Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Less Counter-Insurgency, More Asia in New U.S. Strategy

President Obama’s “strategic shift” from counter-insurgency in the Middle East to force projection in the Asia-Pacific has frustrated hawks and doves alike.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Capping a major eight-month review, President Barack Obama unveiled a new defence strategy that places more emphasis on U.S. military capabilities in Asia and the Pacific and much less on counter-insurgency and nation-building operations in poorer and conflict-plagued countries.

Among other steps, the new strategy paper, "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense", calls for new investments in cyber-security and greater reliance on naval and air power, as opposed to ground forces whose ranks will be reduced by tens of thousands over the coming few years.

"As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and the end of long-term nation-building with large military footprints – we'll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces," Obama said at an unprecedented presidential briefing at the Pentagon.

"…So, yes, our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats," he added.

The new strategy, which Obama ordered the Pentagon to prepare last April, is designed to accommodate some 450 billion dollars in cuts in projected defence budgets over the next 10 years.

Because of the failure last November of a bipartisan Congressional "super-committee" to reach agreement on how to reduce the record trillion-dollar deficits that Washington faces, the Pentagon may be forced to cut as much as an additional 600 billion dollars over the decade.

At more than 700 billion dollars in 2012, the U.S. defence budget accounts for over 40 percent of total annual global military spending and exceeds the combined defence budgets of the world's 20 next most-powerful militaries.

Even with the 10-year, 450-billion-dollar cut on which the new strategy is based, however, Obama said the Pentagon's budget will continue "to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined" and "will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership".

Much of the savings will be borne by the reductions in ground forces, of which the Army is likely to be the biggest loser. While specific details of cuts are expected to be announced later this month or in early February, the Army's ranks are likely to decline from the current 570,000 soldiers to 490,000 in the coming few years, according to senior Pentagon officials.

The Marines, currently over 200,000 strong, will be much hit less hard as they are likely to be assigned to naval task forces whose importance will increase as a result of the administration's strategic "pivot" from the Greater Middle East towards the Asia- Pacific region that was dramatised by Obama's November swing through the region.

Indeed, it was during that tour that he announced the deployment 2,500 Marines to a base in northern Australia in what the New York Times called "the first long-term expansion of the American's military's presence in the Pacific" since the Vietnam War.

That geographical pivot was re-affirmed in the new strategy document, which described U.S. economic and security interests as "inextricably linked" to the region. "Accordingly, while the U.S. military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region," it declared.

Other savings are likely to come from delays or cancellations of costly new weapons systems, most notably the nearly 2,500 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) ordered by the Pentagon. The Lockheed Martin programme has been plagued by huge cost overruns, making it the most expensive defence programme in U.S. history.

The strategy also suggests cuts in U.S. nuclear forces. "It is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy," the strategy paper asserted.

The strategy also suggested that Washington is abandoning its post-Cold War stance that it should be able to fight two major ground wars in different parts of the globe at the same time.

"Even when U.S. forces are committed to a large-scale operation in one region, they will be capable of denying the objectives of – or imposing unacceptable costs on – an opportunistic aggressor in a second region," the document states.

That was criticised by the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Bud McKeon, who called it "unrealistic".

"The president is clearly repeating the mistakes of the past – by providing a force far smaller than is sufficient to meet the threats we face," he told editors at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI). "The possibility of two simultaneous contingency operations is real. One need only look at the current instability in North Korea and the threats coming from Iran, for an example."

McKeon also complained that the reduction in ground troops will put the U.S. "back on a pre-9/11 footing" and that "the next time we have to engage in a major ground operation, we won't have the forces we need, just as we didn't in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Similarly, Jamie Fly, the executive director of the hawkish Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI), described the strategy's rejection of COIN and nation-building as "very dangerous".

"I understand that most Americans are tired of prolonged commitments in war zones, but the fact of the matter is we never know what's over the horizon," he told IPS. "Stating up front that our forces are going to be incapable of conducting these types of operations is very risky."

If the hawks were unhappy, however, more-dovish voices were decidedly muted in their enthusiasm.

"The Pentagon's proposed reductions in its spending plans are far too low," according to William Hartung, a veteran defence analyst at the Washington-based Center for International Policy.

"If the administration were to follow up on its own rhetoric on smaller conventional forces, getting rid of outdated Cold War-era systems, and reduce our nuclear forces, it could double its proposed cuts in Pentagon spending to one trillion dollars over the next decade. That would be a real down payment on reductions that need to be made to have a significant impact on reducing future deficits," he said.

"This is an extremely modest build-down," said Miriam Pemberton of the Institute for Policy Studies, who noted that the anticipated 2013 Pentagon budget that Obama will request in his State of the Union Address to Congress later this month will amount to only four percent less than the previous five-year average.

Even as the strategy review re-affirmed Obama's "pivot" to the Asia/Pacific, it also stressed its continued commitment to the Greater Middle East, noting U.S. goals of "countering violent extremists and destabilizing threats, particularly "prevent(ing) Iran's development of a nuclear weapon capability and counter(ing) its destabilizing policies."

"To support these objectives, the United States will continue to place a premium on U.S. and allied military presence in – and support of – partner nations in and around this region," it asserted in italics.

"Those allies in the Persian Gulf should rest easier after today's press conference," noted Andrew Exum, senior fellow of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

In remarks late last month, after Washington completed the withdrawal of all its combat troops from Iraq, Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, sparked considerable speculation over the continued U.S. military presence in the region when he told reporters that the U.S. would seek to "demilitarise" its presence there by returning to a "posture …far more in line with where we were before 1990."

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org). His blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.lobelog.com

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share