I suspect that Google was looking for some corporate support from other companies in its threat to leave China. So far that trial balloon hasn’t gathered much support from the American business community but has from the normal group of hand wringers who have no material stake in China thus their bloviating is irrelevant.

What likely happens is Google makes a tactical advance to the rear and cuts a deal with Beijing that on the surface allows both party’s to save face? China has Baidu, Inc. (BIDU/NASDAQ), which is a Google like search service growing even faster than Google so it is not as if they don’t have an Ace in their hand.

However, domestically and in the western world this will help burnish Google’s image and perhaps influence any prospective anti-trust litigation, which is possibly pending in the EU. On second thought, perhaps that was the intention of Google all the time.

Try Rickover vs the Electric Boat Company/General Dynamics and Newport News Shipyard/Tenneco. Clearly a case of a government official (head both of the AEC Naval Reactors and the Navy Nuclear Power Branch) taking on some big corporations - and usually winning.

A better fit for your search would be the history of commerce raiding at sea both by flagged warships (e.g. Semmes in the Confederacy's ALABAMA) and by privateers. And certainly the strategic bombing campaign in Europe of WW II was largely against the Nazi war industry - seen through the Norton bombsight, the sign on the roof said Krupps, etc.

My private view is there is less here than meets the eye. Google seems to be waging a strategic war with itself, contending market share against image. And the Chinese likewise, contending information control against global economic interests. Each is acting autonomously according to their own lights and the closest to conflict they come is at the signal level. Plus isn't there something in the meaning of war about violence and armed combat? The positioning for perceived advantage doesn't rise to the level of war unless something gets blown up. Companies withdraw from markets all the time and for many varied reasons, none an act of war. Let's leave words have some meaning beyond the trivial. This ain't war. War is war. This ain't war.

I have been reading a plethora of excellent histories and have been struck by the ubiquitous problem that occurs when mercenaries are out of work. Barbara Tuchman talks of the devastation in the 14th century (Distant Mirror), Frank McLynn relates similar problem in the 2nd Century (Marcus Aurelius: a Life) and the 12th Century (Richard and John). I suspect most Japanese ronin were equally adept at rape, sack and pillage.

I hope that someday we will be able to retire our own mercenaries without that much disruption.

Incidentally, Frank McLynn should be considered by anybody who enjoys his history written by a master of writing not unafraid of stating his opinion. Actually, not that far stylistically from Gibbon.

Google is at war with the Chinese state in the same way a deer is at war with the local wolf pack.

The deer is trying to eat, drink and do its business in the pack's territory without getting eaten. The pack will try to eat the deer whenever it feels it needs to and a suitable opportunity arises.

Where many other states involved, the analogy would not arise; it would satisfy the state's needs for Google to provide its services, hire local employees, collect whatever profits it could and pay the appropriate taxes. The Chinese state, though, is interested in Google's submission to its values as well as Google's intellectual property: the former to buttress its own authority, the latter to strengthen the state-supported Chinese companies it hopes to build into competitors against Google in China and beyond.

Politically, China remains a Communist totalitarian state. There is nothing in the ideology subscribed to by its rulers inhibiting it from theft of intellectual property held by foreigners operating in China or from using services provided by foreign business to hunt down Chinese engaged in any activity the state deems inappropriate. At issue for Google is whether the money to be made by remaining in China is worth the virtual certainty that it will be the target of the state in both ways as long as it does.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e9306da0-0461-11df-8603-00144feabdc0.html

There is a case for a clash....although the greed of the merchant may exceed the thievery of the banker.

“Every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war.” -Thomas Jefferson
------------------------

Just a couple of thoughts, seeing how I am one of those evil contractors that everyone is referring to. I happen to explore pre-Westphalia ideas and concepts on a daily basis at my blog, as well as track today's events and where we are going with it all.

I especially like to explore the concepts of the Letter of Marque and Reprisal and the various uses of privateering in the modern sense.(article 1, section 8 of the Constitution) Dr. Ron Paul likes the concept as well, and has introduced two pieces of legislation (2001 and 2007) to bring back it's utility in modern times. We have to start thinking about these things, because I believe states will eventually have to resort to these older practices in order to defeat or at least keep in check, their modern day non-state enemies.

Now look at all of our enemies today? Drug cartels, Radical Islamists, Pirates, and Organized Crime. They all have a common theme-- they hold no allegiance to a state. Some might dabble in deals with a state, but most are just their own thing. They do not respect the borders or the laws of states, and they actually use the laws and political correctness of states in order to achieve their goals. They also have the freest markets out of any business venture out there. They do not pay taxes, nor do they have any labor laws to abide by--they do whatever they want. They have a business model that works, and if they apply a little violence to the equation, then you can call that business model, free market warfare.

So how do you defeat these enemies? Because as we have watched over the years, we have done a terrible job at defeating any of these folks. It's almost as if we have dropped fertilizer on all of them, because their free market warfare based industries have only increased. Meanwhile, the state just flails around and throws massively expensive armies and navies at the problem, and tries to use elephants to defeat mice. The state still thinks that everyone is playing or should be playing by state's rules, and they are crying about how unfair it is. It's like our early American colonists picking off the British redcoats, as they stand in their files and cry that the Americans are savages and not playing fair. The British also referred to our privateers as pirates, and whined about that too.

So how do you defeat these folks? Well, according to pre-Westphalia rules, we need start looking at ways of creating an industry out of killing or capturing these folks. The state can still flail around with their armies and navies, to make themselves feel good about the whole process. But really, if you create an industry out of eliminating your enemies, then that is the atomic bomb of free market warfare that can defeat free market warfare practitioners.

Now if we don't get on board with this concept, I believe other states will. Hell, even our non-state actors are getting into the concept of privateering off the coast of Somalia. Jihadists are training Somali pirates, so they can increase their success rate against the shipping industry. The Jihadists get their cut, and so does the stock market based pirate communities. When I read about a widower in Somalia, giving an RPG round to a pirate, as a form of investment for the pirate company ventures, I laughed. These folks are totally playing by pre-Westphalia rules and even early America rules.

Even Al Qaeda is branching out into the free market warfare realm. Check out the drug trade in West Africa, and AQ's involvement there. How about the Drug Cartels in Latin America? These folks have entire armies and intelligence services to help achieve their business goals.

And with the Google versus China deal? How about the concept of using anti-hacker privateers in order to defeat the hackers that China uses. That will only work, if there is a value attached to taking down these hackers, and the companies are issued a (LoM) Letter of Marque by congress. An awards court needs to be established as well. That will then fuel competition amongst the companies who are authorized to be cyber privateers. The value comes from what Google has to offer, what the state has to offer, or better yet, taking whatever assets the hacker has.

Now that last part is the most important. Allowing companies to take what these free market warfare practitioners have, through an awards court and a strict adherence to the LoM, is the most powerful concept of them all. Because the richest enemies and the guys with the most assets, will also be the most cherished prize for the companies. You would also have companies that would go after the small fish too, especially after this system starts eliminating some of the top guys. Like with endangered animals, the poachers always go after the game with the most value first.

Then of course there is the issue of cost. This type of warfare, could be very cost effective.(something to think about as America's coffers drain do to war costs or anti-drug costs) You are allowing companies to take what the declared enemies have, and you are trying not to use taxes to pay for that company's services. In the case of drug cartels, they have many assets. For the case of radical islamists, we have the Rewards for Justice program (which offers millions of dollars). For pirates, they are asset rich as well, now that the shipping industry has paid them millions of dollars in ransom. Bounties should be assigned to these folks, just to prime the pump. But even with that minor infusion of value into the process, that will be infinitely cheaper than what we are doing now with our armies and navies. I say use both the military and use privateers, and attack these folks from both ends. That is how we did it during the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, and privateers were highly effective at attacking British merchant vessels and even warships. (Read Patriot Pirate sometime, if you would like to hear more)

So that is what I have so far. And seeing how this is FP, and most here probably know about the Mountain Runner blog, Matt Armstrong actually wrote a fantastic paper that talked about using the LoM to control PMC's. I was very intrigued and he still stands by the paper to this day. Dr. Paul is a big supporter of the LoM, and I am too. By the way, did I mention that the U.S is not a signatory to the Declaration of Paris? Nor is Mexico. Hmmmm. I also think that eventually, countries out there are going to say 'why are we a signatory to this?' Jefferson had the right idea back then, and I think it is time to fire up Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution again.

Declaration of Paris
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Paris

Is the Privatization of Force Organic to Western Liberal Democracy?
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/9/9/2/8/pages199289/p199289-1.php

Letter of Marque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

Privatizing National Defense
American (and Confederate) use of privateers was a cost-driven expediency to deal with direct threat to our nation. It harnessed greed when there simply weren't enough funds to buy defense outright, in a time of full war.

Some choose to torture the meaning of words under the War On Terror rubric, but this ain't that.

The 2010 Defense budget is $638 billion. BILLION. We can afford whatever defense we choose - there is no financial driver for LoMs and privateer contracts. The Constitution directs us in an entirely different direction: we founded this nation to get clear of European governing concepts, including (in our abhorrence of standing armies) imperial conquest.

So here is the short and correct answer to your long and eloquent post above: bad idea.
---------------
Rubber Ducky. Would like to wager your views on a war game? I will play Al Qaeda, and you can play America's military power with it's glorious defense budget of 638 BILLION DOLLARS (caps attack!!! lol), and we will see who wins.

How about I will be a drug gang like MS 13, and you can be America's law enforcement and military and see how that ends up? I am sure there are BILLIONS of DOLLARS available for that venture too.

Or if you would like to play the world's largest Navy, then I can play Somali pirate.

Now remember though. You have to play by your laws and respect the borders of nations, all because that is what makes you a state. You also have to answer to your congress and to the people and make sure they are happy too. I hope you win, because you don't have much time and the American people get impatient quick. They also love their drugs. Good luck.

I assure you, that in all cases, you will be defeated. Just like all of these groups are defeating us on the world stage right now. It is so bad, that it almost seems like we are dropping fertilizer bombs on all of these groups. They are getting bigger, more deadly, and more successful with their business ventures, and we are standing around crying about why they are not playing by our rules. Meanwhile we throw billions at the problem, thinking we can smother these enemies with printed money and fancy FM manuals that discuss the 'civilized way' of warfare.

Did I mention that AQ's goal was to suck us into big costly wars all over the world, and allow our elephantine armies to squash the local populations with our clumsy way of warfare? Every where we go, we piss people off, and AQ loves it.

By the way, I am an American and I despise all of these enemies that I listed. I am just playing devils advocate to prove a point. Because to be honest with you, I am not at all impressed with our response, and I am more impressed and intrigued by what these enemies are doing.

And to get back on track with my point, is that we need to utilize mechanisms that will make an industry out of killing or capturing these folks. Using privateers against the British merchant and war vessels, was extremely effective, along with the actions of the continental army and small navy. The reason why it was effective, is that there was an industry created around taking what the enemy had. Look at what the Somalis are doing, and that is exactly what early America was doing.

We can fire up Article 1, Section 8 today. It is a tool of warfare that we are not using because we are too politically correct and too civilized to wage that kind of warfare. And it is a type of warfare that would be cost effective. We already have the Rewards for Justice program and similar programs for drug/crime related rewards programs. These enemies of the state also have assets that privateers could take, via an awards court ruling on such a thing. The state defense budget could also put a couple of MILLION dollars into the pot, or allow corporations to put into the pot for the rewards programs as well. The state could also conduct lotteries to fill the bounties system for the LoM. Lots of ways of raising cash for this, but of course to think in those terms is vile and 'uncivilized'. AQ, Drug Cartels, Organized Crime, and Pirates are all chuckling right now.

So my response to you calling this idea 'a bad one' is--war game it and prove that it is bad one.

But let me allocate the defense dollars as seen best and let's set the registers so the war game has time to absorb the changes I'd make before start time.

I don't worry about the constraints of US and international law, because I also bring the strengths of democratic example, cultural pervasiveness, communications capacity, and the other 'soft' things that make this nation worth fighting for.

I suspect my planning will operate inside your OODA loop, being as just the basic description of your ideas takes two screen-fills.

And those laughing folks from AQ, drug cartels, organized crime, and piracy - they are pissants to be crushed, not victors or likely victors. America has a better hand - by far - than any or all of your side's heroes. And we have prevailed so far, well. Huge difference between 'still around and biting at our ankles' and 'winning.'