Why U.S. Needs Airpower Diplomacy
Image Credit: U.S. Pacific Command

Why U.S. Needs Airpower Diplomacy


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.     

November 30, 2011 at 02:02

@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.

Makes Sense
November 28, 2011 at 23:52

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.

November 25, 2011 at 14:26

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.

November 25, 2011 at 02:00

@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.

November 24, 2011 at 18:25

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.

John Chan
November 24, 2011 at 02:36

@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.

Share your thoughts

Your Name
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment

Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief