General Preparing for War With China!
Playing two-level games.
NBC News (“Air Force general predicts war with China in 2025, tells officers to prep by firing ‘a clip’ at a target, and ‘aim for the head’“):
A four-star Air Force general sent a memo on Friday to the officers he commands that predicts the U.S. will be at war with China in two years and tells them to get ready to prep by firing “a clip” at a target, and “aim for the head.”
In the memo sent Friday and obtained by NBC News, Gen. Mike Minihan, head of Air Mobility Command, said, “I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me will fight in 2025.”
Air Mobility Command has nearly 50,000 service members and nearly 500 planes and is responsible for transport and refueling.
Minihan said in the memo that because both Taiwan and the U.S. will have presidential elections in 2024, the U.S. will be “distracted,” and Chinese President Xi Jinping will have an opportunity to move on Taiwan.
He lays out his goals for preparing, including building “a fortified, ready, integrated, and agile Joint Force Maneuver Team ready to fight and win inside the first island chain.”
The signed memo is addressed to all air wing commanders in Air Mobility Command and other Air Force operational commanders, and orders them to report all major efforts to prepare for the China fight to Minihan by Feb. 28.
During the month of February, he directs all AMC personnel to “fire a clip into a 7-meter target with the full understanding that unrepentant lethality matters most. Aim for the head.” He also orders all personnel to update their records and emergency contacts.
In March he directs all AMC personnel to “consider their personal affairs and whether a visit should be scheduled with their servicing base legal office to ensure they are legally ready and prepared.”
Minihan urges them to accept some risk in training. “Run deliberately, not recklessly,” he writes, but later adds, “If you are comfortable in your approach to training, then you are not taking enough risk.”
He also provides a window into one capability the U.S. is considering for possible conflict with China — commercial drone swarms. He directs the KC-135 units to prepare for “delivering 100 off-the-shelf size and type UAVs from a single aircraft.”
After publication of this article, a defense department official said, “These comments are not representative of the department’s view on China.”
An AMC spokesperson confirmed in a statement Friday that the memo is real: “This is an authentic internal memo from General Minihan addressed to his subordinate command teams. His order builds on last year’s foundational efforts by Air Mobility Command to ready the Mobility Air Forces for future conflict, should deterrence fail.”
Defense Department press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said in a statement, “The National Defense Strategy makes clear that China is the pacing challenge for the Department of Defense and our focus remains on working alongside allies and partners to preserve a peaceful, free and open Indo-Pacific.”
WaPo (“U.S. general warns troops that war with China is possible in two years“) adds:
Gen. Michael A. Minihan, who as head of Air Mobility Command oversees the service’s fleet of transport and refueling aircraft, warned personnel to speed their preparations for a potential conflict, citing Chinese President Xi Jinping’s aspirations and the possibility that Americans will not be paying attention until it is too late.
[…]
The memo, first reported Friday by NBC News, is dated Feb. 1 — which is still days away — and was distributed to Minihan’s subordinate commanders. An Air Force spokeswoman, Maj. Hope Cronin, verified its authenticity, writing in a statement shared with media after the memo began circulating on social media that Minihan’s order “builds on last year’s foundational efforts by Air Mobility Command to ready the Air Mobility Forces for future conflict, should deterrence fail.”
[…]
The general’s memo coincides with an effort by the Pentagon to reset 20 years of counterinsurgency wars in the Middle East and as the Biden administration continues to equip Ukraine with billions of dollars in security assistance as it strives to fight off a Russian invasion.
Senior U.S. officials have warned for some time that an ascendant China may launch an assault on Taiwan, which is governed independently. The Defense Department under President Biden and his predecessor, President Donald Trump, has declared China its primary long-term concern, citing Beijing’s rapid military expansion and assertive behavior in recent years.
But U.S. officials have offered mixed messages on whether and when China might attempt to take Taiwan. In 2021, Adm. Phil Davidson, then the chief of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, predicted Beijing could make such an attempt by 2027. That timeline has since been dubbed “the Davidson window” by some national security scholars.
The Navy’s top officer, Adm. Mike Gilday, said in October that his service needs to prepare for “a 2022 window or potentially a 2023 window. I can’t rule that out. I don’t mean at all to be alarmist by saying that, it’s just that we can’t wish that away.”
In light of its concerns about China, the Pentagon has sought to expand military partnerships with willing partners throughout the Pacific. This month, the U.S. and Japanese governments disclosed that a Marine Corps unit on the Japanese island of Okinawa will be refashioned into a force capable of hopping islands in the region and directing long-range missiles at adversaries.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, speaking Jan. 11 during a news conference alongside Japanese officials, said that the United States had observed some “very provocative behavior” from Chinese forces in an attempt to push international norms. But he also downplayed concerns that China may launch an assault on Taiwan any time soon.
“We’ve seen increased activity in aerial activity,” Austin said. “ … We’ve seen increased surface vessel activity around Taiwan. And again, we believe that they endeavor to establish a new normal, but whether or not that means that an invasion is imminent, I seriously doubt that.”
Minihan, who entered the Air Force as a C-130 pilot, has previously captured attention for his strident, colorful language.
In September, he said at a military conference outside Washington that the Air Force had caused the largest “pile of our nation’s enemy dead” within the U.S. military.
“Lethality matters most,” he added, according to Task & Purpose, a military publication. “When you can kill your enemy, every part of your life is better. Your food tastes better. Your marriage is stronger.”
The memo comes across as a bit silly, especially given that Minihan is a cargo pilot commanding the logistics side of the Air Force, not a fighter or bomber pilot commanding a warfighting force. Things have gone horribly wrong if one of Minihan’s people needs to fire his personal weapon at the enemy. It reeks of false bravado and fake machismo. (Which is rather undermined by a “signature” that looks like it should belong to Minnie Mouse.)
That said, three successive administrations have placed strategic competition with China at the center of U.S. national security and defense strategy. While a shooting war with the PRC is 2025 seems wildly unlikely, it’s Minihan’s job to prepare his command for the worst-case scenario and, given that he took command in October 2021, if the war hasn’t happened by October 2025, he’ll have either moved on to a higher billet or retired from the service.
Aside from the Tom Clancyesque scenario for fighting in 2025 and the cheesy business about support personnel firing for the head, the rest of the memo is rather banal stuff. People are being directed to train and ensure their personal affairs are in order. That’s the nature of military service. And, because, commanders have a relatively short time in the saddle, they have to pretend that, were it not for their inspiring leadership, it wouldn’t otherwise be happening.
Regardless, these things look much worse than they are when seen by outside audiences. I’m immediately reminded of the concept of two-level games, introduced in 1988 by the political scientist Robert Putnam (best known to lay audiences for the “bowling alone” meme). While we tend to think of international negotiations taking place between two or more countries, they are simultaneously taking place with signaling to domestic audiences. Those are often in conflict.
I’m rather surprised that this memo didn’t have, at a minimum, a Controlled Unclassified Information marking. Presumably, it means Minihan wanted this seen by the general public. I suspect he didn’t predict that it would generate ridicule.
Very Jack Ripper-ish.
Even when I was at an overseas Tactical Fighter Squadron, we were not issued sidearms. In fact, in 20 years in the AF, the only time I fired a weapon was during Officer Training School.
Interesting that last year Gen Minihan was lauded for sharing his mental health appointment.
It all seems a little cartoonish.
and
This was my general (no pun intended, but there it is, so I’m leaving it) reaction. It also is tiresome to know the degree to which both of this things often seem to be hallmarks of the military, despite the deadly significance of their jobs.
Sigh.
I was Air Force and even when we deployed during Desert Storm we didnt get weapons. Aim for the head? If and when the enemy will helpfully hold still, preferably at 50 yards or less, then I will follow that advice.
Steve
@steve: I was a rocket artillery platoon leader during Desert Storm. Shortly after dawn the morning the air war started, we were issued bayonets—on which I had had zero training after my cadet days. As I told my CO, given that I’m in charge of three launchers, each of which can destroy a square kilometer from 8-30 kilometers away, there’s no conceivable way I’m going to engage in a knife fight with an Arab.
Perhaps preparing for a post retirement gig as a conservative personality?
The Right has been pumping up China as the Ultimate Boogeyman lately. There’s no question the government of China is ruthless and oppressive, but China doesn’t want war with the West. It wants to dominate us economically, not militarily. The top brass needs to call this guy in and explain a few things to him.
What kind of war does this dude think we’re having?
War with China will presumably be over Taiwan, and if we’ve reached the point where an Air Force supply sergeant has to shoot bad guys, then the Navy and Air Force will have failed to stop China crossing the strait, the Chinese army will have landed on Taiwan, the Taiwanese forces and, oh, let’s say a Marine Expeditionary Unit rushed to the island, will be reeling, and we’d be fucked.
This is nothing new for Milihan and isn’t even all that abnormal for senior officers.
Theater. AMC is not a war-fighting Command. The present Air Forces to USTRANSCOM…who fights the logistics war from the Joint (Air,Land,Sea) perspective.
The memo is to Garrisoned AMC Wing Commanders, who are training their Squadrons to deliver supplies and gas. None of these Wings are doing blanket training in self defense because of the cost. Personnel only qual on weapons if they are scheduled to deploy AND if the deployment site requires a weapons qual to deploy there.
This is an example of General Officer stupidity AND the medias unquenchable thirst for more click bait.
All General Officers are not equal. Unless dual-hatted as the Commander of Transcom, a war-fighting command, the Commander of AMC is a retired gig for an out to pasture cargo pilot.
Agreed this is rather silly. But would toss in that some of those 130 pilots/crew landed at Khe Son while artillery had the field zeroed in. They unloaded rolling.
So if Gen Whatizname was one of those, I’ll cut him slack.
@Barbara O’Brien: I haven’t seen you around here in years! Welcome!
@Jim Brown 32: Yup. He’s a force provider, not a warfighter. But his job is to get forces trained.
@JohnMc: He was commissioned in November 1989, more than 16 years after the last American fighting forces left Vietnam. It’s possible that his father served in Vietnam, as did mine, as we’re roughly contemporaries. (I was commissioned in April 1988 and entered active duty in September.)
@Barbara O’Brien:
China is not limiting itself to economic conflict, they aren’t constructing fake islands for air bases because they want to sell merch. Unlike Russia with its eternal paranoia, China has no significant potential foes on its borders – unless we imagine the Indians are going to cross the Himalayas. So why the expensive military build-up? Why the threats against Taiwan? Why the nationalistic messaging? None of that is about market share, they are prepping for war over Taiwan.
@James Joyner: I would say, in some fairness to Milihan, that this is a constant theme of most General officers across all the services. Mostly because it’s yet to be seen if the current Force has the mentality for a peer fight—especially the Air Force. The VEO fight was a strange anomaly, it mostly, didn’t feel like you were at war for the majority of conventional forces—the exceptions being Marines and Special Forces.
A peer fight would be different—with much higher attrition rates similar to WWII. Air Supremacy would be a pipe dream with the strategy being forced entry for episodic Air superiority then egress. Our Air Forces are going to need to embrace a more warrior like ethos in order to meet that challenge—if directed. Sure, statements like emptying clips are dumb and cartoonish…but not outside the scope of what could happen in a china fight where a deployed supply base is cut off from Higher headquarters and must operate on their own for 2-4 days. If no Calvary is coming—everyone on that base should be prepared to do anything required to ensure their survival.
@James Joyner: I forget how old I am. Which is not always a bad thing.
@JohnMc: I always remind my students, mostly majors and equivalent, how old majors used to seem when they were lieutenants. And, having done it almost 10 years now, I have former students who are colonels and current students who were lieutenants when I started. The result is I’m always fully aware of how damn old I’m getting.
My knee-jerk reaction is, are you not paying attention to Ukraine? The US doctrine is now revealed as we will not directly confront a near-peer that has nukes and delivery vehicles. At least not over territory that has no treaty obligations.
@James Joyner:
Obviously you were supposed to put the bayonets on the rockets 😉
Seriously though, can you even actually bayonet someone with those modern skeletonized M-4s without bending the barrel?
@Michael Reynolds: “None of that is about market share, they are prepping for war over Taiwan.”
Years ago my company had a multi-year contract with a company in Hong Kong – while Patten was still governor so this goes back a long way. We got to talking about the (then) growing concern about China taking over HK. One of the HK senior executives said China wouldn’t see it as a “take over”, but rather as recovering what was lost. He said China views every loss of property throughout its history (3,000+ years or whatever) as an intolerable insult that must be avenged. So if your land was ever part of China, no matter if it was 1,000 years ago, then it still belongs to China and can be recovered at any time, with full military force if necessary. And it’s not anyone else’s business if China does. After all, he asked us Americans, don’t you have the Monroe Doctrine? Who are you to tell Peking/Beijing what they can or can’t do in their own territory?
I’ve always remembered his take on things and on the whole I think he was right. We Americans have a hard time understanding other POVs and our history is littered with wrong assumptions that lead to long drawn-out conflicts and even wars. And I don’t believe for a minute we’ll send American forces across the Pacific to bleed for Taiwan. We’ll make a lot of noise about it but we won’t actually fight. And China knows it.
@Not the IT Dept.:
I think we will because we have no choice but to fight for Taiwan. Microchips and the first island chain make it imperative that we defend Taiwan. If we lose the first island chain we lose the ability to contain China, and we want to contain China. We do not want China (or anyone) to get a blue water navy capable of projecting force beyond their shores. The oceans are ours.
@Michael Reynolds: “Microchips and the first island chain make it imperative that we defend Taiwan.”
You contradict yourself a bit here. If all we’re interested in is the microchips, then there are ways of taking care of that, even – possibly but unlikely – using our military. We should admit upfront that the Taiwanese are on their own, and we only care about the products they make. It would at least be honest and not hold out false hope.
And if Americans do have to fight, I hope we hand a whopping big invoice to all the high-tech company bazillionaires who offshored microchip manufacture to Asia, including Taiwan. Let them pay for this.
“The oceans are ours.” Yeah, right.
@Michael Reynolds:
This. We don’t give a flying flip about Taiwan. International business on the other hand…we’ll kill with zero fucks over that.
It will take 10-15 years to reshore all the National Defense electronic and precision manufacturing we off-shored to either home sweet home or friendlier territory.
China knows this…they also know if they wait…there is no advantage to be gained taking Taiwan save National Pride. The Taiwan fight is, in essence, a fight over military superiority, which microchip processing figures heavily into for a modern military power. Without it…your Military is Russia…hoping for wins through attrition
@Michael Reynolds:
@Not the IT Dept.:
@Jim Brown 32:
Also, let Taiwan get taken by force, and China have unthrottled access to the Pacific, and Japan and South Korea at least, probably a whole load of SE Asian/Australasian countries, are going to have to consider the option of cutting a deal with Beijing.
They will have to.
There is a reason why NSC-68 of 1950 is the foundation of all subsequent US policy.
It was determined to be imperative that the US prevent a potential enemy from dominating more than one key industrial/technological area.
It is vital that no enemy that controls one industrial core (Russia then, China now) achieve strategic dominance over western Europe and/or Japan/S.Korea.
And these days SE Asia as well arguably; India can look after itself well enough.
That simple equation is why ever since Bush I, long-range planners in Washington have been mulling over how best to “pivot to Asia” without leaving the other two key zones of control, Europe and Arabia, to swing in the wind.
@Michael Reynolds:
The same could be said of us. I wouldn’t expect a massive nation like China to meekly simply accept the PNAC notion of their place in the world.
If we were China we too would draw serious red lines about becoming too cozy with another super-power, and make it clear arming it to the teeth with anything but defensive weapons is a no-no. We would rattle all kinds of sabres at them if they were teetering on the brink of doing so.
The General? Just doing is job, albeit clumsily. Vigorously prepare for the worst while (hopefully) hoping for the best. Making it seem imminent is a common tactic to get people thinking and preparing seriously. Putting a date on it was unnecessary and crossed a line, and it is likely he will regret that.
@dazedandconfused:
Few nations meekly accept being constrained, especially when ruled by an aristocracy or autocracy.
The point is to realise their discontent, anticipate their likely reactions, and then force them to bend to your will regardless of their opinions on the matter.
See US policy re. Soviet Union 1950-1991; UK policy re. various continental powers since 1688.
The US advantage, if it thinks clearly about it, is that it hold a far more predominant power position vs potential rivals than Britain ever did .
Therefore it should be able to contain short of peer-to-peer war, which the UK was repeatedly unable to avoid.
@Not the IT Dept.:
They’ve been ours since about 1945. All this lovely international trade? It happens because Pax Americana made sea travel and air travel safe and reliable. So safe and reliable we forget why it’s that way.
We created the regime of international law, laws that govern air travel, sea travel, laws that set the borders of economic zones so we don’t have endless wars over fishing rights, and so on. That’s our system. We imposed it (with a velvet glove, mostly), and we maintain it with our diplomatic, economic and military power. And the entire human race is better for it. The billion or so Chinese who escaped dire poverty in the last few decades did it through trade carried out under international law and over American-managed oceans.
The miraculous recoveries of Europe and Japan, the second wave of Asian tigers, China, have all risen from devastation and poverty within an American-designed system. Russia’s decided to try and subvert that system, but Russia is failing. China would like to destroy American power as well, but so long as we hold the first island chain, and have the only major navy, China will remain a victim of geography and a second-rate power.
@JohnSF:
So the point is to make others bend to our will, and our will is virtue personified?
Yeah, the thing about emptying a “clip” into the bad guy’s head is stupid and clownish. But as you note, the rest of it is pretty standard training and mobility stuff. And doesn’t the DoD now see a more active role for cargo aircraft in an A2/AD scenario? As in having them actually shoot stuff? I’m thinking of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Dragon_(missile_system)
@dazedandconfused:
It should be.
If not, become more virtuous.
And always remember, “one rule for us, another for them” is the foundation of ethical action. (joking/not joking)
Handwringing about moral purity may not be the best way to deal with the unpleasant choices of the real world.
See the perniciously counterproductive impact of such attitudes on policy of the US and UK in the 1920’s and 30’s.
There is no guarantee that the absence of of such attitudes would have enabled the crushing of Imperial Japan and European fascism at an early stage; but you never know.
The usual response to this, of late, is to start squawking about “neocons”, “warmongers” etc.
The problem with the “neocons” was their lack of realism, and proper assessment of the potential downsides of actions, and the need to avoid best case assumption based planning, rather more than their presumption of moral rectitude.
German handwringing about their lack of spotless virtue due to history was arguably a major contributor to the current war in Ukraine, and continues to plague the collective European response to it.
See tanks, MBT, supply of.
See gas, Russian, dependency upon.
@JohnSF:
The problem with neo-cons is they they want to re-make the world in their image, and are unable to comprehend the fact that not everybody wants to be like us…and they know what we are.
@dazedandconfused:
I wish them good luck (well, not actually) tilting at those windmills
Even Europeans are very unlike Americans, let alone, say, Japanese, or Indians.
For that matter other Americans are pretty unlike US-ians.
Though when it comes to base political system consent, I always have question for those “anti-neocon” who argue something like “not every country wants western democracy”: How do you know that? Do they get a vote on it? 🙂
@JohnSF:
The point is not be be overwhelmed by fear and thereby using military force like a fear-biting poodle.
I don’t know how many gun people I’ve seen correct the terminology “clip” with “magazine”. And here we have a four-star General using it. For myself, I reply that my father taught me to shoot with a .22 bolt action which had, as he described it, a “clip”. If it was good enough for Dad, it’s good enough for me. That usually gets them to shut up.