If the money is there. As yet, the administration hasn’t put its money where its mouth is: For example, last year Congress zeroed out funding for military construction to expand facilities in Guam. And in an era of trillion-dollar deficits, few in Washington believe that American voters will support greater defense spending if it means cuts to entitlement spending programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Project On Government Oversight, is a veteran military budget analyst. Asked whether the United States can put together enough money to fund a buildup in Asia, Wheeler says no. “It’s not going to happen,” he says. “It’s that simple. The military budget is going down.” The Pentagon, Wheeler says, cannot afford either more ships and planes or what some people believe is a quick-fix solution, namely, greater use of high-tech, remote-warfare drones, other unmanned vehicles, and long-range options. “It’s all too expensive,” he says.
Sometimes, it appears, administration officials make a little too much of the pivot. In August, Ashton Carter, the U.S. deputy secretary of defense, said in a speech in New York that “we will have a net increase of one aircraft carrier, four destroyers, three Zumwalt destroyers, ten Littoral Combat Ships, and two submarines in the Pacific in the coming years.” In October, Carter said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington that the United States is prepared to spend what it takes, and that other assets will be redirected from the Middle East. “With our allies and partners, I think you’ll see, we are, in fact, across the Asia-Pacific region able to invest to sustain peace and prosperity. In other words, we are not just talking the talk, we are walking the walk. And I’d ask if you don’t believe us, to just watch our steps over coming months and years, and you’ll see us implement the rebalance,” he said. “By 2020, we will have shifted 60 percent of our naval assets to the Pacific. … Naval assets that will be released from Afghanistan and the Middle East include surface combatants, amphibious ships, and, eventually, aircraft carriers.” But an independent study concluded that the United States already has nearly 54 percent of its fleet home-ported in Asia and the Pacific, and that Carter’s touted increase would only raise that number to 57 percent, not 60 percent.
Diplomacy, of course, is cheap. And a big part of the U.S. pivot will rely on military aid and support for partner countries in the region and strengthened alliances with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia. But plenty of big-ticket items are involved. According to the CRS study, the United States eliminated a planned cut in the number of aircraft carrier task forces, plans to expand the Navy’s purchases of Aegis-class destroyers and Littoral Combat Ships, build a 33-vessel flotilla for the Marines, and continue production of attack submarines, equipped with a new, high-tech cruise missile.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Mike China
The US says its pivot is not aimed at containing China. More forces are being put in Asia.In words it seeks to assure China but its very actions betray its hidden agenda: counter/contain China.
The Chinese aint dumb to fall for such soothing words. You never know. The island dispute withJapan is a golden opprortunity to create an incident where US forces could finally destroy the PLA from being a threat to US and not international security.However I believe the odds on this happening are one in a trillion unless the PLA initiated an attack on US forces.Bear in mnd the PLA will be devising ever improving weapons to counter the US pivot/missile shield/missille sentinel/llaser beam/killer missile,etc.The only guarantee against US unprovoked nuclear/conventional attack is for a strong PLA which can retaliate with ever increasing counter strike making such a US strike as remote as my 99 year old unlce being the first man to land on Mars.
Captain America
Well, John Chan, the three most imperialist forces today are; Islam, Russia, and…China. Islamists want to conquer the world under a muslim caliphate; Russia, under the execrable dictator Vladimir Putin want to recreate the Soviet empire, and China wants an 'East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere'.China is currently trading arms for oil & other natural resources in Africa, thus prolonging civil wars & human suffering, and is bullying its' neighbors in SE Asia so that it can steal their natural resources from their 200-mile economic zones. China also represses its Christians & Uigher muslims & Tibetan Buddhists. China also has a thriving human organs business, by which China executes many prisoners for minor offenses so that they can sell the organs. Chinses prisons are little more than slave labor gulags, from which the Chinese state profits handsomely.
Clint
How about canceling missile defense (it does not work, is expensive and takes up 40 ships):
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1115/Obama-Congress-should-push-NATO-missile-defense-program-off-fiscal-cliff
George Archers
Cheers to John Chan-
-guy knows his stuff well. No Kosher B.S. John writes well :^)
Notice not a word from the Pro-USA'ers about Lybia killings
Errol
Maybe because even pro-West people are not happy with the Libya killings. Also, did you notice that JC ignores questions regarding Beijing's questionable actions that he could not defend?