Vol. 4, No. 2 Spring 2021 The Journal of JIPA Indo-Pacific Affairs Chief of Staff, US Air Force Gen Charles Q. Brown, Jr., USAF Chief of Space Operations, US Space Force Gen John W. Raymond, USSF Commander, Air Education and Training Command Lt Gen Marshall B. Webb, USAF Commander and President, Air University Lt Gen James B. Hecker, USAF Director, Air University Academic Services Dr. Mehmed Ali Director, Air University Press Maj Richard T. Harrison, USAF Chief of Professional Journals Maj Richard T. Harrison, USAF Editorial Staff Dr. Ernest Gunasekara-Rockwell, Editor Luyang Yuan, Editorial Assistant Daniel M. Armstrong, Illustrator Megan N. Hoehn, Print Specialist Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs ( JIPA) 600 Chennault Circle Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6010 e-mail: [email protected] Visit Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs online at https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/. ISSN 2576-5361 (Print) ISSN 2576-537X (Online) Published by the Air University Press, The Journal of Indo–Pacific Affairs ( JIPA) is a professional journal of the Department of the Air Force and a forum for worldwide dialogue regarding the Indo–Pacific region, spanning from the west coasts of the Americas to the eastern shores of Africa and covering much of Asia and all of Oceania. The journal fosters intellectual and professional development for members of the Air and Space Forces and the world’s other English-speaking militaries and informs decision makers and academicians around the globe. Articles submitted to the journal must be unclassified, nonsensitive, and releasable to the public. Features represent fully researched, thoroughly documented, and peer-reviewed scholarly articles 5,000 to 6,000 words in length. Views articles are shorter than Features—3,000 to 5,000 words—typically expressing well-thought-out and developed opinions about regional topics. The Commentary section offers a forum about current subjects of interest. These short posts are 1,500 to 2,500 words in length. Submit all manuscripts to [email protected]. The views and opinions expressed or implied in JIPA are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of the Air Force, the Department of Defense, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. https://www.af.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.aetc.af.mil/ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/ VOL. 4 NO. 2 SPRING 2021 SENIOR LEADER PERSPECTIVES 4 The Assurance Imperative Forward Presence in the Indo-Pacific Col Scott “Barney” Hoffman, USAF 12 Expanding Cooperative Intelligence, Surveillance, and ColReconnaissance Jacob J. Holmgren, withUSAF Allies and Partners in the Indo- Pacific FEATURES 18 ScenarioDr. Andrew Dowse,Planning AO Methodology for Future Conflict 32 ComparingNicholas Borroz Space Agency Intervention in Taiwan and South Korea 52 CompetingMaj Cameron Ross, with USAF China Today Lt Col Ryan Skaggs, USAF VIEWS 67 India’s Catalytic Reforms for Dr.Space Chaitanya 2.0 EraGiri 78 TheDr. Amrita Quad Jash Factor in the Indo- Pacific and the Role of India 86 Reimagining the Macro Arctic Region Rebuilding Global Trust through Democratic Peace and International Law as a Foundation for an Alliance to Coerce China from Taiwan Dr. John M. Hinck COMMENTARY 92 The Economics of Repression The Belt and Road Initiative, COVID-19, and the Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang Dr. Sungmin Cho Lt Joshua Turner, USAF DIGITAL - ONLY FEATURES 97 Indo-Lt Col Justin Pacific L. Diehl, Deterrence USAF and the Quad in 2030 123 Historically Mine The (Potentially) Legal Basis for China’s Sovereignty Claims to Land in the South China Sea Capt Aaron S. Wood, USA 137 Kashmir Imbroglio Resolved Strategic Options for Pakistan Dr. Dalbir Ahlawat Air Cmde Kedar Thaakar 152 A Region in Flux Situating India in Sino-Japanese Ties Mahima N. Duggal Jagannath P. Panda 182 North Korea Nuclear Threat or Security Problem? Dr. Stephen J. Blank DIGITAL - ONLY VIEWS 204 Rewriting the Rules Analyzing the People’s Republic of China’s Efforts to Establish New International Norms Maj Daniel W. McLaughlin, USAF 216 ReconsideringLt Col Brian MacLean, Attacks USAF on Mainland China 228 Indo- Pacific Demographic Shifts Effects of the Demographics in China and India on the Regional Security Environment LT Sam Melick, USN 241 TheMichele NextWolfe War to End All Wars DIGITAL - ONLY COMMENTARIES 253 Exposed Commanding in the Gray Zone During COVID-19 Lt Col Jarrod Knapp, USAF 257 How the Biden Administration Should Counter CaptChina David in Geaney, Southeast USAF Asia 263 ChineseLt Col Thomas Intelligence, R. McCabe, USAFR, Surveillance, Retired and Reconnaissance Systems 269 TheKenneth DayW. AllenAfter the Battle Dr. Brendan S. Mulvaney 275 Warning There Are Two Other Chinese Epidemics—Finance and Technology Wilson VornDick 285 Crossroads Why and How the US Must Revise and Revolutionize Its Approach to North Korea 1st Lt Shaquille H. James, USAF 291 Strategic Surprise from the Bike Trail The Republic of Korea and the Bicycle Maj Rachael Nussbaum, USAF DIGITAL - ONLY CADET PERSPECTIVE 298 Legitimizing and Operationalizing US Lawfare The Successful Pursuit of Decisive Legal Combat in the South China Sea Cadet Jessica Williams SENIOR LEADER PERSPECTIVE The Assurance Imperative Forward Presence in the Indo-Pacific COL SCOTT “BARNEY” HOFFMAN, USAF n an era of great-power competition, maintaining a robust and effective pres- ence in the Indo- Pacific theater to assure US allies and partners of America’s enduring commitment to the international rules-based order and thus en- Iabling a free and open Indo-Pacific would seem to be an unnecessary topic. How- ever, the allure of technological solutions, attraction of the physical safety assumed via long- range fires, and the appeal of returning forces to the home front to minimize costs and increase efficiencies is strong. The desire to place forces out- side of any threat ring and to provide support from a distance is not an ideal method for maintaining an enduring foundation of trust and confidence among allies and partners—particularly as the threat continues to develop and the ever- expanding antiaccess/area- denial bubble potentially drives US forces further and further away to maintain a desired level of protection. To the contrary, such a withdrawal may be viewed as self- serving, unsupportive, and unreliable to US al- lies and partners that cannot change their geography or the geostrategic environ- ment relative to China. As Beijing continues to assert itself through malign op- erations, activities, and investments in the economic, political, and military realms to undermine the international rules- based order—ironically the very rules- based order that has enabled China’s rise and which has rescued tens of millions from tyranny and lifted billions out of poverty—the United States must retain a robust, interoperable, and forward- present force that assures America’s vast array of allies and partners and deters China from undermining the free and open Indo-Pacific. Great- power Competition The recognition that we are in an era of great-power competition is not a novel realization. Dozens, if not hundreds, of thought pieces, articles, and books are dedicated to the very reality of a burgeoning great-power competition between the United States and China. The National Security Strategy (NSS) clearly delin- eates as much: “China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and in- terests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are deter- mined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.”1 To emphasize the great- power contest within the Indo- Pacific theater, the NSS further states “a geopolitical competition between free and repressive visions of 4 JOURNAL OF INDO-PACIFIC AFFAIRS SPRING 2021 The Assurance Imperative world order is taking place in the Indo-Pacific region.”2 The National Defense Strategy (NDS) reinforces this premise, stating, “the central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long- term, strategic competition by what the National Security Strategy classifies as revisionist powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authori- tarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions” (emphasis in original).3 How the United States will operate within the competitive realm needs to be examined frequently to be successful. Learning lessons from the past enables one to adjust strategy for the future. To that end, the NSS states that past strategies have not attained the desired results, “these competitions require the United States to rethink the policies of the past two decades—policies based on the assumption that engagement with rivals and their inclusion in international institutions and global commerce would turn them into benign actors and trustworthy partners.”4 The term competition to define the geostrategic interactions between the United States and China is an apt description; however, our Western style of thinking tends to view competition in the finite sense. In that I mean a competition typi- cally has two opponents who work under a given rule set, operate within a set of defined boundaries, with a predetermined external characteristic that defines the endpoint of the contest (i.e., a game clock in many sporting events), and there is a clear “winner” and “loser.” While the term competition helps to describe the tug and pull of geopolitics, it can also lead to false perceptions and errant strategies. The differences between our standard view of competition and the geopolitics of great- power competition are stark. Within this great- power competition, the di- vergences include the fact there are significantly more than two entities at play, as the United States has numerous allies and partners in the region and globally; likewise, there is no finite characteristic that defines the end of the competition.