The Global Battlefield: Why We’re Focusing on the Wrong Enemy

As tensions between the US and China escalate, a question dominates the halls of power: which nation will emerge victorious in the next great war? This framing – pitting two superpowers against each other in a zero-sum game – is misguided. Instead, we should shift our focus from the inevitability of conflict to the imperative of cooperation.

The debate over US versus China has become a cottage industry, with analysts arguing about the relative merits of America’s military might versus China’s growing economic and technological prowess. This fixation on the US-China contest as a clash of titans distracts us from the pressing issue: how to prevent war altogether.

A Western strategic tradition posits that the United States must maintain its primacy to ensure global stability. But what does this really mean? Is it merely a justification for maintaining America’s status quo, rather than a genuine effort to address the underlying causes of conflict?

Former US Pacific commander Admiral Dennis Blair advocates for deterrence through alliances and technological leadership. While this approach may provide temporary security guarantees, it sidesteps the fundamental issue: our current approach to global relations is predicated on an unsustainable status quo.

Academics Michael Beckley and Hal Brands offer a more nuanced analysis by applying historical frameworks to understand the US-China contest as an ongoing struggle between maritime powers and land-based revisionists. Their argument highlights the shared resentment of US dominance among autocratic nations, but it also overlooks the complexities within the democratic coalition. By framing this conflict through the lens of competing ideologies, they gloss over the very real differences in how different countries engage with Beijing.

The “autocratic axis” may be united by a shared disdain for US power, but what about the consequences of our own policies? Have we not contributed to the erosion of trust and cooperation between nations? Our focus on military supremacy and technological advantage has come at the expense of diplomacy and dialogue. It’s time to recognize that our approach is part of the problem, rather than the solution.

Climate change, human injustice, and economic inequality threaten global stability, yet we prioritize military strength over cooperative solutions. The next war may not be about which nation emerges victorious; it could be about how we collectively fail to address these existential challenges.

As we navigate this treacherous landscape, it’s essential to reexamine our assumptions and priorities. We need a new paradigm that prioritizes cooperation over competition, dialogue over deterrence. By doing so, we may just avoid the next war – or at least make sure it’s not one we instigate ourselves.