In Rhode Island we’re used to consorting with renowned historical figures. Gen. Nathanael Greene, the self-made soldier who fought Lord Cornwallis to a standstill in the Carolinas during the War of American Independence, hailed from nearby Coventry. George Washington wrote his famous letter on religious toleration to the congregation of Newport’s Touro Synagogue. A Newport native, Commodore Matthew Perry, opened Japan to foreign trade and commerce in the 1850s. In summertime, the “Four Hundred” – the Vanderbilts, Astors, and other glitterati who comprised the “1 percent” of America’s Gilded Age – took their ease in sprawling “cottages” overlooking the Narragansett Bay.
The French connection is less visible but no less real. Another celebrated figure – Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roche Gilbert du Motier, a.k.a. the marquis de Lafayette – occupies his own place in Rhode Island lore. Lafayette made his headquarters in Bristol in 1778, soon after France and the American colonies made common cause against Great Britain, inking a treaty to that effect. I pass by his pumpkin-coloured saltbox house every day while driving to and from work. Jean Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, the comte de Rochambeau, brought an army to Newport in 1780 before marching south with Washington to besiege Cornwallis’ army at Yorktown, Virginia. Victory at Yorktown broke the back of the British war effort.
Although the term hadn’t been invented yet, Rochambeau and Lafayette came to North America to wage what Carl von Clausewitz and his maritime counterpart, Sir Julian Corbett, called a “war by contingent.” That is, France dispatched a modest-sized detachment to make trouble for its main antagonist in a larger struggle spanning several parts of the globe. French entry into the war expanded the conflict on the map to encompass faraway theatres such as the Caribbean Sea, whose rich sugar crops made it the Persian Gulf of the 18th century; the Indian Ocean, where strategic seaports and islands were up for grabs and mastery of the subcontinent remained in doubt; and the English Channel, where the decline of its Royal Navy left Britain at a disadvantage even near its own shores.
Waged deftly, war by contingent yields gains out of all proportion to the resources expended and the costs and risks incurred. Probably the most successful such deployment in modern warfare – and the intellectual point of departure for Clausewitz and Corbett – was, ironically, a British campaign against France. It offered a way for seafaring Britain to bedevil land power Napoleonic France in continental Europe. The emperor had placed elder brother Joseph Bonaparte on the throne in Spain, provoking partisan resistance. Sir Arthur Wellesley – later Lord Wellington – commanded a modest army that landed on the Iberian Peninsula to support partisan forces, much as Lafayette and Rochambeau had intervened in North America. So effective was Wellington’s land-sea campaign that Napoleon dubbed it his “Spanish ulcer.”
As American leaders ponder strategy for increasingly contested waters and skies in East Asia, they might conjure up the lessons of Lafayette, Rochambeau, and Wellington. In an age of declining resources and a rising China, it behoves U.S. commanders to think ahead about waging war by contingent in Japan, Taiwan, or some other regional hotspot. If the U.S. political leadership displays the resolve to initiate low-cost, high-payoff operations – and if the U.S. military displays the capacity to execute them – Washington can threaten Beijing with an ulcer all its own. China would think twice before making mischief along the Asian seaboard.
James Holmes is an associate professor of strategy at the US Naval War College and the co-author of 'Red Star over the Pacific,' just out in German translation through E. S. Mittler & Sohn. The views voiced here are his alone.








jkm
just by planting the idea in your opponents mind, you’ve achieved half your strategic objective. Brilliant. But Japan and Taiwan would be both high-cost and quickly resolved. Better draw them into The Phillipines, or Viet-Nam.
yang zi
that would be a hell of wait and good luck with that. What the professor is really saying, is to find a good way to retrench. I think it is smart, because according to an article I read from Foreign Affairs, last 18 empires that had economic problems, all that didn’t retrench, failed.
Yang zi
I take it the author means instead of fighting as main force, now fight as a supporting force? I think it is smart.
Last time China ran a good sized trade surplus with a western nation, that western nation became drug trafficker and used gunboat to force China into addiction. That country was British empire.
This time, US empire is much civilized, it is only building a house of cards with righteous reasons to intervene. To do what ? I havent figured it out.
Posters like @Leonard definitely have scenarios dreaming up. The same kind of people who traded with China, made money and don’t hesitate to use gunboat to force a better deal.
@Reason & @Leonard, do you see the similarities?
Anyway, China could import more Cows, Chickens and soy beans from US, but US has to come up with other things to export. Look at how Japan and S.Korea are doing it. Otherwise, you are only creating rich farmers, not jobs.
applesauce
the US fighting as any “force”, support or otherwise means all else have failed. there is no difference if you are a supporting navy/army or the main enemy, you are an enemy if you directly interfere. and any war between china and the US means the entire world is gonna be hurting. however stationing the means to wage war and displaying the willingness to use force is another matter, but the US is already doing this but its a dangerous game non-the-less, your display of weapons and support could very well(with good reason) be taken as an act of containment and aggression.
and of course the question of taiwan, if china invades then the world will probably be on the US’s side but what if taiwan was the one to declare independence? do we throw the world into depression or worst and also risk WWIII and all the nuclear fireballs it entails for a state the US doesnt even recognize?
Reason
@Yang Zi
I absolutely do see the similarities.
They are too clear to miss…. In my mind, both the essential nature of the Chinese and the Western governments has changed little in the last 200 years.
China’s xenophobic government is playing right into the hands of a Western culture that thrives on war – this is a symbiotic relationship. China is not a victim in this whole process but an active participant and creator of its own destiny – just like in the Opium Wars. Contrary to popular CCP propaganda the Opium Wars were NOT fought over opium but were a battle between two competing Empires – Britain and China and Britain won, leaving China to whine about losing for the last 200 years.
This is happening again now. The US and China are squaring up for another battle of supremacy. Seeing as Chinese society hasn’t fundamentally changed in its outlook and neither has the West’s in the last centuries…. my money is on the West once again as it is riddled with less contradictions than China.
Note: Any CCP fan member who wants to retort ” BUT THE U.S IS IN TERMINAL DECLINE” should remember that during the first Sino/British War the UK government was broke, suffering from bitter divisions and eventually collapsed – but still managed to defeat China.
In the West a governments weakness doesn’t fundamentally hamper the countries ability to wage war – unlike in China, where weak governments seriously hobble the countries ability to get the left hand to cooperate with the right hand. This is why China’s governments always prioritize domestic stability over everything else.
A politically weak West is still a formidable opponent – possibly even more so.
yang zi
now I officially declare you insane @Reason, because I don’t want to declare you are shameless. white wash the Opium war like that.
Watcher
I want you to know that this is not at all a majority view in the West! The Opium War was one of many very bad things the west did during the age of Imperialism. It was inexcusable and it was a shame on us (that we could behave that bad).
I agree that the CCP empasizes these incidents too much in order to give itself nationalist credentials. The worst thing is that it is all true:(
What I hope most Chinese see is that these were our forefathers and not us.
Reason
@Watcher… Seriously.. how much do you actually know about the Opium Wars …? such as the timelines, what was going on politically in Britain? When Lin burnt the Opium and why? Why Elliot retreated to HK, when the Royal Navy turned up… etc etc… Why the War continued after the bombing of Canton?
Or did you just read about it in the Lonely Planet when you visited HK.
Yangzi you are insane if you think my comment “white washes” the wars. The CCP white washes the wars by extorting… “to defend the Opium Traders the Royal Navy came in and Declared War on China” This remark is a hijacking of history by the CCP and is the ultimate white wash
– if that’s you view on history then it is beyond superficial…
yang zi
@Reason, I think you need to seriously look at what you are saying. your problem is much deeper.
Reason
@Yangzi
This would be a great topic for you to get interested in BOOKS…
Find out what was REALLY going on in the 1840s – rather than defending CCP hijacked, annotated history of China
Watcher
Reason, enlighten me will you?
I have not read any CCP propaganda on this issue. I habe read western accounts from various historians and China scholars. Your account and theirs differ markedly. BTW. my sources are also from various western countries. It was presented in the British Parliament as a war for freedom of trade, but what it actually was was a war to allow the British freedom to operate as a drug cartel in China. In the West we have freedom of press and we should use it also to point at our own (albeit historic) faults.
Sure there was a lot of hubris in Qing China, but that is a very poor excuse!
Reason
@Watcher
Go read more…
This comment – “but what it actually was was a war to allow the British freedom to operate as a drug cartel in China.”
This comment shows you’re only concentrating on one sideshow of why the war was fought. This may have been Jardine’s reason to fight a war with China… but there was a lot more at play in 1840. From CCP side, they always want to concentrate on the Opium… they want everyone to look at the war through the lens of opium only… and this is what you’re doing.
But just take away the opium lens for a moment – (not deny it existed, just move it to the side) and you see there were so many other things going on that led to the war… and once it started.. kept it going and going.
The Opium Traders sure did piggy back off the events of the day and shamelessly exploited the situation, sometimes in the name of Britian – But to say the war was fought to create a “drug cartel in China” is CCP elementary school history.
Reason
@Watcher
It’s like saying the invasion of Iraq was fought over WMDs…
but we all know it was fought over OIL and the need to dominate the region strategically… the WMD lobby certainly made it easy and convenient to launch that war… but on their own… nah… the argument never had enough clout to start a war.
The Opium lobbyists were like the WMD guys… pushing the government to act, but they didn’t have enough clout to make Britain go to war over Opium.
Then throw into the mix, TEA, Free Trade, Britain’s notion that it had a divine right to trade any where in the world AND… the killing of British traders and families by a regime it felt was pious and arrogant and then suddenly the war machine starts to gain traction.
I’m not saying these are just reasons to go to war… but to say it was about opium… is just totally superficial
Reason
And regarding the selling of Opium… fortunately the 1840s marked the beginning of the end for state sponsored opium sales.
But fast forward 100years and no one was in any doubt that opium was an evil thing to be trading, especially in China – But that didn’t stop the CCP from funding their entire Yan’an holiday with opium.
Or as Chairman Mao liked to call it “Revolutionary opium”
After all that China had suffered from opium, the Chinese Communist had no compunction to sell it back to the Chinese if it meant their demise.
So the fact that the CCP… who were the biggest dealers in opium in the 1940s, now tries to force everyone to look at history through their contrived opium lens is beyond despicable and duplicitous
The_Observer
The ulcers that the USA has is mostly internal. It’s crooked politicians that are bought; low rate of savings; increasing liabilities such as social security and medicare; rising federal, state and municipal debts, an unreformed banking and financial services industry; deteriorating infrastructure; a declining middle-class suffering unemployment and house price drops; unecessary warmongering; etc, etc
All the current US geopolitical manoeuvres concerning China is part owing to the upcoming US presidential elections and the state of the US economy. President Obama is appearing to be tough on China while at the same time distracting the US voters from the underlying US malaise. However, GFC II is around the corner and, while it will impact China, I have no doubt that, at the end of it, China and the other economies who were the least affected the last time around will still be standing.
Leonard R.
Since the US is already at war with China, it would be a good
idea to start fighting it. Only one side has been fighting for
the past several years.
War by contingent is an option. War by contingent by proxy is an option.
There are any number of ways to do it. Some obvious places
would be Tibet, Xinjiang,(which is close to both a US base
in Kyrgyzstan and US forces in Afghanistan), and Myanmar.
For Xinjiang, no need for US boots. There are enough good fighters among the
Turkic-speaking Central Asians who would love to take on the PRC in Xinjiang.
They need weapons and money. With it, a Muslim jihad could spread all the way
from Turkey to the Muslim states surrounding Xinjiang.
Tibet, Myanmar, Xianjiang? The PRC offers a lot of options for war by contingent.
Cyber warfare is important here. The US needs to retaliate inside the PRC.
Google does not like the CCP. I hope the US will lean on its expertise in the future.
Yang zi
I think CIA already did some of that
Reason
@Yang zi
hahaha, I always love it when CCPers talk about the CIA’s support of Tibetan independence… and they quote some stupid figure like, “The CIA funded them 1million in the 1960s.”
My reaction is…. “Is that it?” That’s all the CIA would foot up for the Tibetans Independence. The CCP should be laughing at this puny effort.
Instead, people recount how devious the CIA is – what a load of bull – they could only come up with a million or so bucks in the sixties… it’s back-pocket change.
I really wish the CCP could come back and show that the CIA actually funded them billions… but it’s just not true… the Tibetan’s go shafted by the West.
yang zi
@Reason, are you arguing the money amount or the fact CIA funded and trained Tibetan splitters?
Reason
It’s a pretty established fact that the CIA had a Khampa training program going… the sad thing is is that it was only a puny project.
Leonard R.
Actually, I may be off base. The PRC seems unstable internally.
This WSJ graphic chart of the Princelings was a real eye-opener for me.
Maybe the US should just pay to have it translated & distributed inside
China.
Maybe I’m wrong. But I sure wonder what average Chinese would think
if they read this chart.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904491704576572552793150470.html#articleTabs_interactive%3D%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive
It’s cheaper & more humane than contingent wars or wars-by-proxy.
And it may be more effective.
yang zi
@Leonard R.
Chinese already knew! not everyone but people who visit online forums. In China, sending kids to American school is a good thing, why should it be a problem? there are rumblings about Bo Guagua, his lifestyle and money. but his mother is a very successful lawyer, so there isn’t a strong case against that.
What you don’t understand is, everybody knew official media blows, Global Times is for foreigners. Chinese are very practical, they know a good thing when they see it. be it American school, a stable country, or a good way to make a living.
Sure, some in China question the leadership’s resolve to defend Chinese interest against US, but a lot more of Chinese will send their kids to US schools if they can. why the exception of elite?
This is a good thing Leonard, open your eyes.
Reason
Yer know.. I read a similar piece on Bo Xilai’s son… and it left me really perplexed… he’s like more English than me! Been brought up in the best schools in UK, educated at Oxford and now Harvard.
Of course, I’m sure he loves his old-man and his country… but this is surely going to leave him with some very deep internal contradictions?
I have no idea how he reconciles it all into a world view?
Grant
There are several problems I can find offhand with this. The first is that France didn’t gain much from the Revolutionary War and lost a good deal. The second is that China doesn’t have that much to threaten. Unlike the U.K China doesn’t have many offshore possessions. I suppose we could station soldiers in Japan, South Korea and Australia to threaten China, but we’re already doing that as a defensive move and it wouldn’t really follow this plan anyway. After that is the problem that the host nations wouldn’t consider it unless things get much more tense. We’d still be attacking China anyway so it wouldn’t be war by ‘contingent’. Lastly let’s keep these confined to discussions about naval clashes if we can, no need to escalate with odd theories that don’t make much sense yet.