We're all right today, but what
about tomorrow? By Xenia
Dormandy
United States Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta was in Singapore for the
Shangri-La Dialogue this month, and once again the
opportunity was missed to focus on the real
security questions that matter.
Vice
President Joseph Biden has accused Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney of being rooted
in a "cold war mentality", yet the current US
government and its military, as well as those of
its Asian-Pacific partners, are guilty of focusing
far too much on the past and not looking at future
threats. With these more likely to manifest as
cyber-attacks, natural resource hoarding, and
economic strangulation as opposed to traditional
combat on the ground, the American response seems
at best incomplete and at worst anachronistic.
The debate about the US "pivot to Asia"
has been focused on the
wrong questions. It is
not about whether Europe will be left behind, or
China feel threatened, or even whether the Asian
nations feel the rebalancing is real and
long-term. The question that is missing is whether
the pivot meets America's future needs and
threats.
The US Defense Department is
making cuts of at least US$500 billion over the
next 10 years. This number might go up to $1.1
trillion in January 2013. Despite his rhetoric,
even in a Romney administration the military will
have to make some tough choices.
There are
four principal threats to US interests in the
Asia-Pacific region today: North Korea, terrorism,
escalation of a territorial dispute such as over
Taiwan, and the closing or narrowing of sea lanes.
While few, if any, believe a war is likely in the
region, only one of these threats - fighting on
the Korean peninsula - is likely to lead to a
traditional ground conflict. Any other would be
fought at sea or in the air, as Panetta's 2011
Air-Sea Battle operational concept supports. And
yet, despite this, the US has over 50,000 troops
based in Asian-Pacific countries, around 20,000 of
them are ground forces.
With its military
superiority, few nations would be foolish enough
to attack the US through traditional means.
Despite this, the "pivot" has focused on military
engagement - more ships, more training, and in
some cases more troops. The United States needs to
change the debate, particularly with Japan and
South Korea, to one that focuses on defense
capabilities rather than simply troop numbers.
While the US needs to reassure its allies, and
deter others, there are other ways of doing this
beyond raw numbers.
So, where in fact do
the threats lie? The first is in a weak economy,
an area that even senior US military leaders agree
is the greatest challenge to the US today. Yet
while China holds vast quantities of US debt, John
Boehner, the Speaker of the House, threatens
Barack Obama with default and Governor Romney
promises to raise defense spending as president. A
weak economy is America's greatest challenge and
yet partisan politics make talking about cuts in
traditional defense spending deadly.
Any
offensive against the US is likely to begin by
targeting computer networks and space-based
assets. The Flame virus, like that of Stuxnet last
year, is targeting Iran's nuclear program through
networks rather than the use of force. In recent
years, Russia has used cyber attacks to disrupt
its opponents, Georgia and Estonia. It is clear
that less time, attention and resources are being
invested in joint training and operations with the
South Korean and Japanese cyber-programs (to name
but two), than it is with their operational
troops.
Food, water, energy resources and
minerals are also increasingly being used as
offensive weapons in a nation's arsenal. Russia
has cut the flow of oil, and China rare earth
minerals, when spurned. Unlike military
instruments, the use of these products is not
necessarily a declaration of war with all the
costs that that incurs. Despite this, how much
high-level attention and political capital is
being spent on how to protect the region's energy
or food markets against actions by a single nation
state.
America is going to have to do more
- addressing both traditional and non-traditional
threats - with less. It is often not the military
that can take the lead with the latter. Attention
needs to move from the use of force to how new
alliances can be built to better counter threats
in unconventional areas. Downsizing the military,
particularly ground forces, would provide the US
with more time, money and other resources to
effectively address some of these. Treading more
quietly in the Asia-Pacific region, and
diversifying its outreach, could also antagonize
China less, make it easier for America's friends
to balance their positions between the two big
powers, and perhaps slow China's military
modernization process. Is America able to meet
the threats to its interests in the Asia-Pacific
today? Yes. But, more importantly, given these
tight economic times is it doing so
cost-effectively while also meeting the threats of
tomorrow? Unfortunately, the analysis would
suggest that unless America thinks a little more
unconventionally, the answer is no.
Xenia Dormandy is the senior
fellow of Chatham House's Programme on the United
States' International Role. She previously spent
four years in the US Government at the National
Security Council, State Department and Vice
President's Office working on South Asia,
non-proliferation and homeland security. She is
the author of a new report on US Defence
Partnerships in the Asia-Pacific Region.
(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online
(Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
