Better use of the U.S. Air Force is the most cost-effective and flexible approach to boosting the American presence in the Asia-Pacific.
The November 15 announcement by U.S. President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard that 2,500 American Marines would be stationed at Robertson Barracks near Darwin wasn’t a surprise to many defense and foreign policy analysts. Signals of a change in the Obama administration’s Asia-Pacific policy have been evident for some time.
They began with the Department of Defense’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, which suggested that the United States was preparing for a strategic shift. The 2011 National Military Strategy, the Department’s strategy document, made the administration’s shift clear when it said, “The Nation’s strategic priorities and interests will increasingly emanate from the Asia-Pacific region.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent article in Foreign Policy, meanwhile, made the president’s “pivot” abundantly clear. For those who had any lingering doubts, last week’s announcement should clarify where U.S. foreign policy will focus in coming years.
Admittedly, the shift is long overdue and would have occurred much sooner had the events of 9/11 and the ensuing global “War on Terror” not occurred. But, with the war in Iraq over and the war in Afghanistan winding down, it’s finally possible for the United States to focus where it has long thought its long-term interest lie. There is, however, one question that remains unanswered: Can the United States afford a buildup in the Asia-Pacific?
Given the United States’ current financial woes and the insatiable appetite of the American people for entitlement and welfare spending, there’s good reason to question “the how” of a greater focus on the Asia-Pacific. Defense spending is already taking a 10 percent cut over the next decade, and with the congressional Super Committee failing to reach an agreement to cut $1.2 trillion from the federal deficit, sequestration will ensure that defense spending declines by 20 percent between 2012 and 2021. This makes a buildup in the region, at least on paper, appear difficult.
What makes affording a shift to the region particularly difficult is the fact that the Asia-Pacific’s distances make operating in the region much more expensive than operating in the West. By contrast, Europe is a rather compact continent where the distance between Washington, DC, and Berlin is closer to half that of Los Angeles to Beijing. To make matters more challenging, existing U.S. bases in Japan and Korea, for example, are among the United States’ most expensive—even with significant financial support from the host nation. And to make matters even more difficult, in some cases, local populations no longer support a permanent American presence.
These challenges impose a difficult set of requirements on a new U.S. strategy for the Asia-Pacific. Such a strategy should demonstrate that it relies on U.S. assets best able to overcome the challenges of distance; it must prove cost effective; and it is sensitive to the domestic and strategic position of partner nations. One approach is particularly well suited to overcoming these challenges.
Airpower diplomacy, also known as building partnerships by the U.S. Air Force, offers some distinct advantages over any alternatives. Best thought of as the non-kinetic application of air, space, and cyber power, airpower diplomacy is a form of soft power that’s useful in strengthening existing relationships and developing new ones—while protecting American interests. The U.S. Air Force has successfully employed airpower diplomacy in one iteration or another for more than six decades. Its strengths are in three distinct areas.
First, airpower, broadly speaking, is able to overcome the distances that make the Asia-Pacific such a challenging region. As the single largest feature on the earth’s surface, the Pacific Ocean makes it difficult for the United States to respond quickly with men and material to unexpected events in the region. With airpower, there’s no place on earth that the United States can’t reach in less than 24 hours.
However, aircraft must land, which is why building partnerships—of mutual interests—with countries in the region is a critical component of airpower diplomacy. For many nations in the Asia-Pacific, walking a careful line between China and the United States is the unenviable position in which they find themselves. As the most advanced air, space, and cyber force in the world, the U.S. Air Force is a desirable partner for many countries. This provides a natural advantage for the United States. However, ensuring that the U.S. doesn’t overplay its hand is important if airpower diplomacy is to succeed.
Second, airpower diplomacy is a cost-effective alternative to the use of force. Since it’s a concept that focuses on the application of soft power, airpower diplomacy is far more than just American aircraft sitting on the ramps of foreign airfields. It builds partnerships through economic ties, training and support of local forces, humanitarian relief, joint operations, and much more. For example, Fifth Air Force, based at Yokota Air Force Base in Japan, has provided assistance to victims of floods, typhoons, volcanoes, and earthquakes on numerous occasions in recent years. The Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami (2004), Burma cyclone (2008), Indonesian earthquake (2009), and the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami (2011) are some examples of where airpower diplomacy played a leading role in the United States’ response to natural disasters. In the case of the Indian Ocean and Tohoku earthquakes and tsunamis, a strong American response led to improved relations between the United States and Indonesia in the first case and the United States and Japan in the second. This was airpower diplomacy at work.
An often overlooked example of airpower diplomacy is the U.S. Air Force’s Inter-American Air Forces Academy (IAAFA) at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. There, students from across Latin America attend courses ranging from aircraft maintenance to professional leadership. The school’s broader objective is to build a community of airmen with the skills to lead capable air forces in their home countries—making cooperation with the United States more likely.
In these and many other instances, airpower diplomacy acts as a cost-effective way for the United States to build partnerships with nations that share common interests. And, by strengthening relationships, the United States is less likely to find itself in a costly conflict with what could have been a partner.
Third, airpower and airpower diplomacy don’t require permanent large footprint bases that are both expensive for the United States and a political irritant for many governments in the region. With the U.S. pivoting toward the Asia-Pacific, a growth in the number of American main-operating bases in the region would be expected. Airpower diplomacy, however, focuses on the use of joint operations, short-term deployments, and other temporary measures, enabling the United States to maintain a regional presence—demonstrating commitment—while eliminating concerns of an American occupation.
Flexible operations and arrangements also have the added benefit of proving to be less of a stressor in the host nation’s relationship with China, which is becoming increasingly important for every nation in the region. The United States’ attempt to conduct what Secretary of State Clinton calls “forward deployed diplomacy,” a strategy in which American airmen operate with their host nation counterparts at bases owned and operated by the host nation, may prove a far superior option to one resembling Cold War NATO where up to several hundred thousand Americans were stationed in Western Europe.
With its focus on a wide range of soft power tools, airpower diplomacy is well suited to serve a central role in American foreign policy in the Asia-Pacific. Simply put, no other U.S. military capability provides the speed and flexibility of airpower.
As defense and foreign policy officials in the Obama administration refine the president’s regional strategy, they may want to give airpower diplomacy and its mix of diplomatic tools significant consideration. After all, no other approach is as cost effective, culturally sensitive, and responsive to the requirements of a complex and changing region.
Dr. Adam B. Lowther is a member of the faculty at the U.S Air Force's Air University. The views expressed are those of the author.
Photo Credit: U.S. Pacific Command
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
ari
Adam Lowther overlooks the point that China can mass produced missiles and have the mainland bristling with missiles that can easily torch the American airbases in neighbouring unfriendly countries and any American warplanes attacking targets on Chinese territory. Beyond also taking out these unfriendly countries with their larger missiles, Beijing can also target America in the event of American hostilities. American will be burnt while its unfriendly and unrestrained allies will be invaded, devastated, and annexed as Chinese territory to prevent any scoundrel politician in future aligning it with Washington again. It is so easy to forget the wall has two sides when writing such a U.S. bias piece.
Makes Sense
If anyone still questions why countries in the region are nervious and asking for US support they should read the above entry. These CCP friendly bloggers can’t seem to make up their minds about whether China is peaceful or, as he recommends, “American will be burnt while its unfriendly and unrestrained allies will be invaded, devastated, and annexed as Chinese territory….” You would almost have to look back to Nazi Germany to see earlier examples of this type of rhetoric.” This is the language of an adolescent boy with a hand gernade.
a_canadian_observer
@Makes Sense: Agreed! I only want to add: this time it’s going to me much worse because the Nazis did 2 things that the CCP will never have the courage to do: 1. declare war straightforwardly, and 2. document every aspect of their work.
Evolution
Is this the same lunatic who wrote on why Iran should have the bomb? The Diplomat’s editorial staff must have been away on Thanksgiving holiday. Lucky “faculty member”!
Learn to Read
Looked up the article you mentioned. He says,”With Iran having notified the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency that it is now enriching its stockpile of uranium to a higher level, we should admit that Washington’s approach to countering the Islamic Republic is leading nowhere. What’s needed, however, may be less of a change of plan than a change in how we view the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.” Not so sure that qualifies as supporting a nuclear Iran as much as it condemns the Bush and Obama administrations’ responses to Irans provocations and advocates mmaking the best of a weak US response.
Makes Sense
It is odd to me that China has become so belligerent in recent years that this type of strategy has become necessary. If China had simply shown respect for open-seas and free markets in the region, no country would have considered allowing US war planes to base in their countries. As it is, they are welcoming them. Now the question is whether the US has the will to place aircraft in the Pacific. If they do not, I worry that China will not be deterred, that it will over reach and that the US may be pulled into a hot war in a few years.
John Chan
@Makes Sense,
It is odd to me too and totally does not make sense at all for someone coming out of blue and right away starting to basing China baselessly. It is amazing someone could demand total submission from China shamelessly like an old day imperial colonist like you.
Ignorance is so prevalent here; there are tens of hundreds of US jet fighters and bombers in Asian to harass a peaceful nation China. Yet this blogger said there is none, ignorant blogger like this one makes bellicose comments relentlessly, no wonder the world is not safe.
a_canadian_observer
@John Chan: One only needs to observe the language, behavior and attitude of CCP bloggers to draw a conclusion for his/herself. This is easy.
Maybe
“airpower, broadly speaking, is able to overcome the distances that make the Asia-Pacific such a challenging region.”
Not all airpower is able to do so. If you station F-35s in Darwin (or even Guam), nobody in the region will care, least of all the Chinese. Get yourself some real bombers instead of dinosaurs from the 1950s and 1980s, and people might take notice.
JUSTSAYNO
Why does the U.S. Need airpower diplomacy? Because the defense lobbyists want to continue the Military Industrial Complex at the expense of tax payers. When the first cold war vs the Russians was over, the defense budget was cut by over 35% across the board. Today Pentagon and the defense establishments are already screaming with a proposed 20% cut. With the US economy in the gutters and the “super committee” not coming up with a solution to slash the budget, it’s only a matter of time before defense contractors see their cash cow the US government drying up. Exaggerating China’s threat is the only way to save the defense industry’s way of living. The irony is that the US will be borrowing money from China to defend itself against China. Of course, the defense contractors and the military establishment don’t care about any of it, they just want to get paid.
Suvorov
US Federal Budget $3.5 trillion: DoD baseline budget $550 billion or 20% of the federal budget, Entitlement and welfare spending $1.8 trillion or 60%.
If you really want to cut spending, tell the welfare queens to get a job, keep their pants on (stop having out of wedlock kids), and take responsibility for their lives. When it comes to what the federal government should stop doing, it should uphold the constitutionally prescribed mandate to provide for the common defense, and eliminate spending that is extraconstitutional such as entitlement and welfare spending (See Article I, Section 8).
LY Fong
@Reason: If you think the Qing was a better government than the CCP, see Jackie Chan’s recent film 1911. The Empress Dowager finally did abdicate. Then see The Last Emperor again and read the book about Puyi. Also, there must be a reason that that mediocre German philosopher’s name is better-known in Third World countries (like Frantz Fanon) which finally achieved independence from European colonization after horrendous liberation struggles. After all, he was living in London during the height of British imperialism when children worked in factories.
How would the KMT have been a better government since 1949 if they had no rural base with the majority of Chinese peasants? CKS was indeed lucky to have US naval ships to carry him, his followers and a lot of money and art works to Formosa where they massacred the Taiwanese on Feb. 22, 1950. What if the KMT and CCP had managed the United Front, instead of the 1927 KMT massacre of CCP members in Shanghai? Learn from history.
Reason
@LY Fong
HAHAHA
Typical CCP supporter… gets their historical knowledge from films and Wikipedia.
Dude… my knowledge comes from books. I don’t need to watch a Jackie Chan movie to update my knowledge of the Qing Dynasty.
I never said the Qing was a better government – I said at least they had value system, albeit those values were out of date and despotic…
The CCP has no values other than to maintain power at any cost
John Chan
@Reason,
Broad stroke over values and ideas not to your liking as no values is intolerance, ignorant, bigotry and dictatorial. Definitely not democratic and violating human rights.
Matt
Aussies will supply that. The US Marines, the F-35 B will be hidden as the UK did during the cold war. Not even 500, not even 5%
Giao Chi
China CCP’s Coercive diplomacy has definitely isolated itself on the World’s stage. Along with China, North Korea and Iran are also using the same Coercive diplomacy to throw their weight around (and all ended up with being in the isolation).
The US’ current airpower diplomacy in Asia-Pacific Rim will be a very effective policy, especially with all the welcome supports it’s received from the countries in the region.
China’s CCP will never be ready to lead anyone, until when it has matured enough to understand with the name “China towns” around the World, this does not mean all those towns are belonging to China. The same basic lessons would apply to the South China Sea and East China Sea.
a_canadian_observer
@Giao Chi: I can see that Iran will turn to democracy not so long from now, then it will just be china and NK, and possibly Pakistan (but noone can be sure where this state will stand).
I disagree with you about china. china is now very strong and capable of standing on its on feet. The world needs to pay special attention to china.
John Chan
@Giao Chi,
Don’t be silly that airpower diplomacy has any meaningful power presence that will have significance in diplomatic front; only surface warships have such effect, due to their visibility in long period of time. Aeroplanes, missiles, and submarines fall in the same category, they are killing machines, not power projection tools.
China carries out non-interference policy, it treats all nations equal. Only predatory imperialist USA is bossing around to harass hapless nations. You have the weirdest logic ever appeared in here by linking China Town to the South China Sea. Diaoyu Island belongs to China, Japan should let RyuKyu Kingdom independent, Philippines and Vietnam are better get out of those China’s islands inside the nine-dotted line in SCS before being evicted, and Taiwan is an integral part of China.
lifenotdream
Keep dreaming ultil you wake up and realize
Diaoyu Island belongs to Japan, China should let Taiwan independent, China are better get out of those Philippines and Vietnam islands , and RyuKyu Kingdom is an integral part of Japan.
Sher
It is funny to see that the author ascribes America’s financial woes to “the American people for entitlement and welfare spending.” I did not know we had experts still believing in this. He makes another funny remark when he optimistically prophecies that the wars in the Middle East are winding down and the US might comfortably return to Asia. Obama’s new image of East Asia as a militarized and fractured region notwithstanding, Middle Eastern woe will not easily let the US prey upon other nations and regions. Even the US cuts down on all welfare spending, they will unable to militarize East Asia as strongly as they did it in the Middle East ten years ago because the US is already on its way to the trash bin of failed nations. Better China and other reasonable power to say the US to get out of their own turf.
yang zi
hmm.., very impressive, air power diplomacy, why not, gunboat diplomacy is very successful. next step, is space power diplomacy, the gliding space ship loaded with weapons are very good incentives for diplomacy to succeed.
Reason
@Yangi Zi
The CCP uses coercive measures on its people and territories all the time. Why does it lock up anyone who happens to disagree with it? Or keep the frontiers of its empire locked down in a police state, even after 60 years of occupation?
It’s because the CCP uses coercive diplomacy all the time. That’s all it knows. It knows no other way
The CCP gives with one hand and threatens to take away everything with the other by brutal force.
“Here citizen of China, have television, karaoke, internet, shops full of western consumer items and a car – but… DO NOT question the CCP’s right to be the judge of what’s right or wrong, good or evil.
If you do, the CCP will take away EVERYTHING you own, destroy your life, your families life and their prospects.
This is worse than any “Gunboat” diplomacy this is mental terrorism on a grand scale against the very people they should be protecting.
Yang zi
@Reason, I totally agree with you. CCP’s main concern is its power, it will be thrown out by Chinese people soon. By the same reason, whoever plays gunboat diplomacy or air power diplomacy, will be thrown out by the world. Right?
Reason
@Yang Zi
NO…..
Nations have been coercing other nations since dot. So, phasing out Gunboat diplomacy isn’t going to happen anytime soon – The British didn’t invent it and the US certainly wont end it. This is the way of things until we all become Buddhists. (Om Mani Padme Hum!)
Nations of strength will always try to impose influence on nations of weakness… This is Cesar Millan theory of IR- weakness gives way to strength. http://www.chimericawar.org/cesar_millan_and_ir.html
What is repugnant is that the CCP does this to its own kind in order to gain and sustain power and not only that- it then gets the very people that it is subjugating to thank them for their repression.
In reality… the CCP is no different to the xenophobic Qing government – their actions are good at suppressing the greater, ignorant masses of China but are a disaster on the international stage.
I can tell you now… as much as I hate the CCP and you know I hate them… – the Chinese people aint gonna kick them out any time soon or willingly. The CCP has survived the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and his hanging on by the seat of its pants in this new Great Leap Forward in Technology and information.
The CCP will blunder China into a cataclysmic conflict it can’t win and will be brought down and destroyed by the Allied nations of Asia – The desperate CCP will call it “The new war against imperialism” and will gladly extinguish millions of Chinese lives in order to save their own skins in a phony war against imagined imperialism.
Only then, as oft times before will the Chinese people wake up from their CCP nightmare and realize how a small group of Chinese elites have been exploiting them under the name of a mediocre German philosopher….
Chinese society and culture has been hijacked – at least the Qing had some values, even if they were out of date… the CCP has none and will extol anything they think will keep them in power
JUSTSAYNO
“It’s because the CCP uses coercive diplomacy all the time. That’s all it knows. It knows no other way”
It’s time to put down the koolaid. The whole point of diplomacy is to leverage non-military assets and promote self-interest. Any nation with any reasonable power uses coercive diplomacy, weak nations who are not in the position to properly leverage political assets can only dream about forcing other nations into their bidding.
That said, compared to the US government the Chinese government is far more pragmatic in its diplomacy. Despite Western media fanning the conflicts between China and its neighbors, China is Japan and Korea’s largest importer of goods as well as the largest trading partner for most other Asian nations. If China were truly nationalistic it would have banned all goods from China and S.Korea. If China only understands power, it would spend at least as much percentage of GDP wise, as the US on its military. That is clearly not the case here.
If anything China’s diplomacy combines the elements of both the carrot and the stick. China promises to give the Chinese market, which it largely delivers to its Asian neighbors, while the same time it’s building a large military presence mostly designed to challenge US’ hegemony. China’s mistake over the last few years was to over emphasize its military posturing, however it should be clear to all but the stupid that China understands far more than just the use of force. The US on the other hand relies far more on military force to carry out its diplomatic goals, often with disastrous results.
a_canadian_observer
@JUSTSAYNO: Is it diplomacy “with chinese characteristic” or “shut up” diplomacy, you’re talking about? :)