The Obama administration unveiled a new defense strategy this week which is centered on maintaining U.S. military superiority but through a smaller footprint. It also lumps China in with Iran as a major security threat while saying it was time to close the chapter on Al Qaeda because the terrorist organization’s capabilities have been sufficiently degraded.
The Defense Department is supposedly committed to balance “available resources and our security needs”, underlining the challenge of protecting American interests during a time of economic malaise. DoD will try to minimize “the cost of doing business” by reducing manpower and overhead.
The document boldly asserts that “U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations”, in reference to long-term commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The guidance states:
Whenever possible, we will develop innovative, low-cost, and small-footprint approaches to achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, and advisory capabilities.
However, while making these claims the Pentagon also reserves the right to project power where and when required in order to "enable economic growth and commerce", impose unacceptable costs against perceived aggressors and to prevent the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.The U.S. also reserves the right to use its military power to enforce “regime change”:
This includes being able to secure territory and populations and facilitate a transition to stable governance on a small scale for a limited period using standing forces and, if necessary, for an extended period with mobilized forces.
America must also be able to project power and maintain a global presence to deter potential adversaries and to protect freedom of access throughout the “global commons”, which is an obvious reference to Iran’s recent threat to close down the Strait of Hormuz through which a large percentage of the world’s oil passes.
But the document also exposes the reality that power projection could be counter-productive by making America more vulnerable to external threats presumably as a result of stretched resources combined with an increase in attacks from newly-spawned enemies:
Threats to the homeland may be highest when U.S. forces are engaged in conflict with an adversary abroad.
Iranian nuclear deterrence is a key platform of the doctrine as the U.S. vows to counter Iran’s destabilizing policies by collaborating with Tehran's rivals within the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Along with Iran the new strategy interestingly identifies China as an adversary, indicating that “states such as China and Iran will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities.” Concern over China’s growing military power is evident in the demand that Beijing show “greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region.”
With regards to counterterrorism the document alleges that the demise of Osama bin Laden and the capturing or killing of many other senior Al Qaeda leaders has rendered the group far less capable. But the doctrine seems to leave the door open for drone strikes and covert operations against anti-American elements in “Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere”.
Against the backdrop of increasing tensions between Washington and Islamabad the U.S. intention to pivot towards India as outlined in the guidance is bound to give Pakistani leaders heartburn:
The United States is also investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India to support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region.
Another veiled reference to Pakistan can be seen where the document states that “Terrorist access to even simple nuclear devices poses the prospect of devastating consequences for the United States”, hinting at the fear of Pakistani nukes falling into the hands of terrorists.
For more geopolitical analysis go to www.michaelhughesassoc.com
Comments