s industrialization, trade and overall economic development and thereby impact its political and social development. Some scholars assert that in certain instances, the US government unwittingly assisted China in achieving its goal of becoming the world’s dominant power. China is surely a national security challenge for the US and its allies now. It has made that very clear by building island seabases to secure claims of sovereignty over waters in the South China Sea, conduct overflights of the airspace and naval incursions into the waters of US allies in the region, regularly organize, parades of their latest weapon systems, and marches of tens of thousands of men, stupefying to the eyes.

“Perfidious Communist China”

“Perfidious Albion” is the nickname that French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte would use to acidulously refer to his arch rival Great Britain, which he considered to be treacherous in international affairs, distrustful of foreigners, and had a knack for frustrating his plans. Albion is a literary or poetic term most often used for Britain or England of Ancient or historical times. The term, “Le perfid Albion,” was said to have been first used by Augustin-Louis, Marquis de Ximenès, the 18th century French poet and playwright. In the same vain that the term, “Perfidious Albion,” was used by Napoleon, perhaps the term, “Perfidious Communist China,” could be used in Washington in reference to China as US leaders must remain suspicious and distrustful of it. Leaders of the Communist Party of China do not leave any room for doubt that they are determined to bring down the US in order to claim the title of dominant power in the world. Moreover, they are clearly willing to use whatever jiggery-pokery it takes and use, so far within tolerable limits, the aggression needed to achieve that goal. 

Becoming the world’s dominant power may not seem to some as a worthy pursuit for a developed, industrialized country. The US essentially fell into the role and has held it as a matter of events, fate, and necessity, though arguably some political leaders in the early years of the 20th century, such as President Theodore Roosevelt, envisioned the country reaching the top. Many countries and national leaders in the past two centuries that sought the mantle can now be found upon what former US President Ronald Reagan in 1982 referred to as the “ash heap of history.” Yet, it is the Communist Party of China’s pursuit nonetheless, and Beijing seems to be moving inexorably toward that goal. The strategy to reach its objective apparently from the start was far larger in conception than some in US foreign and defense policy and business circles still appear willing to consider. 

The words of the Chinese officials have begun to reflect the Communist Party of China’s unsheathed antipathy toward the US. The Party, itself, might explain the words of the Chinese officials rightfully manifest the tone of a country once victimized, yet not demoralized by Western “imperialist,” “capitalist” countries that reaped benefits from it. (Truth be told, by the late 1800s, China was “carved up like a melon” by foreign powers competing for spheres of influence over trade and territory.)  The Party line is that China’s success is the vindication of an ancient civilization after a “century of humiliation.” Their words have the flavor of officials from a country that has been executing a clearly defined strategy to unseat the US as the world’s dominant power. It often smacks of something personal for members of the Communist Party of China. With regard to the officials and diplomats of the People’s Republic of China Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this behavior was briefly discussed in the June 30, 2020 greatcharlie post entitled, “Commentary: China’s Coronavirus Tack Includes More Abrupt Officials and Political Warfare; Its Diplomatic Tool Must Endure the Consequences.”

Such qualities in Chinese officials words could be ascribed to those expressed by the People’s Republic of China delegation led by the Director of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China Yang Jiechi, and People’s Republic of China Foreign Minister Wang Yi at bilateral meeting with a US delegation in Anchorage, Alaska in March 2021. The US delegation led by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan. Blinken, indeed, started the meeting off by telling the delegation from China that the US intended to address “deep concerns” over the treatment of the Chinese citizens in Xinjiang and Hong Kong and the situation with Taiwan. However, Yang responded boldly, taking a bit of time to express sharp criticism of the US over what he described as its struggling democracy, poor treatment of minorities, and over its foreign and trade policies.

Yang’s words of reproach and his demeanor were completely out of character for an opening statement, particularly a very public one, for a bilateral meeting between industrialized powers. If the matter were not so serious and the prospects for improved relations between the two countries so grim, it might have been characterized as satire and marked down as a response. Needless to say concerning the speeches given by the two senior officials of the Chinese delegation in Anchorage, bon mot, they were not! Previously, there was an apparent Chinese doctrine of moderation in talks with other countries. Calmness and authority was once shown not only in diplomacy but in all circumstances by officials. This more assertive approach as of late has pulled Chinese officials from their more traditional conservative, stolid posture.

Overall, Yang, as well as Wang when he spoke immediately after him, comported themselves with an astringency which some critics would agree uncloaked the true nature of the regime. Certainly, as discussed in greatcharlie’s April 30, 2021 post, one could not help but get the impression by the vexatious words used lately by Chinese negotiators that all talks and perhaps the overall situation with the US, something even more is going on with Beijing’s thinking. It may very well be that leaders of the Communist Party of China have been satisfied enough with its accomplishments and ongoing progress towards surpassing the US that they have approved behavior by officials in interactions with foreign counterparts that would indicate the transition of power has already occurred. In the New American Bible, it is written in Luke 6:45: “A good person out of the store of goodness in his heart produces good, but an evil person out of a store of evil produces evil; for from the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks.”

In its April 30, 2021 post, greatcharlie also postulates that the Chinese officials appear to be presenting themselves as symbols of national resistance to US power. The Chinese officials wanted not just the US delegation, but the world to pay heed to their exhortations concerning the US. Such public behavior is part of what is known as united front work under Communist Party of China. During the current rule of the People’s Republic of China President and Communist Party of China Party Secretary Xi Jinping, united front work calls for the never-ending, enthusiastic promotion of the Communust Movement, the Communist Party of China, Xi, and the People’s Republic, and a lot of other things. The Communist Party of China is happy to foster animus toward the US wherever it may be found in the world as well as cause foment over such where it can. James Baldwin, the 20th century US novelist, playwright, essayist, poet, and activist, rightly recognized in his fascinating September 23, 1979 New York Times interview: “The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter, even but a millimeter the way people look at reality, then you can change it.”

The future situation is not entirely clear. One might reasonably suspect that while Beijing wants a peaceful resolution to the most stressing geopolitical issues it faces with regard to the US, it is uncertain whether they would even imagine accepting a balanced one. Real success for Beijing may very likely mean achieving some major advantages across issues in contention with the US. Looking at the extreme alternative, measuring what it might lose against what it might gain in some limited use of force, its judgments are likely balanced on perceptions of the will of the US to act and to sacrifice in such a way to actually protect its interests and allies in the region. Another factor included in the forecasts of Beijing’s moves would perhaps be the temperament of Xi. Conflict of any kind would have a dreadful impact on US companies in China. The lead up to any turn for the worse would likely mean problems for their operations and their employees in-country. As would be expected, some US companies have moved out or have expressed plans to move out. Other companies appear to be tiptoeing in the same direction. Still, there are those firms that are not just reluctant, but unwilling to take a new course. 

People’s Republic of China President and Communist Party of China Party Secretary Xi Jinping (above). In an April 30, 2021 post, greatcharlie postulates that the Chinese officials appear to be presenting themselves on the world stage as symbols of national resistance to US power. That was apparent during a bilateral meeting in Anchorage , Alaska in March 2021. Chinese officials wanted not just the US delegation, but the world to pay heed to their exhortations concerning the US. Such public behavior is part of what is known as united front work. Under the current rule of the People’s Republic of China President and Communist Party of China Party Secretary Xi Jinping, Chinese officials appear required to engage in a never-ending, enthusiastic promotion of the Communust Movement, the Communist Party of China, Xi, and the People’s Republic, and a lot of other things.

Do Not Rely on Beijing’s Goodwill!

Knowing what is wrong is not as great as knowing how to fix the problem. Moreover, one must accept there is a problem and be willing to fix it. In his philosophical and autobiographical treatise, “Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences” (1637), the renowned 17th French philosopher René Descartes wrote: “And thus, the actions of life often not allow any delay, it is a truth very certain that, when it is not in our power to determine the most true opinions we ought to follow the most probable.” In the small hours of the morning, one might imagine US executives look within to find the truest answer to how to proceed given all that they have been informed of respectively. 

What greatcharlie has discovered in its own research and the voluminous scholarly sources that support the view that danger lies ahead is that from the aggregate of respective discussions in recent books and other publications in this vein, this idea can be confidently drawn by business executives in question, too! More so, executives sophisticated enough to create a successful space for their companies in China have sufficient information available to them even beyond what outside experts offer, to include reports from the US government, that would allow them to grasp the potential impact of decisions they might make. Undoubtedly, capable and diligent regional specialists in their own companies have collected and presented similar information on the dangers of remaining in China. Everything asserted about the threat Beijing poses to US companies can be substantiated by a history of necessary commiserations between company senior executives and decision-makers of the Communist Party of China.

Yet, while it is most apparent that China’s recent past clearly is not without stain, that fact appears to be by the by to those senior executives of US companies working robustly in China who choose to remain. They will not allow their minds to be biased by theories and suspicions suggested by those who do not have the type of investment at stake in China as their respective companies. They are unwilling to condescend to what they would call fear mongering about the Communist Party of China. China appears to have won many of them and those in that number will hear nothing against it. In this discussion, greatcharlie leaves aside any suggestion that the continued investment by US companies in China is the result of some urge among their senior executives to act in a knowingly dangerous way, l’appel du vide. What those business executives may believe is that in their own assessments of Beijing, they have the advantage of being well informed through what they might characterize as their own most informative, “regular” contacts and “substantive” conversations with officials of Chinese government bureaucracies and leaders of the Communist Party of China. They may believe their relationships with them are strong, bien entretenue. Many appear willing and some comforted by refusing to look beyond what Beijing presents about itself. In that respect, some have become metaphorically tone deaf to warnings concerning all urgent matters now underway. It was expressed by Aristophanes in Clouds (423 BC): “To invoke solely the weaker arguments and yet triumph is a talent worth more than a hundred thousand drachmae.”

As for Beijing’s guile and maneuvering, some of the senior executives even at this point would doubtlessly declare that the evidence that has publicly presented on its malign actions and intentions as something akin to an albeit a peculiar rag bag of singular happenings. Ironically, they might sarcastically note that some new wrinkle of China’s malevolence comes to light practically “every ten seconds” as the 20th century US humorist Sam Levenson might remark to defuse the tension caused by the subject.

In A Mountain of Crumbs: A Memoir (Simon & Schuster, 2010), Elena Gorokhova recounts growing up under the Communist government of the Soviet Union in the 1960s, and tells of her discovery of the hidden truths about adulthood and her country’s profound, brazen lies. Gorokhova recounts: “The rules are simple: they lie to us, we know they’re lying, they know we know they’re lying but they keep lying anyway, and we keep pretending to believe them.” The regime in Communist China operates in a similar deceitful fashion both at home and abroad. There are doubtlessly many more aspects of Beijing’s thinking and behavior that have not as yet been discerned or at least publicly reported. They may become known only after a situation literally blows up. One might state that within the Communist Party of China, the powers of evil are exalted, anything negative is possible. 

The latest word from the US Intelligence Community is that the US supply chain from China now faces real threat. There are a few normal factors that can affect US supply chains, including production shortages, trade disruptions and natural disasters. However, the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) has warned that “actions by foreign adversaries to exploit vulnerabilities in US supply chains pose unique counterintelligence and security threats.” According to the NCSC, foreign adversaries are increasingly using companies and trusted suppliers as “attack vectors” against the US for espionage, information theft and sabotage. Officials warned that those actions compromise the products and services that “underpin America’s government and industry” and warned of the effects–“lost intellectual property, jobs, economic advantage, and reduced military strength.”

What is shared by the US government on Beijing’s plans and intention toward companies foreign working in China should be fully heeded by US companies. Beijing would of course become indignant claiming Western arrogance would lead accusers to say an idea was stolen. Perhaps Chinese government spokespersons would rely upon words similar to those of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fictional character Sherlock Holmes, who in “The Adventure of the Dancing Men,” the third story of 13 in the The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1905), stated: “What one man can invent, another can discover.” 

Simple facts can go some way to explain what might be recognized as a charitable position. To that extent, distortions of truth from Beijing or other trusted or favored sources are far more satisfying as a result of an infatuation with a present preoccupation. In arguments, the business executives will mistakenly grab the nearest evidence to hand that would uniquely support their perspective. What they might characterize as the “stirring of alarm” would likely be inexplicable to those who have not abandoned the idea that China acts in goodwill. They would likely assert that China’s sense of a rivalry between itself and the US is natural given geopolitical, geostrategic, economic considerations alone. Indeed, among those reluctant to accept what present evidence insists upon, one might find that almost every decision to carry on with their current business plans in China is likely founded upon a mix of reality and imagination.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal on March 26, 2021, in the weeks that surrounded the inauguration of President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, Chinese leaders waged an information campaign aimed at the US business community. It included a flurry of speeches, letters and announcements. Of special note was a February 2021 speech by the Communist Party of China’s  foreign policy director, Yang, to a virtual audience of US business leaders and former government officials. Initially laying out a very positive situation for investment and trade opportunities in China, he then offered the stern warning that Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan are “red lines” that anyone from the US should remain silent about. He also made the demand that the business community lobby the new Biden-Harris administration to reverse Trump administration policies toward China which he excoriated. 

Without the intent of being folsom, greatcharlie states that there are highly qualified individuals that serve as senior executives at companies. In their respective fields, these professionals are generally known and admired for their astute judgments, being steady and reliable, and having keen minds and the laudable capacity to reason. Finding answers to such situations were what the executives were hired for. Being incommoded by the regulations of China’s bureaucracies would by no means be new to them and they would expect to find a way to work around any problems. Their thoughts would remain focused on optimizing their respective companies’ investments in China. That would be the vintage way of thinking, so to speak.

One might go as far as to suppose that some US business executives may feel that if accomplishing that meant being under some recherché obligation to Beijing, they would accept that. They doubtlessly would expect to gain additional favor from the Communist Party of China through such loyalty. As a bonus of taking such a step, they might believe they would be taking the steps that would allow them to avoid a serious dilemma in the near future. (Such would hardly be a schema Beijing would feel obligated to follow, and indeed, something one should not plan for.) One might expect to occasionally hear expressions of appreciation from US companies to the most senior leaders of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people for their “magnanimity.” In fact, they have been heard. Those companies could do no greater service for Beijing than to take such a course. Those in the US outraged by China’s overall behavior toward the US and its allies would very likely call it a perverse allegiance.

Perhaps conditions for some companies were never idyllic to start, and any new circumstances that arise are just one more hurdle to overcome. One might suppose that for senior executives of US companies in China, navigating any problems that have arisen so far has been a bit similar to white water rafting. It is a challenge, but in the end overall satisfying. To speak more in metaphors, senior executives of most US companies still operating in China likely feel that they successfully managed the disturbed sea of those relations by monitoring essential currents and will achieve further success by navigating them intelligently. Indeed, in many cases having spent years inveigling their way into many meetings with Communist Party of China leaders and government officials they likely feel that have created links with them near equal to those that exist between those same Party leaders and officials that the executives of China’s state-run companies. They are likely confident that as a result of those linkages, their companies’ investments In China are to the greatest extent possible shielded from any possible troubles in relations between Beijing and Washington. In corporate conference rooms and meetings with Communist Party of China or other government officials, any dark imaginings of Beijing’s behavior evaporate fastest. Conceivably, ideas and attitudes expressed In those same conference rooms of US companies are very likely encapsulated with the quip: “I will believe it when I see it.” There may very well be companies planning to simply carry on even under the worst circumstances should it come to that. 

Yet, many have doubtlessly assessed that contrary to the reports of experts, they have so far had no reason to regret, nor do they believe they shall have any reason to regret their speculation in China. Until they are caused to accept anything to the contrary, one could imagine certain senior executives of US companies would happily seek to remain in their offices in China. The claim that Beijing could turn against them in some profound way may simply be a counterfactual. Perchance senior executives still engaged in robust operations in China believe Beijing’s intentions are the best and would refer to all of the negative talk of Beijing’s intentions as slander. Presumably, senior executives of US companies, having minimized in their own minds the danger that China presents, might suggest to other senior executives whose companies are similarly invested in China, that no one should get ahead of oneself in reaction to what they may have heard or observed of those companies that have moved out. Perhaps the retention of that mindset, a certain stubbornness among some, may be a prime obstacle in convincing them to open their eyes. Assuming that all have the best intentions at heart, one might believe that differences in thinking among senior executives of US companies are mostly a matter of clarification 

There are situations in which even the most accomplished business executives might find themselves helpless. No US firm should count upon the goodwill of Beijing to help see them through the storm of greatly deteriorated relations, or the catastrophe of a clash, between the US and China. Beijing time and again has proven that it is unworthy of such trust. Most US companies operating in China or have an extremely close relationship with Party leaders and government officials, they should not expect that they would be able to just carry-on as they have been no matter what. By the mere fact that they are Western companies representing Western capitalism, there would be a fairly good chance that they would fall afoul of the Communist regime in Beijing. That has been a reality all along.

To be as frank as possible, the Communist Party of China has no love for them. Without a shadow of doubt, many Party leaders yearn to reach that day in the future when China can show its true colors, declare broad powers over all foreign companies and severely alter terms of any signed agreements to immensely favor its own interests, if a firm is allowed to remain in China at all. Surely they believe there would be more than one parallel Chinese firm of its respective industry to replace just about every foreign entity, except those as the National Basketball Association (NBA), and could take on their markets even in the US.

Director of the Central Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China Yang Jiechi (above). In the weeks that surrounded the inauguration of US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, Chinese leaders waged an information campaign aimed at the US business community. It included a flurry of speeches, letters and announcements. Of special note was a February 2021 speech by the Communist Party of China’s foreign policy director, Yang, to a virtual audience of US business leaders and former government officials. Initially laying out a very positive situation for investment and trade opportunities in China, he then offered the stern warning that Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan are “red lines” that anyone from the US should remain silent about. He also made the demand that the business community lobby the new Biden-Harris administration to reverse Trump administration policies toward China which he excoriated.

Recent Displays of Beijing’s Tactfulness toward Foreign Companies

The renowned English philosopher and physician, John Locke, in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), wrote: “I have always thought the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts.” There have been a few  fresh events in China concerning foreign companies operating there over the grave issue of members of China’s Uyghur ethnic minority from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) in China’s far west, being used as forced labor in factories. They may provide some clues as to the sort of subterfuge and sophistry senior executives of US companies still operating in China should expect, and perhaps things even more intense. (In citing news articles concerning these events, greatcharlie felt some reluctance given a few US companies are directly mentioned in them and that information is central to understanding the events that occurred. However, to the extent that these incidents were well-supported in the news media, the sense that anything fresh about the firms was being revealed was mitigated.)

In an extensive new report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a think-tank founded by Australia’s government, between 2017 and 2019, the Chinese government relocated at least 80,000 Uyghurs from Xinjiang in western China to factories across the country where they work “under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour.” The report further explains that the manufacturers using these transported Uyghurs supply at least 83 international companies making everything from footwear to electronics. Regarding the Uyghurs, the Chinese Communist Party is waging a targeted campaign against Uyghur women, men, and children, and members of other Turkic Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang, China. Abuses have included coercive population control through forced abortion, forced sterilization, and involuntary implantation of birth control; the detention of more than one million Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, ethnic Kyrgyz, and members of other Muslim minority groups in internment camps; forced labor in facilities nearby or affiliated with the internment camps; the destruction and closure of mosques and other religious sites, prevention of youths from participating in religious activities, forced political indoctrination or “re-education.” 

Beijing has denied all of these claims, declaring them to be unjust aspersions. It has stated that rather than running forced labor camps, it is providing vocational training, and that its measures are needed to fight extremism. Recall that Xinjiang was an issue broached by Blinken at the bilateral talks in Anchorage. In January, Washington had banned Xinjiang cotton used widely by clothing producers for Western markets. The US, the European Union, United Kingdom, and Canada have imposed sanctions on Chinese officials for alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang in March 2020. . China retaliated with sanctions on European lawmakers and institutions.

According to a March 27, 2021 Bloomberg report, Hennes & Mauritz AB (H&M), the Swedish multinational, expressed the view in March 2021 statements that it’s “deeply concerned by reports from civil society organizations and media that include accusations of forced labor and discrimination of ethnoreligious minorities.” It was a risky move for H&M given that China is one of the five biggest markets for the company in terms of revenue with 5.2% of the group’s total sales in 2020. The company had opened 505 stores in China as of November 30, 2020. The company’s access to China, the Communist Party of China, and to customers was put on the line. Almost immediately, H&M encountered what was characterized as backlash over its statements from the company concerning issues surrounding Xinjiang. The company quickly removed its statement on Xinjiang from its website, on a separate link on its homepage expressing the same stance on Xinjiang cotton remained active.

Authors of the news story notably recognized that China’s response to H&M was markedly stronger than its previous pushback when foreign brands crossed political lines. Xi had already set a red line on the issue of China’s human rights record, and foreign companies surely understood at that point that addressing the issue in any way would mean picking a side. In a briefing in Beijing, Gao Feng, a spokesman for the Chinese Commerce Ministry, essentially proscribed H&M’s statements as slanderous ravings. He reportedly said: “We can’t tolerate any forces bringing shame on and tarnishing the pure and flawless Xinjiang cotton.” He went on to state: “Chinese consumers have acted in response to the so-called business decisions made by some companies based on false information. We hope the relevant companies will respect market laws, correct wrong practices, and avoid the politicization of commercial issues.”

As would be expected, H&M’s statement was blasted by organizations such as the Communist Youth League and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) on social media. However, there was also rising outcry and calls for a boycott on Chinese social media against an undated H&M statement over its website that also expressed concern about reports of forced labor in Xinjiang. At least six stores in the lower-tiered cities of Urumqi, Yinchuan, Changchun and Lianyunang have been shut down by the owners of the properties, according to mall operators in those areas who were contacted by Bloomberg. Local media have reported more closures and pictures showing H&M’s brand billboards being removedThe global clothing retailer’s outlets have also vanished on Apple Maps and Baidu Maps searches.

Adverse effects from the H&M’s statement about forced labor in the contentious region of Xinjiang have spread to other Western brands that have voiced their views on the matter. DW News noted that the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) declared in October 2020 that it was suspending cotton sourced from Xinjiang for the 2020-2021 fashion season, also citing concerns over that region’s human rights. BCI, formed in 2009 and based in Geneva, Switzerland  states that it was formed to make global cotton production better for the people who produce it, better for the environment it grows in and better for the sector’s future. Its goal is to transform cotton production worldwide by developing Better Cotton as a sustainable mainstream commodity. Members include US-based Nike, Germany-based Adidas, Japan-based Fast Retailing, as well as China-based ANTA. Certainly, BCI members would not comment idly on such a grave matter or any matter for that case.

As foreign companies speak out concerning Xinjiang and forced labor, they are being targeted for treatment. China’s government-aligned English language newspaper the Global Times cited Burberry and New Balance as having made “cutting remarks” about Xinjiang cotton two years ago. It also cited the brand Zara as having expressed a “zero-tolerance approach towards forced labor.” ANTA, a Chinese shoe brand announced it was quitting BCI and would continue buying Xinjiang cotton–prompting a spike in its share prices on Hong Kong’s Han Seng Index.

Chinese social media users expressed umbrage against Western sanctions over alleged abuses of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang province by ostracizing further global clothing and footwear brands. DW News quoted one “netizen” as stating: “If you boycott Xinjiang cotton, we’ll boycott you. Either Adidas quits BCI, or get out of China.” Social media posts in China have reportedly also mentioned the Japanese and US brands Uniqlo and Gap but it was unclear whether the people posting messages were private citizens or government plants online. Two popular Chinese television stars, Wang Yibo and Tan Songyun, reportedly said they would end promotional work for Nike over remarks it made in 2020. China’s People’s Daily newspaper began a social media campaign via the microblog Weibo, using a slogan translating as “I support Xinjiang cotton. Citing Reuters, DW News explained many Chinese online users said they would instead support local Asian brands such as Li Ning and ANTA, prompting share price surges in Hong Kong. The US government has called attention to China’s state-run social media campaign and boycott against foreign companies that refuse to use cotton from Xinjiang. State Department deputy spokeswoman Jalina Porter stated that tactic amounts to a state-run “corporate and consumer boycott.”

Taking a closer look at what has been directed at Nike, according Reuters it faces rather a singular social media storm in China over its statement concerning Xinjiang Indeed, anger with Nike reportedly erupted on Chinese social media late immediately after China’s netizens spotted a statement from the sporting goods giant saying it was “concerned” about reports of forced labour in Xinjiang and that it does not use cotton from the region. There is a well-known love affair among the Chinese people and basketball shoes worn by NBA players. It was no small matter. 

Topics around the Nike statement were among the highest trending on China’s Twitter-like social media Weibo the day it was revealed and the social media backlash had a wider fallout. It was in direct response to Nike’s statement concerning Xinjiang and social media criticism on social media, that the agency representing actor Wang Yibo stated on Weibo that he has terminated his contract as a representative for Nike. It was not apparent when exactly Nike had put out the statement. It did not have a date on it. Nike explained in the statement: “We are concerned about reports of forced labor in, and connected to, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR).” It also stated: “Nike does not source products from the XUAR and we have confirmed with our contract suppliers that they are not using textiles or spun yarn from the region.” To prevent further interference, Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the state-run Global Times urged Western companies to be “highly cautious” and not to “suppress China’s Xinjiang” in a social media post. To do so, Hu anticipated, would “undoubtedly arouse the anger of the Chinese public,” he added. He did not single out any companies.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th century philosopher, writer, and co)mposer of the then independent Calvinist city-state of Geneva, explained in The Social Contract (1762): “Virtue is a state of war, and to live in it we have always to combat with ourselves.” Naturally, foreign companies operating in China will attempt ameliorate and perhaps resolve Xinjiang controversy or any other with Beijing, senior executives of those companies be assured that the Communist Party of China’s memory of even temporary disrespectful acts and what its leaders may perceive as betrayal through declarations of concerns on what are in reality documented human rights abuses, substantiated by Western government sources, will be long.

A heavily secured industrial park in Xinjiang, China (above). In a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, between 2017 and 2019, the Chinese government relocated at least 80,000 Uyghurs from Xinjiang in western China to factories across the country where they work “under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour.” The report also explains that manufacturers using these transported Uyghurs supply at least 83 international companies making everything from footwear to electronics. The Chinese Communist Party is waging a targeted campaign against Uyghur women, men, and children, and members of other Turkic Muslim minority groups in Xinjiang, China. Abuses have included coercive population control through forced abortion, forced sterilization, and involuntary implantation of birth control; the detention of more than one million Uyghurs, ethnic Kazakhs, ethnic Kyrgyz, and members of other Muslim minority groups in internment camps. Beijing has denied such claims.

Experience Speaks?

Memores acti prudentes futuri. (Mindful of what has been done, aware of what will be.) As aforementioned, with consideration of a full range of facts on the current situation between the US-China, to include many discussed here, as well as other key business considerations, some US companies have accepted that the risks are too great to remain and rather than wait for a crisis to arise. To the senior executives of those companies, China’s true, malevolent nature appears to be self-evident. Aware of those practices first-hand, they watch likely in horror as other US companies confidently stroll into the Chinese tangles from which they avoided or feel they escaped. Hope undoubtedly remains even among those companies that have already left that Xi and the Communist Party of China are not intending anything tragic. Any positive prospects for their future reinvestment in China surely rest upon what comes next with Xi and the Biden-Harris administration.

Those with a turn of mind to commit themselves to a defense of China’s behavior as a “competitor” of the US, and commit to even greater investment there, may eventually find themselves obliged to be a bit more obedient to Beijing’s wishes if events cause the authoritarian Chinese government to make its true self clear to them. If that day comes, the sense of the scale of its malignant being and purpose will likely be overwhelming. Those dead-enders, though they would hardly see themselves as such, will discover just how masterful Beijing has been at deception, offering satisfying explanations and signing agreements that really had no meaning. 

Some senior executives whose companies remain in China may already fear doing anything to subvert Beijing and incurring its wrath upon their respective interests. Others will perhaps be paralyzed to act in a crisis having been sufficiently instilled with fearfulness over a perception that the Chinese government will become noisy and rough. Even then, reaching a low point but not yet bottom, it would not be too late to accept the loss, as wise business executives sometimes must do, and move out.

Fallaces sunt rerum species. (The appearances of things are deceptive.) The security of US companies, all foreign companies, working in China, is a subject greatcharlie previously broached on the individual employees of those companies might face. Certainly, security offices of any US companies whose executives and staff frequently visit China should have long since arranged opportunities to brief those employees on problems they could possibly face in China. Such briefings might include the discussion of ways to subtly execute defensive measures to defeat Ministry of Public Security (MPS), Ministry of State Security (MSS), PLA Joint Staff Department human intelligence groups, and any Communist Party of China intelligence organs (e.g., the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the super secret and malignant International (Liaison) Department, the United Front Work Department, and the Propaganda Department) from capturing information that meets their organizations’ immediate intelligence requirements as well as whatever information that managers of those spy organizations may deem useful otherwise.

What was presented in the discussion of the December 13, 2020 greatcharlie post entitled, “Meditations and Ruminations on Chinese Intelligence: Revisiting a Lesson on Developing Insights from Four Decades Ago” on security precautions employees of foreign companies must take in China seems worthy of review as background. The discussion is preclosed here. Only the more apposite points are presented.

As discussed, the foreign visitor is always a potential target for province and municipal offices of MPS and MSS. The capability of Chinese authorities to use technological means to keep a close eye on foreigners and detect, apprehend, and deal with those who protest and oppose the government has been enhanced immensely. Two sensational articles in the New York Times, “A Surveillance Net Blankets China’s Cities, Giving Police Vast Powers” dated December 17, 2019, and “Inside China’s Dystopian Dreams: A.I., Shame and Lots of Cameras,” dated July 8, 2018, well lay out the increased use of technology in MPS and MSS surveillance efforts. Reportedly, as part of Xi’s effort to have the security services take on a greater role in China, he has launched a major upgrade of their surveillance capabilities. China, as a result, has become the world’s largest market for security and surveillance technology. It is reported that almost 300 million cameras have been installed in the country. Government contracts are supporting research and development into technologies that track faces, clothing and even a person’s gait. MPS officers on the beat have been observed using experimental gadgets such as facial-recognition glasses. In Zhengzhou, police and security services can use software to create lists of people. They can create virtual alerts when a targeted  individual approaches a specific location. They can acquire updates on people every hour or every day, and monitor anyone with whom those people have met, particularly if there exists a report that one or both individuals have committed an infraction.  Yet, while the new technology may ostensibly provide police and security services with a way to track criminals, it also improves their means to crack down on sympathizers of the protest movement in Hong Kong, critics of the Communist Party of China, and critics of the police and security services, themselves. Worse, it better enables the police and security services to target migrant workers who travel from the countryside to fill China’s factories and ethnic minority groups as the Uyghurs.

On the street, the surveillance of foreigners will typically be relatively light, calibrated to ensure utilization of an optimal number of officers and informants in the role of surveillance operatives in the field. Doing so also facilitates the monitoring process. The more surveillance one uses the more reports that must be reviewed to find one aggregate picture of what occurred. MPS counterintelligence officers will regularly collect and closely review reports on a foreigner’s behavior via informants among neighbors in the vicinity of their residence and locals among colleagues at work. They would be interested in knowing if they have engaged in behaviors that would make them open to recruitment. Their attitudes toward China and its system would be important. The friendships they have made would be of interest. From the reports of informants and technical surveillance, assessments of what type of temptations could be used, if necessary, to bring them to China’s side based on observations of the foreigner’s lifestyle. 

In its December 13th post, greatcharlie additionally cites Articles 9, 11, 12, and 13 of the National Security Law of the People’s Republic of China, as adopted at the 15th session of the Standing Committee of the Twelfth National People’s Congress to explain that for citizens of the People’s Republic of China, the motivations of money ideology, conspiracy, and excitement do not factor in such a decision to come to call of their country’s intelligence services. The law requires them to do so. If any motivations at all could be said to factor in a Chinese citizen’s decision to obey the direction of an intelligence service, expectedly the Communist Party of China would list faith and adherence to the ideals of the Communist Revolution, the Communist Party of China, patriotism, and the homeland. Supposedly, revolutionary zeal drives the heart of China as “one beating heart.”

Since that writing, the NCSC provided, on Twitter, three articles from China’s National Intelligence Law of 2017, Cybersecurity Law of 2016, and, National Security Law of 2015. NCSC explained its aim in doing so was to help those entering an agreement with a company based in China better understand the legal landscape and that Chinese companies will provide data they obtain or information stored on their networks to China’s state security apparatus upon request. More directly, the NCSC wants US citizens to better understand by its message that Chinese companies and citizens are required to assist in intelligence efforts against them by law. Under Article 7 of the PRC’s National Intelligence Law (2017), NCSC cites: “All organizations and citizens SHALL support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with the law, and shall protect national work secrets they are aware of.” Under Article 28 of the PRC’s Cybersecurity Law (2016), it cites, “Network operators SHALL provide technical support and assistance to public security and national security organs that are safeguarding and investigating criminal activities in accordance with the law.” Under Article 77 of the PRC’s National Security Law (2015), it cites, “Citizens and organizations SHALL provide the following obligations for safeguarding national security,” and then cites section specifically (5), which instructs: “Provide national security authorities, public security authorities, and military authorities with needed support and assistance.”

The foreign businessman, scientist, engineer, academic or any other type of professional  working closely with a Chinese counterpart in China may not be aware that he or she is being monitored by that same friendly colleague. It should be expected. When told, it may be so emotionally shocking to outsiders  that it may very well be near impossible to believe. Perhaps refusing to accept that reality is the only way a foreigner can continue to function comfortably in China. In any event, it is the responsibility of the Chinese citizen to engage in such activity under the National Security law. To that extent, friendship with Chinese colleagues may never be authentic as there is an element to the interaction between the foreigner and the Chinese citizen that is cloaked. China comes first. The foreigner is inconsequential to that reality. Ordinary people doing a little this and a little that for the MPS as well as the MSS is a norm.

Although it has not as yet become a commonplace problem, if a foreigner visiting China for the purpose of business or tourism, accepts  documents, notebooks, and books, the traveler might discover quite surprisingly that he or she is carrying items that contain sensitive data the possession of which could be considered criminal. Those illicit materials would have been presented to the traveler intentionally, perhaps even by a Chinese citizen with whom the traveler may have a positive personal relationship, almost certainly at the behest of MPS or MSS. It was said somewhere that it is terrible to find an enemy in a friend, but it is much worse not to find a friend in a friend. (Given the uncertainty of what may result from contact with Chinese intelligence and counterintelligence units, ordinary Chinese citizens typically will not seek out contact with them nor independently engage in activity with foreigners outside of the workplace on matters related to their work. They will focus on true personal relationships on personal matters, human interests.)

One must also be very cautious about accepting recording devices or recorded materials, or any devices, thumb drives, dvds, or materials that may include video or audio recordings unless one can be absolutely certain as to their contents. Documents contained in any of these media may prove to be government documents concerning confidential matters, and not any run-of-the-mill confidential matters at that. One must immediately open the documents and read them before those who presented them using a laptop or tablet. The review of the recordings posthaste could be passed off as an affected display of ebullience and appreciation of the gift and wonderment about what it holds. 

As things stand, from year to year, the situation has not gotten better in terms of stability and safety. If troubles between the US and China ever begin to arise with regularity, such as detainments of employees of US companies, one might expect some form of ransom will be discreetly demanded by Chinese officials with a warning not to acknowledge their villainy to the world. More than just an aggressive act, it would be an expression of Beijing’s power over those companies, designed to work in the psyche of the US business executives. If a US companies is resolute about remaining in China, it would to be willing to accept that the situation could change rapidly for the worse, new ground rules could be put in for operating in a flash, and it would know without doubt who is really in charge. They would need to accept that ties back to the US would have little meaning to Beijing. The Communist Party of China would surely delight in exercising such power over Western “capitalist” guests. The door opening in that direction of what is outlined here can already be heard creaking.

President Xi in his People’s Liberation Army uniform on parade (above). It would be more than likely that if a military conflict between the US and China arose on the greater world stage, Beijing would lash out at available US targets right at home such as US companies and their employees. Indeed, when leaders of Communist Party of China are exhausted of tricks and manipulations, they often turn to the cane. If US companies were to face such a situation, the matter would need to be put right by senior executives of those companies at the crisis point, if at all possible.

Prospective Problems Ahead

ata volentem ducunt, nolentem trahunt. (Fate leads the willing, and drags the unwilling.) As US companies, by their own devices, continue to entangle themselves in meshes with Beijing, they may be grooming themselves to become subject to its machinations. An impregnable collection of evidence already indicates that Beijing’s desire to control Western business communities attitudes and behavior toward nearly anything Chinese. Perhaps one day US companies will awaken to the true character of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese government after it is too late. Once any extraordinary conduct is exhibited by Beijing toward one or more US companies  it would be almost impossible for the US government to chuck itself in the mix in a calibrated way that mitigates such steps as opposed to exacerbating the situation.

As it was explained in the 14th century by the English lawyer, author, and statesman, Saint Thomas More, “What is deferred is not avoided.” Caught in such a conundrum, it would be best if US companies had already laid plans to respond to such a contingency well in advance of it. It would be the only way to have a fighting chance of getting some handle on it. Complete consideration of Beijing’s immoral side must be part of that assessment. Exactly how business executives might intend to put the matter right on their side under such circumstances is unknown. In spite of contingency planning, it is hard to see from greatcharlie’s vantage point what cards US business executives could realistically play to sway Beijing in such a crisis. They would be in a weak position to negotiate relief from Beijing. Perhaps it was in the process of planning for such a contingency, that senior executives of such companies along with their security offices recognized that it was time to leave.

Conceivably, the senior executives of some US companies in China might hold the idea that they might serve as “go-betweens,” neutral emissaries, who, while loyal to their US homeland, are also loyal and responsive to their Chinese hosts, and assist in finding some settlement between the US and China during a conflict. The idea would unlikely interest Beijing in wartime. Despite any notions senior executives might have of their ties to China and relationship with leaders of the Communist Party of China, during a war, they would most certainly be tagged as enemy aliens, perhaps dangerous enemy aliens, and handled with due care by MPS and Party security organs. In an atrocious yet very possible scenario, they may be tasked to perform high profile duties against their will for the Party’s Propaganda Department. United Work Department and International Department operatives might force them without compunction to any point resembling a front line of the conflict to demonstrate the senior executives recognition that China was on the correct side of the struggle and any of its actions against the US were righteous. Chinese security services might force them to visit foreign capitals, accompanied of course, to give speeches on how the US allegedly may have wrongfully threatened China’s interest and caused the conflict. One could imagine a hundred possibilities and none of them would be good for the senior executives. At about that point, the business executives will have the truest and fullest understanding of the Communist Party of China.

Interestingly enough, any decision by Beijing  to take steps against one or more US companies would undoubtedly be a measure decided upon in its own contingency planning in the event of a sudden ratcheting up of contentious relations with Washington. To that extent, what might happen to US companies stranded in China in such circumstances would assuredly be a fixed fate. Leaders of the Communist Party of China, under such circumstances, would hardly be inveigled by the platitudes of foreign business executives to be more lenient toward their companies. Any Party leaders would feel both angered and shamed if that perception was created about them within the Party’s membership. It is imaginable that such a bargaining effort would be responded to violently.

Essentially, any breakdown in relations between the US and China, or worse, a military conflict, would have an unfortunate effect upon the position of US companies operating there. More than likely, it would cause Beijing to lash out at available US targets right at home such as those US companies and their employees. Indeed, when the brains of the leadership of Communist Party of China are exhausted of tricks and manipulations, they have often turned to the cane. If US companies were to face such a situation, the matter would need to be put right by senior executives of those companies at the crisis point, if at all possible.

The Way Forward

Aligning the suppositions offered here on thinking over remaining in China with specific senior executives of US companies operating in China undoubtedly would not be too difficult for numerous investigative journalists if they preferred to do so. Yet, as mentioned on the outset of this post, their identities are immaterial with regard to the objective here which was to provide a picture of the challenging circumstances that those business executives face particularly from China’s public security and intelligence services, shed light upon what they are likely discussing among their counsels, and present insights on the decisions they have reached given the paths they have taken.

If credit might be given to their line of thinking of those US business executives resolute about remaining in China, it might be provided by F. Scott Fitzgerald in a February 1936 Esquire magazine essay entitled, “The Crack-Up.” Fitzgerald explains: “the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise. This philosophy fitted on to my early adult life, when I saw the improbable, the implausible, often the “impossible” come true.” However, it cannot be denied that those executives are placing their respective companies’ interests in a vulnerable position by remaining on the ground in China. Some might call that a calculated risk. 

Worrisome is the possibility that some may be unable to fully grasp the effect of their own actions. If placed in a trying position by external events as a collapse in US-China relations or a military conflict between the two, it is hard to imagine how US business executives would preserve their respective companies’ operations in China or more generally, how they would actually act. They may very well be placing themselves in what could become a serious dilemma. Concerning those executives laser focused on the bottomline–some might say they should be, they might do better to employ their minds on the matter of the well-being of their employees and equities in China before there is some tumultuous event. Perhaps some would say greatcharlie is over-egging the pudding here. However, greatcharlie hopes only to be of some material assistance.

The world exists in an ordered universe and one expects everything to follow that design. There are patterns one can discern that establish order in the human mind. Illusion must never be chosen over fact. Any senior executive of a US firm operating in China should have already been sufficiently aware of how Beijing is acting. Sentiment is a poor substitute for true feeling and fact. Ignorance more often than not dissolves into tragedy. While they are in a position to reexamine the facts, they should do so while there is still time available. Qui ipse si sapiens prodesse non quit, nequiquam sapit. (A wise man whose wisdom does not serve him is wise in vain.)

Book Review: George William Rutler, Principalities and Powers: Spiritual Combat 1942-1943 (St. Augustine’s Press, 2013)

Above is what remains of the tomb of the prophet Jonah of the Old Testament and tthe mosque that held it, in Mosul, Iraq. The Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) destroyed it. Western governments are greatly interested in what is driving ISIS’ campaign of religious and ethnic bigotry, murder, and destruction in territory that it controls in Syria and Iraq. In Principalities and Powers, George William Rutler discusses the role evil played in World War II. His book may help Western leaders better understand ISIS and how to proceed against it.

The world’s response to Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) initially was reminiscent of the late 1930s when war came to Europe, and so many turned a blind eye as countries were conquered and countless innocent civilians killed in aerial bombardments, artillery fire, tank guns, and small arms. Lamentations heard from numerous innocent civilians, including children, in Iraq, Syria, and Libya by beheading, crucifixion, and forced exile from their ancient homelands are chillingly enough to remind not only of the fighting in World War II, but also of the cries heard from ghettos and concentration camps resulting from the vile anti-Semitism and crimes of German Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his National Socialist Party (Nazis). Anti-ISIS governments must acknowledge today what governments fighting the Nazis recognized. The fight against ISIS is a fight against evil.

In Principalities and Powers: Spiritual Combat 1942-1943 (St. Augustine’s Press, 2013), George William Rutler illustrates that World War II, which began for mixed reasons and was fought on many fronts, can only be understood in its essential dynamic as spiritual combat between forces of great good and palpable evil.  Rutler explains that from his book, readers should gain an understanding of how “the same moral dilemmas of an old war, in their display of human dignity and the anatomy of cruelty, are background for the same realities in our own day.” Given the evil that ISIS poses, Principalities and Powers is an exceedingly relevant book to read right now.

Reared in the Episcopal tradition in New Jersey and New York, Rutler was an Episcopal priest for nine years, and the youngest Episcopal rector in the country when he headed the Church of the Good Shepherd in Rosemont, Pennsylvania. However, in 1979, he was received into the Catholic Church and was sent to the North American College in Rome for seminary studies. A graduate of Dartmouth, Rutler also took advanced degrees at the Johns Hopkins University and the General Theological Seminary. He holds several degrees from the Gregorian and Angelicum Universities in Rome, including the Pontifical Doctorate in Sacred Theology, and studied at the Institut Catholique in Paris. In England, in 1988, the University of Oxford awarded him the degree Master of Studies. From 1987 to 1988 he was regular preacher to the students, faculty, and townspeople of Oxford. Thomas More College and Christendom College awarded him honorary doctorates. For ten years he was also National Chaplain of Legatus, the organization of Catholic business leaders and their families, engaged in spiritual formation and evangelization. A board member of several schools and colleges, he is Chaplain of the New York Guild of Catholic Lawyers, Regional Spiritual Director of the Legion of Mary (New York and northern New Jersey) and has long been associated with the Missionaries of Charity, and other religious orders. He was a university chaplain for the Archdiocese. Rutler has lectured and given retreats in many nations, frequently in Ireland and Australia. Since 1988, EWTN has broadcasted Rutler’s television programs worldwide. Rutler has made documentary films in the US and England, contributes to numerous scholarly and popular journals and has published 16 books, referred to by some as classics, on theology, history, cultural issues, and the lives of the saints.

Principalities and Powers is a history of the pivotal years of World War II: 1942–1943. In its discussion, Rutler, as expected, devotes attention to well-reported events of the period. Yet, the discussion of those events is used primarily to couch a recounting of the efforts made by a diverse set of individuals to confront the enemies of humanity. Admittedly, there is a predominant focus on the resistance of priests and officials of the Catholic Church to evil, including the papacy’s direct activities against atheistic totalitarian governments. However, that history helps to fill the book with loads of drama and intrigue. Many of the individuals mentioned are forgotten today and little was known of some even then. (The book’s “Index of Names” has 277 entries.) Several of them did not survive the war. Rutler explains that events of this period demonstrate human nature never changes. Heroes and cowards, and saints and sinners are revealed. To write Principalities and Powers, Rutler drew from a collection of actual letters, newspapers, and journals of the period. He skillfully used those resources to provide a profound discussion of events. (The information might well have been lost as most of these documents were printed on rationed paper and are deteriorating.) Previously, greatcharlie reviewed and highly recommended Rutler’s book, Cloud of Witnesses: Dead People I Knew When They Were Alive (Scepter, 2010). Rutler has amazed greatcharlie again with Principalities and Powers.

At the start of World War II, no one could be certain about its outcome. The situation was touch and go. Rutler notes that defenders of humanity had the good fortune of having the right leaders in place at the right time. Winston Churchill was not well-liked within circles of power. He was a harsh critic of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler. At the outbreak of the war, King George VI appealed to Lord Edward Halifax, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom and Viceroy of India before that, to take on the post of Prime Minister. However, after France fell, the invasion of the United Kingdom was viewed as certain. Art from the National Gallery was removed. The Royals’ bags were packed. Halifax would decline the prime minister’s post, perhaps concerned as many other leaders over how the Nazis would respond to them if the United Kingdom fell. Churchill, serving as First Lord of the Admiralty, was available, was willing, and was begrudgingly selected. US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was another fortuitous placement. Roosevelt, known as a deal maker, aligned completely with the United Kingdom. Rutler explains that Roosevelt, as Churchill, viewed Hitler as truly evil. Hitler spelled his plans out in Mein Kampf and executed them. Despite the US public’s overwhelming support for neutrality and the Neutrality Act of 1939, the Lend-Lease Act was passed in the US Congress in March 1941. The US received leases for a chain of British islands guarding the Caribbean for the loan of US ships and other material support, committing the US to the United Kingdom’s defense. The Atlantic Charter of August 1941 affirming the solidarity between the two countries. Churchill was certainly uneasy with Roosevelt’s deals with the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin, who he viewed as no-less evil than Hitler. He never reconciled with the division of postwar Europe and remained concerned over Soviet plans for global Communist domination.

From right to left are Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin, on the portico of the Russian Embassy during the Tehran Conference in 1943. Roosevelt and Churchill jointly held the view that Hitler was evil and had to be approached as such. Churchill, however, was uneasy over deals eventually made with Stalin that established the postwar division of Europe.

Rutler notes that during its ascent, Nazism was essentially ignored by European governments for what it truly was, they paid a high price. The delusion of European leaders that Hitler could be managed, contained, or controlled, fostered an environment for the growth of Nazi power. From the very beginning, it was clear that the founding principles of Nazism were inimical to Western ideals. As Rutler explains, Nazism was more than a political movement, it was a religion, possessing its own ceremonies and rituals. The Nazis created their own pagan gods for their religion and used Norse pagan gods. Having created an artificial church, the Nazis sought to disband existing religions. Having prevented the people from believing in the true God, they submitted to a cult of personality. They worshipped Hitler. Hitler copied all of the trappings of fascism from Italian Duce and Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, but Hitler’s abilities as an orator put him in a special class. While the great orator among the defender’s of civilization, Winston Churchill, spoke to convince people that they could do anything. Hitler spoke to convince people that he could do anything. The Judgment of the Nations was a work published in 1942 by the Catholic historian Christopher Dawson, but it began to get significant attention only in the early months of 1943. “The old landmarks of good and evil and truth and falsehood have been swept away and civilization is driving before the storm of destruction like a dismasted and helmless ship.” Dawson saw proof in world events that “evil too is a progressive force and that the modern world provides unlimited prospects for its development.” He believed what accounted for this was that things spiritual had been invaded by the secular state. Through that arose the totalitarian state, which imposed “total control of all human activities and all human energies, spiritual as well as physical . . and their direction to whatever ends are dictated by its interests, or rather the interests of the ruling party or clique.” From 1942 and 1943, it was clear that evil was rising all around Europe, seemingly transmitted by the Nazis as they gained territory and authority over Europe’s peoples. An incredible number of atrocities were being committed by governments across the continent. Villains that may be more memorable include Vichy French Prime Minister Pierre Laval, whose cruelty amazed even many Nazis. He reportedly stated: “Cardinals and bishops have intervened, but everyone is a master of his own trade. They handle religion. I handle government.”  Rutler indicates that evil even managed to consume some officials of the Catholic Church. A priest, Monsignor Josef Tiso, as puppet president of the Slovak State, paid the Germans to deport 60,000 Slovak Jews for extermination in Auschwitz, making Slovakia the only country to subsidize such deportations.  Pro-Ustashe Archbishop Sarić of Sarevejo penned an ode to the leader of the Ustashe government of Croatia, Ante Pavelić. Croatia had the highest rate of genocide, in proportion to population, of any European country. After the war he fled to Spain, while Pavelić was hidden by Jesuits near Naples and eventually settled in Argentina. In Yugoslavia, Bishop Alojzije Mišić of Mostar expressed horror at the massacres of Serbs with the complicity of Herzegovinian Franciscans residing in Široki Brijeg near Medjugorje. Bishop Mišić described hundreds of women and children and elderly men thrown alive into ravines at Surmanci.

In Belgium, the University of Louvain was purged of its Catholic faculty and Mass was forbidden. In Poland, the Germans suppressed all patriotic hymns, litanies, and prayers and took particular umbrage at the practice of hailing the Virgin Mary as “Queen of the Crown of Poland.” Dr. Mutz, Chief of the Department of Internal Administration, abolished all mentions of the Polish State, “which no longer exists.” May 3rd would no longer be celebrated as the day of the Beatae Mariae Virginis Patronae Rei Publicae Poloniae. The August 15thActio gratiarum pro Victoria super Bolshevicos 1920″ was forbidden, along with the thanksgiving for the victory at Chocim on October 10th and all services on November 11th commemorating the rebirth of the Polish Republic. Outside of Europe, in Syria, the Nationalist Socialist Party hailed Hitler as “Abu Ali” and the Young Egypt Party called him “Muhammed Haidar.”  The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini visited Hitler, secured the deportation of 5,000 Jewish children to death camps, and obtained a promise from Hitler to liquidate the Jews of Palestine after a Nazi victory.

On the far left is Ante Pavelic, leader of the Ustashe government of Croatia, making a Nazi salute in the presence of a prayerful Monsignor Alojzije (Aloysius) Stepinac on the far right. Under Nazi influence in World War II, Croatia had the highest rate of genocide, in proportion to population, in Europe.

The resistance to evil was strong. Included among the thousands of individuals who, as Rutler says, “attained virtue on a heroic scale,” is the pioneer of pan-Europeanism, the Austro-Hungarian Count Richard Nikolaus von Coudenhove-Kalergi. The character Victor Laszlo in the film Casablanca was based on him the Count. Although he was a professor at New York University in 1943, Hitler still loathed him as “everybody’s bastard.” He was, however, admired by Archduke Otto von Habsburg, Aristide Briand, Albert Einstein, Horace Mann, Sigmund Freud, and later by Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle; he was an anti-Nazi and foe of anti-Semitism (like his Catholic father, who annually walked out of Good Friday services at the mention of the “perfidious Jews”).  Rutler mentions the Foreign Minister of Generalismo Francisco Franco’s Spain, Count Francisco Gomez-Jordana, who helped make his country a haven for Eastern European Jews, especially Sephardic Jews from Hungary. German Army Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, a well-known conspirator in the plot to assassinate Hitler, is mentioned. However, Rutler also discusses the lesser-known assassination attempt against Hitler by German Army Colonel Rudolf von Gersdorff, chief of intelligence for German Army General Gunther von Kluge. Further, Rutler mentions the attempted protests by students at universities in the Netherlands against the Nazi revision of their syllabus, and protests by students at the Sorbonne and Grand Paris Ecoles. Rutler includes their letter to Vichy French Chief of State Philippe Petain which stated: “For more than two years, forgetting their rowdy traditions, the students of the University of Paris have abstained from demonstrations. But our silence has never implied acceptance of events of which we were the distressed observers. Above all, the brutal deportation of thousands of French workers has provoked our indignation.”

For Rutler, the strong role of the clergy in the resistance to tyranny was natural given their sense that the barbarity unleashed by the war was in reality a manifestation of evil and the presence of the devil. Rutler points to leaders such as the bishop of Berlin, Johann Konrad Maria Augustin Felix Graf von Preysing Lichtenegg-Moos, who stated when the Nazis had first come into power, “We have fallen into the hands of criminals and fools.” Bishop von Preysing exhorted in his Advent message of December 12, 1942, “Every departure from right and justice will sooner or later be broken against these foundations of God’s Dominion.” He explained the world’s present miseries were the result of human contempt for natural and divine law: “Resistance to God’s sovereign rule was a product largely of the eighteenth century—the century which proclaimed the primacy of human intelligence, the individual as an autonomous being and as his own sole judge, and which declared that all right was to be derived from this intelligence independently of God’s law.” The state had imposed itself as the very incarnation of God, replacing justice and right with power and profit. The Bishop’s appeal was stark: “My dear Brethren: ‘Repent,’ and change your mode of thinking. This is my appeal to you.” The pro-Nazi newspaper Vooruit of Ghent rued the pastoral letter of Jozef-Ernest Cardinal van Roey, who opposed forced labor. At the same time, the primate of Hungary, Jusztinian Cardinal Seredi, told representatives of the Hungarian Catholic press that “all States have equal sovereignty” and so “the Hungarian nation has a birthright to claim—freedom, autonomy, and national independence.” Reverend R. H. W. Regout, professor of international law at the Catholic University of Nijmegen, died at the age of 46 in Dachau, where he and three other professors had been sent shortly after the occupation of the Netherlands. The “priest block” in that concentration camp held 2,579 priests over the war years, 1,785 of them Polish, more than a thousand of whom perished there. By February1943, 34 Italian chaplains had been killed in active service.

On April 19, 1943, the Swedish Svenska Dagbladet printed a letter from the archbishop of Zagreb, Monsignor Alojzije (Aloysius) Stepinac, to the Italian ambassador to the Croatian puppet state. The Italians had been exploiting conflicts between Croats and Serbs to make them seem ideological rather than ethnic: “I must protest energetically against the incredible atrocities committed by Italian troops against the defenceless populations in the districts of Krasic, Vidovina and Brovac, where several villages have been burnt down. . . . Even if some Communists should have succeeded in taking refuge there, I can vouch that there were not, and are not now, any Communists among the village population.”

Pope Pius XII ( center) meets with members of what Rutler calls the forces of “great good,” in this case the Canadian Royal 22nd Regiment, following the liberation of Rome in June 1944. Pius XII refrained from directly rebuffing Hitler and Mussolini and kept channels open to their regimes. Yet, he understood that Hitler, in particular, represented true evil.   While remaining neutral, he did as much as he could to mitigate suffering in World War II.

In France, the activities of the Catholic Church against the Nazis were so significant that the editor of a Protestant French newspaper wrote: “The militant Catholics in our country have taken a place which is important and, we do not fear to say, preponderant, at the head of the movement of resistance in which, very often, they have taken the initiative, and of which they remain the inspiration.”   The 81-year-old Auxiliary Bishop of Paris, Emanuele-Anatole-Raphael Chaptal de Chanteloupe wore a Star of David in protest again the deportation of Jews, and soon was buried wearing it. The collaborationist Vichy radio mocked Cardinal Gerlier of Lyons for hiding Jews and resistance fighters: he was “an ex-lawyer who late in life became an archbishop more as a result of the omnipotent grace of the House of Rothschild than to the laws of Holy Mother Church.”  When German officials ordered the Jews of Beauvais to register at the municipal headquarters, Bishop Felix Roeder claimed a distant Jewish antecedent and was the first to register, processing through the street in full pontifical vestments, and preceded by an acolyte carrying the Cross.

Rutler notes that in the war’s distress, increasing appeals were being made to the Pope for help and advocacy. L’Osservatore Romano published an article on the history of papal diplomatic prerogatives by General Francois de Castelnau, president of the French Federation National Catholique. He pointed to the irony by which the European powers in the 19th century had threatened to exclude the Pope from their deliberations, while turning to him in crises. Seemingly debilitated by the loss of the papal states in 1870, the papacy ironically took on a new prestige when its loss of temporal power gave it a grander kind of neutrality. In 1885, Bismarck, only ten years removed from the Kulturkampf, had asked the Pope to arbitrate between two nations, Spain and Germany, for the first time in three centuries. In 1890, the Pope was asked to mediate between Great Britain and Portugal a matter of navigation on the Zambesi. That same year, US President Grover Cleveland desired a papal arbitration between Venezuela and Great Britain to define the frontier between Venezuela and Guyana. Five years later Cleveland asked Pope Leo XIII to do the same for Haiti and Santo Domingo.   However, the Nazis had contempt for the appeal to neutrality, and the pontiff’s ability to intervene on issues was more constrained. In February 1942, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine and former Chief Rabbi of Ireland (1921 to 1936), Dr. Yitzhak Halevi Herzog, published a statement saying that he had appealed to the Pope to intervene with the combatant powers on behalf of European Jewry. Without out noting specifics, the Holy See replied that “the Pope is doing everything in his power on behalf of the persecuted Jews of Europe.”  It was telling that Rabbi Herzog, who remained as Chief Rabbi until 1959, would eventually remark about the Pius XII, “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.”

Pius XII’s message on the Vatican radio on the Feast of the Transfiguration in 1942, broadcast in German, said: “God’s ship is destined to reach port safely. She will not sink, for Christ is the helmsman and the gates of hell, the onslaught of the wildest waves and of the spiritual U-boat action (“Geistige U-boot Arbeit”) of godless neo-paganism will not harm her… For while paganism cannot build up, still less can neo-paganism, which lacks even that nobility of mind and true humanity which was found in the old pagans.” When Christmas came in 1942, The New York Times said Pius XII “is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent.”

There is much more in Principalities and Powers. After starting it, the book is hard to put down.

Causa latet, vis est notissima! (The cause is hidden, but its force is very well known!) Rutler views the test of character in the struggles of the world’s greatest war as a litmus for how the present generation should and should not behave in the face of challenges. Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott well-described ISIS as a “death cult,” but the imbalanced, barbaric behavior of ISIS has flummoxed Western governments wanting to categorize the organization and appropriately respond to it. As Rutler shows in Principalities and Powers, the starting point for understanding ISIS or any similar organization that might arise is its main characteristic, which is evil. Principalities and Powers may support the development of a better understanding of ISIS, what it represents, and the devising of new approaches to defeat it. As it is greatcharlie’s mission to provide commentary and advice for foreign and defense policy makers, political and business leaders, and policy aficionados worldwide, we enthusiastically recommend Principalities and Powers to our readers.

By Mark Edmond Clark

Book Review: Jay Sekulow, Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore (Howard Books, 2014)

In Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore (Howard Books, 2014), Jay Sekulow discusses the growth of the organization which has oppressed and terrorized countless innocent Iraqi and Syrian civilians and brought anguish and fear worldwide through reports of its actions. Footage of gruesome executions and unspeakable atrocities committed by ISIS has made it clear to all that the leaders of ISIS are not simply seeking power. They are maniacs playing God. ISIS members are delusional, thinking somehow that their ghastly acts have some religious purpose.

Under Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad, the Iraqi and Syrian people suffered injustice in violent forms, political corruption, and stupidity in high places. Now, a significant portion of the populations of Iraq and Syria together live under a far oppressive regime. It is the regime of the Islamic Caliphate, territory straddling Iraq and Syria which the Islamic State of Iraq in Greater Syria (ISIS) has claimed through military action. News surfaced widely about ISIS in the global news media during its massive June 2014 offensive in Iraq. The world’s conscience was struck by the sight of long streams of refugees fleeing their ancestral homelands, mothers with children trapped on mountains by heavily armed men, and mass graves. Footage of gruesome executions and unspeakable atrocities committed by ISIS circulate on the internet. It has been made clear to all that the leaders of ISIS are not just seeking power in Iraq and Syria. They are simply maniacs playing God. ISIS members have deluded themselves into thinking their ghastly acts have some religious purpose.

In Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can’t Ignore (Howard Books, 2014), Jay Sekulow discusses the growth of this organization which has oppressed and terrorized countless innocent Iraqi and Syrian civilians and brought anguish and fear worldwide through reports of its barbaric actions. Sekulow outlines how ISIS came into existence, how the organization’s objectives have evolved, and how it uses the same unlawful strategies used by other terror organizations. ISIS represents the collapse of rule of law and the collapse of all social conventions in the civilized world. ISIS in many ways resembles a bacillus that could potentially infect and destroy civilization itself. An antidote must be found for ISIS. With each passing day under ISIS’ thumb, average Iraqis and Syrians sense, as do many in the world, that ISIS cannot be stopped. Western powers, which retain the lion’s share of the world’s military power, for a variety of reasons have been reluctant to fully commit their forces to defeat it. Sekulow discusses what the US public, in particular, can do now to address this crisis.

Jay Sekulow is an attorney in the US who is involved in legal issues at the highest level in US courts as chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ). During his career, he has argued in front of the US Supreme Court more than ten times. He has specialized in arguing key issues concerning the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In addition to his work as a Supreme Court advocate, Sekulow has submitted several amicus briefs in support of conservative issues. Earlier in his career, Sekulow worked in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service as a tax trial attorney, bringing suits to the US Tax Court on behalf of the US Treasury Department. In 1990, he served as director of the ACLJ. In addition to being chief counsel for the ACLJ, Sekulow hosts Jay Sekulow Live!, a syndicated radio program broadcast on terrestrial radio and XM and Sirius satellite radios. It is a live, call-in program, and focuses on legal and legislative topics. Sekulow is also host of ACLJ This Week, weekly television news program broadcast on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and Daystar.

In Rise of ISIS, Sekulow does not bring to bear any experience as a foreign or defense policy scholar at a think tank or government intelligence analyst who has worked through mounds of data on terrorist groups to uncover family ties, financial networks, media sources, disgruntled employees, imminent threats, homeland plots, foreign sales, health status, financial resources, tradecraft, and recruiting tactics. Readers should not expect to find chapters of detailed text explaining the evolution of ISIS’ tactics, techniques, and procedures from its roots as Al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers (later referring to itself as Al-Qaeda in Iraq). To that extent, Rise of ISIS is not the definitive book on ISIS as some reviewers have claimed. This is necessary to state as greatcharlie.com is aware that comprehensive texts on foreign and defense policy are de rigueur among many of its readers. What Sekulow provides, however, is a look at ISIS through the prism of a legal scholar. With the assistance of Jordan Sekulow, his son, the executive director of the ACLJ, as well as Robert W. Ash and David French, an Iraq War veteran, both serving as senior counsels for the ACLJ, Sekulow presents a strong legal case against ISIS. He breaks down the organization to create a concise profile of it. As such, Rise of ISIS would be a good choice for some business and political leaders or foreign and defense policy aficionados seeking to better understand ISIS in the context of the struggle against international terrorism and events in the Middle East.

Readers of Rise of ISIS will find themselves analogous to jurors, judging Sekulow’s case against this bizarre organization operating in the Middle East, so ultra-violent that even al-Qaeda rejected it. Readers will come to understand that the threat of ISIS goes beyond its ability to engage in genocide at historic proportions in Iraq and Syria. Readers will learn from Sekulow that they, themselves, could soon become victims of ISIS. Indeed, Sekulow insists ISIS poses the greatest threat of terror to the US since September 11, 2001.

As Sekulow explains, ISIS has essentially rejuvenated itself after being largely defeated by late 2008. Its leaders had been killed or captured and those fighters who had not been killed or captured by the US-led coalition had fled into Syria. That allowed Iraq to become somewhat more stable and secure for the short-term. It was in Syria that ISIS began to grow, along with other Islamic militant groups such as Syria’s own Jabhat al-Nusra. When the Syrian civil war began in the environment of the Arab Spring, Western governments and key Arab States, particularly in the Gulf, enthusiastically supported the Syrian opposition movement against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Under US policy, the hope was that the Free Syrian Army (FSA), with US supplied arms and training would advance against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and pressure him into stepping down at the negotiation table. As an enemy of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the US and European governments applied the fallacious concept that the enemy of my enemy is a friend expediently to ISIS. That led to its inclusion as part of the opposition’s forces in the field, organized under the umbrella organization, the Free Syrian Army. Even at that time, it was clear that the founding principles of ISIS, once an element of al-Qaeda, were inimical to the Western ideals. Efforts in the US and Europe to feign control over events in Syria step by step led to the further growth of ISIS and loss of control to that group. Supplies and weapons from Arab States supportive of the opposition, mostly found their way to Islamic militant groups as ISIS and significantly built-up its warfighting capacity. ISIS began to regularly attack mainstream or secular anti-Assad units while simultaneously fighting Assad’s forces and allies. Apparently, Syria was far enough away from the West to allow political leaders the sense of having things under control and escape the realities of the situation. The barbarism of ISIS was not accepted for what it was and thousands of foreign fighters were steadily pouring into Syria joining ISIS’ ranks. Its numbers quickly became too great for the Syria opposition to control. The group reached a size that allowed its leaders to consider returning to neighboring Iraq in strength to seize long sought after objectives.

ISIS members profess Islam as their religion. Islam is what draws Muslims to the organization. Yet, it is ISIS leaders’ own interpretation of The Holy Quran is given preeminence over all human affairs in their form of Sharia law. That law is flexibly applied by ad hoc ISIS civil authorities in cities, towns, and villages, who carry AK-47s and RPGs leading to extrajudicial executions by crucifixion, beheading, stoning, hanging and firing squad. For the most part, all ISIS is really doing is murdering innocent people. Murder is murder, and that truth is common to all mankind. Sekulow informs readers that ISIS has established itself as being more brutal than al-Qaeda, and notes that al-Qaeda sought to persuade ISIS leaders to change their tack. ISIS has proven itself as a “death cult” as it was described by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. In this vein, ISIS has actually sought to transform Iraq and Syria into a single neo-pagan state, not an Islamic one.

ISIS leaders’ own interpretation of The Holy Quran is given preeminence over all human affairs in their form of Sharia law. That law is flexibly applied by ad hoc ISIS civil authorities in cities, towns, and villages, who carry AK-47s and RPGs leading to extrajudicial executions by crucifixion, beheading, stoning, hanging and firing squad. For the most part, all ISIS is really doing is murdering innocent people.

Sekulow indicates how ethno-religious racism has also been a prominent feature of ISIS. It has driven ISIS authorities to order the obliteration of all evidence of Christianity within its members reach. Sekulow explains that anyone who is not aligned with ISIS’ jihadist form of Sunni Islam whether Christian, Jew, Yazidi, and Shi’a, has been attacked by it. Sekulow gives special attention to Iraq’s Christian community. He notes that Christians in territory controlled by ISIS are given the ultimatum to “convert, leave your home, or die.” In response, tens of thousands of Christians became refugees. ISIS fighters then marked their homes with an Arabic symbol that has come to mean “Nazarene” which is a pejorative term for Christians in the Middle East. Catholics, whose families have occupied certain areas of Iraq for centuries, have been ethnically cleansed from territories controlled by ISIS. According to Sekulow, women in families unable to escape ISIS have been sold as sex slaves. Reports state Christian children have been beheaded.

Sekulow prepared Rise of ISIS in time to observe events surrounding ISIS’s June 2014 offensive. ISIS and other insurgent groups rapidly advanced through the mostly Sunni areas of Iraq’s Anbar Province. In a matter of days, they captured several cities including Mosul, Tikrit, Tal Afar, and were driving on Baghdad from two directions. The militants captured large parts of Iraq’s western and northern provinces in their June offensive after Sunni residents threw their support to the group. Apparently, the Maliki government stopped paying the Sunni tribal fighters who had earlier helped battle ISIS. Through that offensive, ISIS became the world’s richest terrorist group capturing the money and gold reserves held in banks of the cities it overran. With the capture of Iraqi Army arms depots, ISIS amassed more firepower than any Islamic militant organization in history. Sekulow mentions reports that ISIS seized 40kg of radioactive uranium in Iraq raising fears that ISIS could construct a “dirty bomb”. (A dirty bomb is a weapon of mass destruction in the sense that it can spread radiation in to the atmosphere making entire areas uninhabitable and killing or sickening anyone within space of its radiation cloud.) Yet, Sekulow notes that when the administration of US President Barack Obama responded to the ISIS offensive, the decision was made not have US military forces enter Iraq robustly to destroy ISIS. Instead, a US-led coalition would engage in both a campaign of airstrikes and the time consuming process of retraining the Iraqi Security Forces that initially failed to defeat or halt ISIS. This response to ethnic-cleansing and terror by the international community was a far less assertive relative to that for Bosnia and Kosovo, but more akin, as Sekulow notes, to that for Cambodia and Rwanda. Cur ante tubam tremor occupant artus? (Why should fear seize the limbs before the trumpet sounds?)

In Sekulow’s view, ISIS has done more than give hints that it also plans to strike in the West. He points to statements made by ISIS’s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi while he was temporarily held detained by the US during the Iraq War. Baghdadi reportedly said “I’ll see you guys in New York.” Sekulow also points to a statement from an ISIS spokesman who pledged to raise the black flag of ISIS over the White House. Whether boasts and idle threats or indications of ISIS’ intentions, Sekulow does not think the US should wait to find out. He points to what can be done by readers to stop the emerging genocide in Iraq and Syria and defeat jihad. He suggests that readers raise the issue of ISIS at home, on social media, in ones community and with elected officials. He says readers should treat Rise of ISIS as “a warning that jihad is on the march.”

Interestingly, much of what Sekulow discusses specifically about ISIS in Rise of ISIS can be found in the first 48 pages of this 144 page book. (Albeit, there is also some good information found in his end notes for those 48 pages.) The greater focus of Rise of ISIS from that point becomes Hamas, its attacks against Israel, and Israel’s use of military force against Hamas targets in Gaza. Some reviewers have expressed the view that this makes the title Rise of ISIS misleading. However, Sekulow explains that complementary discussion is crucial to his legal argument about ISIS. Key points made by Sekulow in the remaining pages of the book include: Hamas and ISIS are not entirely separate; both Hamas and ISIS are motivated by the same hate and use many of the same tactics; both want to establish terror-run nation-states from which they can engage in relentless jihad; Hamas has failed to destroy Israel because it is able to defend itself; he indicates that there is a campaign to demonize Israel; the UN, the Red Cross, and the international left, the members of which he does not fully indentify are pointed to as the main obstructionists; the international left shows sympathy for Hamas and attempts to limit Israel’s ability to respond to Hamas attacks; the UN’s efforts at investigating alleged Israeli “war crimes” is biased; UN investigators find no fault with Hamas as it uses human shields, terror tunnels, booby traps and hides rockets in UN facilities; and, the same “laws of war” used to judge Israel will eventually be used to tie US hands in its fight with terror at home and abroad.

A good portion of Rise of ISIS focuses on Hamas, its attacks against Israel, and Israel’s use of military force against Hamas targets in Gaza.  Sekulow explains Hamas and ISIS are not entirely separate as both are motivated by the same hate and use many of the same tactics.  Further, both want to establish terror-run nation-states from which they can engage in relentless jihad.

After reading Rise of ISIS some greatcharlie.com readers may wish to take a deeper look at ISIS. The following books are strongly recommended: Patrick Cockburn, The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising (OR Books, 2014); Charles River Editors, The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria: The History of ISIS/ISIL (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014); Loretta Napoleoni, The Islamist Pheonix: The Islamic State and the Redrawing of the Middle East (Seven Stories Press, 2014); Shadi Hamid, Temptations of Power: Islamists and Illiberal Democracy in a New Middle East (Oxford University Press, 2014); and the coming book Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger, ISIS: The State of Terror (Ecco, 2015).

Rise of ISIS is not a book simply on ISIS despite what is indicated by the book’s title. It covers much more, and the sudden turn the book takes in its discussion away from ISIS should not deter anyone from reading it or stop them from enjoying it. Sekulow is indeed passionate about ISIS and the threat the group poses to the West. That comes through on the book’s pages. However, he is equally concerned about Hamas, the UN, Israel, and Gaza, and other issues concerning the Middle East and that also comes through. Readers will undoubtedly continue to think about Rise of ISIS long after completing it. While the title and author’s methodology may pose concerns, readers hopefully will focus on the author’s discussion of facts. In more ways than one, Rise of ISIS gives readers a lot to think about. As the book can support our readers’ understanding of ISIS, jihad, Hamas, and other critical Middle East issues and further the ability of many to engage in the policy debate on such issues, greatcharlie.com recommends Rise of ISIS.

By Mark Edmond Clark

Who Has Contributed What in the Coalition Against ISIS?; The Obama Administration Must Place Success Against ISIS Ahead of Creating the Appearance of a Broad Multilateral Effort

Almost immediately after United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron received approval from Parliament to have the Royal Air Force join the US-led anti-ISIS coalition, Tornado bombers, as the one pictured above, began engaging in highly effective airstrikes in Iraq. While some nations as the United Kingdom have contributed significantly to the anti-ISIS air campaign, the efforts of many other partners in the 60 nation coalition have been negligible or nonexistent militarily.

According to an October 22. 2014 Foreign Policy article entitled, “Who Has Contributed What in the Coalition Against the Islamic State?”, as the administration of US President Barack Obama ramps up its campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS), it is also trying to present itself as acting with the support of a broad range of partner nations. The article notes the US State Department lists more than 60 countries as members of the “global coalition” to degrade and defeat ISIS. However, the qualifications for inclusion in that coalition are nominal. While many countries have pledged military or humanitarian support, the State Department indicates that “simply exposing the true nature” of ISIS can qualify a nation for the coalition. Western coalition partners continue participating in airstrikes in Iraq, however, the Pentagon has not discussed the participation of Arab partners. To date, few countries have joined the US for airstrikes within Syria since October 14, 2014, following a week of apparently US-only strikes there. The US Central Command noted in its daily statement on October 21, 2014, that “out of respect for participating nations, US Central Command will defer to partner nations to publicly comment on their airstrikes” against ISIS.  Of the 60 countries participating in the anti-ISIS coalition, the vast majority are not contributing militarily. The October 22nd Foreign Policy article alleges that US claimed that there were even commitments from coalition partners of ground troops to fight ISIS, but those offers never materialized.

The Multilateral Gambit

It was in 2014 that the Obama administration really began insisting that the US would act only when multilateral approaches were available. The impression was given that this was a world in which once sufficient effort was made by the US to organize other nations, problems could be handled through cooperation. As it was explained in the greatcharlie.com post, ” Chechen in Syria a Rising Star in Extremist Group; US Must Act in Iraq Now to Eclipse Such Stars!”, organizing multinational efforts to resolve foreign and defense policy issues is not a new idea. Regional alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, Central Treaty Organization, and the Organization of American States were created to bring resources of nations together to cope with the “Communist threat.” Even on terrorism, multilateral approaches were viewed as required when modern-era counterterrorism was established during the administration of former US President Ronald Reagan. Yet, the idea that the US can today rely upon multilateral solutions requiring joint action with allies and partners who themselves face drastic military cuts and economic difficulties is unwise.

Understanding the importance of the campaign against ISIS, United Kungdom Prime Minister gained approval from Parliament to have the Royal Air Force participate in the US-led anti-ISIS coalition. The Royal Air Force almost immediately engaged in airstrikes against ISIS. However, no Western state such as the United Kingdom, which is already fighting ISIS from the air and possesses a genuine capability to engage in land warfare, would willingly or robustly go into Iraq or Syria. Indeed, national leaders of Western states would not want to assume the risks of intervening with ground troops now, especially when most of those leaders truly feel that level of commitment would not “exactly” be within their nation’s interests. Despite the terrorist attack in Canada and thwarted attacks in Australia, in many capitals, the loyal opposition and many  policy experts have taken the position that their governments have overstated the international threat from ISIS. Those criticisms have also placed restraints on just how much national leaders can do.

Placing Partners under Pressure

Oddly, the Obama administration also appears to have requested Western allies and coalition partners commit their armed forces to military action in Iraq and Syria even though the administration would not make a similar commitment of US forces. That approach was unrealistic.  Obama publicly indicated a hesitancy to act militarily in both Iraq and Syria. As a rationale for its hesitancy to commit the US military, Pentagon officials  explained “the US military is taking a defensive, not offensive, approach” to ISIS. On October 22, 2014, The Washington Post reported that the US determined newly trained mainstream Syrian opposition fighters will not be able to capture strategically important towns from ISIS, without the support of forward-deployed US combat troops. Alternatively, those mainstream opposition fighters will only be assigned to defend already-controlled territory. According to Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby, the current train-and-equip program for the Syrian opposition would seek to strengthen appropriately vetted elements of its fighting force, Free Syrian Army, to enable them to counter ISIS; strengthen the moderate opposition so that they can better defend themselves and territory; and promote the conditions for a negotiated settlement to end the conflict in Syria.” One country the US has pressured for action against ISIS is Turkey. Although Turkey is a power in the Middle East region, the notion that Turkey, possessing far less capabilities than the US would subordinate their own concerns and interests, to support and defend others under US pressure is curious. Turkey likely reached the same  conclusions  as the US about conditions for engaging militarily in Iraq and Syria. There would hardly be a Syrian opposition force with which Turkish troops could work. If Turkey’s operations in Syria “creeped” beyond destroying ISIS and it effectively displaces the Assad regime, political leaders in Turkey would likely feel ambivalent about simply turning over a nation on its border, Syria, to the very dysfunctional Syrian opposition. Even if Turkey controlled or greatly influenced the Syrian opposition, it is hard to see how taking on what would be the political, economic, and social basket case as Syria would be to Turkey’s benefit now.

Given the diminutive size and inappreciable impact of contributions by many coalition partners, as outlined in the October 22nd Foreign Policy  article, it would seem as beneficial to the Obama administration not to publicize the relative efforts of coalition partners as it would be for the partners themselves. Such information may create doubt over just how much the world is really behind the US in the anti-ISIS effort. In any event, more will certainly need to be done by the Obama administration to defeat ISIS than simply promote the simulacrum of a broad multilateral effort. If coalition partners are not carrying as much of the burden as may have been hoped, but perhaps should have been expected, the US must step up its own efforts. That would mean allowing military planners not to simply devise the best plans feasible under constraints set by the Obama administration. Civilian control and political guidance without question is necessary. However, provided with everything they actually need, and working within well calibrated parameters established US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey–who is unquestionably honor bound, US military planners, using their expertise based on careers that include continuous professional education and training and considerable experience, would undoubtedly develop far more effective plans for the use of airpower. Hamstringing the US military by insisting it develop war plans based on some illusion within the Obama administration that some proportional level of multilateral cooperation will ever materialize, will practically ensure operations against ISIS, although  will not yield the desired outcome: the destruction of ISIS. The Obama administration appears to be attempting mulgere hircum! (To milk a male goat!; To attempt the impossible!)

Assessment

The comedian and late night talk show host in the US, David Letterman, said “every military operation has to have a name so people can get behind it and they now have a name for the war against ISIS: ‘Operation Hillary’s Problem’.” The US-led anti-ISIS operation’s true name is Operation Inherent Resolve. Ostensibly, the Obama administration is fully committed to defeating ISIS right now and not leaving the job to his predecessor. Yet, the fight against ISIS is more than just an operation. It is a war being fought against a barbaric adversary. Its leaders and fighters are deluded by the conceit that they are fighting for God. The decision to take action against ISIS was laudable and represented the heights of US foreign policy which in the Obama administration has at times seemed full of contradictions. Likewise, the insistence on presenting the veil of multilateral action when the US is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in the US-led coalition against ISIS represents the depths of US foreign policy. It creates the impression that the US military effort is driven more by political expedience than the best military approach possible. Looking good is not as important as being good. Doing what is necessary to win this war must have priority over all other interests. The US and it coalition partners may be on the same team, but the Obama administration must accept that the US will need to both block and carry the ball over the goal line and not hide the fact it is doing so.