Introductory Observations
United States President Obama on January 05,
2012 personally unveiled at the Pentagon the
Defence Strategic Review 2012 “Sustaining
United States Global Leadership: Priorities
for 21st Century Defined”.
President Obama personal appearance at the
Pentagon to unveil the Defence Strategic
Review underscored the Presidential imprint
that he desired to put on this Review and
the fact that before arriving at these
formulations, the President had immersed
himself in at least a dozen discussions with
the Pentagon and US military hierarchy
The US Defence Strategic Review 2012 should
therefore be viewed as a well-calibrated
strategic blueprint for the 21st
Century arrived after a perspective analysis
of the global strategic challenges that are
emerging to challenge US global leadership
and US military superiority.
This Review also needs to be viewed as a
United States ‘strategic declaratory policy’
that despite whatever steps are undertaken
by the United States to cut down its defence
expenditure and Forces Restructuring, it is
determined to sustain its global leadership
and military superiority even with revised
military nuances.
Analytically the main thrust appears to
focus on United States concerns to meet the
emerging strategic threats from China and
Iran both located at the opposite ends of
the Asian strategic spectrum. However, the
Review is not oblivious to other threats
that dominate the global strategic calculus.
This Paper intends to analyse the more
striking features of this Defence Strategic
Review 2012 at the macro-level as the nuts
and bolts of the implementation of the
Guidelines Defined’ need still to be worked
out as the US Defence Secretary has noted.
US Defence Strategic Review 2012: Why a
Mid-Term Review Now?
The United States as part of its regular
strategic and defence planning carries out
Quadrennial Defence Reviews with the last
one having taken place in 2010. The next
Quadrennial Review is slated for 2014. Why a
special Mid-Term Review now is the question
that comes to the fore at this stage?
The main factors that seem to have
determined the present Review can be
enumerated as follows: (1) China and Iran
figuring more prominently as ‘strategic
concerns’ in 2012 (2) Arising from the
foregoing is the rapidly changing strategic
environment in the Asia Pacific and the
Middle East (3)The US military withdrawal
from Iraq and appreciable measure of success
in Afghanistan permitting review of US
military postures (4) Imperatives of
reductions in US Defence Budget mandated by
the US Congress amounting to $ 487 billion
in the next ten years.
Officially acknowledged is the fact that the
United States is at a ‘strategic turning
point” in 2012 necessitating a revised US
strategic blue print. The Review outlines
the following strategic challenges that
necessitate this Review: (1) Rise of new
powers in Asia. This basically implies China
(2) Dramatic changes unfolding in Middle
East (3) Destabilizing behaviour of nations
like Iran and North Korea (4) Proliferation
of lethal weapons and materials (5) Violent
extremism as a continuing threat.
US Strategic Threat Concerns Analyzed
The underlying sub-text of the US strategic
threat concerns revolves around China and
Iran. China has made no efforts to hide its
strategic concerns to challenge the unipolar
domination of global power calculus by the
United States. China exploited the strategic
vacuum created in the last decade in Asia
Pacific arising from US military
distractions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States has belatedly embarked on
correcting the ensuing strategic imbalance
created in the Asia Pacific and has
signalled in this Review that it now intends
to do so more forcefully.
Iran has circumstantially emerged as a
regional power of consequence in the Middle
East despite United States and its European
allies efforts. Iran for all practical
purposes needs to be counted as a nuclear
weapons State however rudimentary its
nuclear weapons capability may be.
Both China and Iran have struck adversarial
strategic postures against the United States
and its regional allies and in global and
regional perceptions therefore tend to
diminish the US strategic superiority.
Analytically therefore, if the United States
has to ensure the credibility of its avowed
strategic goal of “Sustaining United States
Global leadership” in the 21st
Century, it has to neutralize the China and
Iran threats.
US Defence Strategic Review 3912: Some
Significant Strategic Choices and Shifts
Analyzing the statements of the US Defence
Secretary and other Defense officials what
appears at the apex of strategic choices is
that with significant cuts in US Marine
Corps and US Army active force levels, the
United States is dispensing with Force
Structures of fighting and winning two major
military conflicts simultaneously.
Recognizing that this may send wrong signal
worldwide the US Defence Secretary concluded
that the United States will retain the
capability to fight several conflicts at the
same time. Further emphasizing the point he
reminded that the United States would no
longer be fighting the threats that existed
during the Cold War era but configuring its
Forces to fight and win 21st
Century challenges.
The cuts in US Marines and US Army force
levels indicates that the United States will
no longer be involved in sustaining large
scale and long term stability operations
with US boots on the groun as in Iraq and
Afghanistan. But that does not translate
into wholesale reductions of the US Marine
and US Army force levels. What is being
reduced marginally is the active-duty
strengths.
United States future military strategies in
the future will be dependent on use of
militarily overwhelming power of US Air
Force, US Navy and US Special Forces.. Hence
these forces do not see any reductions but
may see enhanced investments.
In this direction the United States it needs
to be noted has already embarked on
perfecting “Sea-Air Battle Doctrines” to
replace its erstwhile NATO formulations of
“Land-Air Battle Doctrines”.
In the pursuance of the above strategy, it
appears that when it comes to the ‘boots on
the ground’ in any theatre of war, the
United States intends to rely on its
Regional Allies and forge and build new
strategic partnerships.
In terms of strategic shifts regionally, the
US Defence Review blueprint, in terms of
strategic priorities seem to be as under:
·
Asia Pacific will witness enhanced US
military presence, enhanced US power
projection capabilities and enhanced
deterrence postures
·
Middle East will witness US “placing premium
on maintaining its military presence and
capabilities in broader Middle East”.
·
Europe is likely to witness reduction of US
military forces and their relocation but not
a total denudation. It has been emphasized
that NATO would remain a “Nuclear Alliance”
as long as nuclear weapons exist worldwide.
US Defence Strategic Review 2012: Global
Implications
The moot question that arises in this
connection is that with even with the
proposed marginal cuts in force levels and
regional strategic shifts, has US global
leadership and military superiority been
dented in a manner that the United States
can no longer sustain these two major
strategic attributes”
Counting the five Major Powers, aligned to
the United States are Great Britain and
France besides other leading powers like
Germany, Japan and India in a growing
strategic partnership. None of these Powers
are therefore strategic threats to the
United Sates.
Coming to Russia, even with its strategic
resurgence, Russia is neither inclined nor
fully capable as yet to challenge US global
leadership as during the Cold War era.
China is the only major power which gives
indications with its strategic military
build-up and its strategic postures that it
intends to challenge US unipolar domination
of the world and contrive situations which
can force the United States to exit East
Asia more precisely.
Therefore in terms of global implications
arising for the United States from this
Strategic Defence Review there are hardly
any which significantly impact on US global
leadership and military superiority. The
strategic differential between the United
States and other Major Powers is
insurmountable by the latter.
US Defence Strategic Review 2012: Regional
Implications
The two regions where the implications seem
to be more pronounced arising from the US
Review are Asia Pacific and the Middle East
with obviously China and Iran in mind.
The United States has clearly spelt out in
this Review that it intends to enhance its
force levels, power projection capabilities
and deterrence capabilities in the Asia
Pacific. What is therefore likely to unfold
in the 21st Century is the
congealing of the strategic confrontation in
the Asia Pacific between the United States
and China. Even though an all-out armed
conflict is not visualized, a Cold War
template would be strategically in
operation. China can be expected to raise
the ante’ with its traditional brinkmanship
strategies especially in relation to the
South China Sea.
In the overall analysis, the cards are
stacked against China as I have always
maintained that “China has no natural allies
in the Asia Pacific other than North Korea
and Pakistan”
The United States on the other hand has
revived and infused new vigour in its
erstwhile security architecture in the Asia
Pacific besides making openings to Vietnam
and Myanmar.
In the Middle East while no enhancement of
military strengths has been asserted, the
United States has declared that its present
military force-levels will be maintained. It
must not be forgotten that in the Middle
East despite Turkey and Saudi Arabia
diluting their strategic relationship with
the United States, the European allies will
always be there to pick up the military
slack. Israel will remain the sheet anchor
of US military strength in the Middle East.
Overall in terms of regional implications
arising from this Review it can be stated
that revised military postures of the United
States in no way open chinks in the US armor
in these two critical regions.
What needs to be noted is that other
regional powers in the Asia Pacific and
Middle East will be severely impacted by any
confrontational turbulence breaking out
between the United States on one hand and
China and Iran on the other hand.
The million dollar question is whether the
United States formulation takes into account
a China-Iran strategic nexus coming into
play in a joint confrontation with the
United States? It cannot be overlooked that
China has used Iran as a counter-strategic
pressure point against the United States in
relation to the Asia Pacific and the Middle
East.
Concluding Observations
It would be erroneous for any strategic
analysis to conclude that with budgetary
cuts and marginal force reductions in force
levels, the United States status as a global
leader and enjoying overwhelming military
superiority stand s diminished. The United
States global power is definitely not on the
decline
China, though not officially, but through
its media has questioned how can America
sustain its global leadership with an
economy on the decline?
The answer lies in the fact that in the Asia
Pacific many nations are now flocking to the
US fold because of their China Threat
perceptions. China is in no position to
provide strategic insurance or economic
insurance to these countries as a US
military presence in these regions can.
Finally, it can be asserted the US Defence
Strategic Review has not overlooked the
emerging threats to US national security. In
the implementation of the new Strategic
Blueprint what United States has declared is
that it has no intentions of “hollowing-up”
of its military machine but configure and
fine-tune it to meet its major strategic
threats, while at the same time affecting
budgetary cuts which had become over-blown
due to its Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
No analytical reasons exist to suggest that
United States resolve to sustain its global
leadership and military superiority has
weakened.
No comments:
Post a Comment