Officials Question Obama Administration’s Rebalance to Asia by Jon Harper, Stars and Stripes
Members of Congress and senior defense officials see problems in the Obama administration’s ongoing rebalance of military forces toward the Asia-Pacific.
“I welcome the focus on the Asia-Pacific. However, time will tell whether words and promises are followed by action,” House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Buck McKeon said during a Congressional hearing Tuesday. “When the president framed rebalance, he discussed how we could now safely turn our attention to Asia because the war in Afghanistan was receding and al-Qaida was on the path to defeat. I’m concerned these conditions haven’t panned out.”
McKeon said national security challenges elsewhere combined with budget cuts threaten the rebalance.
“Violence and instability rage in the Middle East and Africa. Preserving forces’ readiness and capabilities in PACOM means less elsewhere. Can we afford to take risk in CENTCOM or AFRICOM?” he said. “Budget cuts only exacerbate the problem … As we look forward, defense funding is basically flat out into the future…
Comments
I read a quote from a guy named Betts once which was something to the effect that America was the only country in the world that was able to view the direct defense of its own national territory as a distraction. With that in mind, it seems to me that virtually any other country in the world would very likely view the problem we have along our border with Mexico as a problem which merits deployment of the military.
Neither AFRICOM nor CENTCOM are in our backyard, and our economy isn't tied to their stability. SOUTHCOM is in our backyard, and while I agree we should increase our border security (land and maritime), I'm not sure what the military would do south of the border outside of the current advisory effort we're supporting without making the situation worse, but the regional experts think we have a role to address what threatens us there, then I agree it should get higher attention. From a strategic risk perspective to our security and economy, versus getting distracted by the large number bush wars in Africa and Middle East, the strategic risks to our interests are largely in the Asia-Pacific. Nuclear armed opponents, near peer competitors beyond nuclear, the most militarized region of the world, increasing tensions between states, along with its fair share of bush wars that don't get a lot of media coverage, and the global center of gravity for the economy to include ours. We're not rebalancing to fight a bush war, but to prevent a real war. Not sexy after 10 plus years of doing astrategic CT/COIN, but important non the less.
I think it would be preferable to avoid any military action, occupation, nation building, etc., especially in Asia. While we certainly can't ignore Asia we can't ignore the other COCOM's to their detriment and it's impractical to shift "focus" and a preponderence of resources to Asia while SOUTHCOM, AFRICOM and CENTCOM continue to burn. Given the choice with limited resources, I'd rather have the option to defend our back yard than launch an expedition across the pond.
Mexico has its share of mess, but is it a mess that requires, or would helped by, the deployment of US military forces? That seems to me a very dubious proposition.
Certainly the Middle East and Africa have their share of violence and more, but again, unless we are expecting another venture into occupation and nation building, it's difficult to see how any of those situations require large scale American involvement.
The threat in Asia is less imminent, but does involve a real possibility of state on state warfare and does involve a near peer competitor, something not in any way imminent in Africa, the Middle East, or Mexico. Whether or not this requires the rhetorical flourish of a "Pivot to Asia" is debatable, but it does not seem something that can safely be ignored.
It's a relief that some in our national leadership have called out the "Pacific Pivot" as a very questionable strategic focus. If you look at a world map of countries with current conflicts and State Department travel warnings you will see a nice large grouping of trouble areas in the Middle East and Africa while the Pacific remains fairly peaceful with a conspicuous absence of the chaos so prevalent in Africa and the Middle East. Add the fact that were pretty much ignoring the narco-terror train wreck in our back yard that is Mexico then one has to ask WTF are we doing by focusing more on the Pacific? Lots of wishful thinking in such a strategy.