One year ago, the White House and the Department of Defense announced a change in emphasis for U.S. national security thinking from a strategy focused on stability and counterinsurgency operations in the Greater Middle East to one more concerned with East Asia and the Pacific region. Some observers argue that future constraints on defense spending will make such a shift unaffordable. On the contrary, a good dose of fiscal austerity may be just what the department needs to firm up its new strategy and undertake the force changes that will be needed to align with it.
The Budget Control Act of 2011 called for significant reductions to federal spending, including funding for national defense, between 2013 and 2021. Under that law, the total budget for national defense was set to shrink abruptly on January 2, 2013. The American Taxpayer Relief Act that Congress passed on New Year’s Day pushed the implementation of the cutback to March 27, 2013 and trimmed the size of the reduction required in FY 2013, but did not repeal the BCA. Unless the earlier law is overturned, the non-war defense budget will fall by a bit more than six percent from its planned level in FY 2013 and by about ten percent from previously planned levels each year between FY 2014 and FY 2021.
The mandated cutbacks will require the Department of Defense to cut the size of the force. But with smart choices, leaders can refashion a force that is both highly capable and better suited to the new strategic focus.
In the future, a war unfolding in the Asia-Pacific region would be fought largely at sea and in the air. Future military missions thus require relatively more Navy and Air Force and less Army than the boots-on-the-ground wars of the past decade. Yet the budget plan the Department of Defense sent to Congress last year reflects only a tiny shift in resources away from the Army and into the sea and air services. The coming budget changes offer an opportunity to do more to align the budget—and thereby the forces—with the strategy.
The Army already plans to shed eight of its 45 active-duty combat brigades. To reinforce the new strategic focus, the Army should drop to about 26 active-duty brigades and remove most of its permanent presence from Europe, while retaining a small force on the Korean Peninsula.The smaller Army is in keeping with the intent of national leaders to avoid future involvement in large, drawn-out stability operations, counterinsurgency operations, and nation-building efforts. To guard against strategic surprise and ensure that the Army can respond resiliently in the event the United States finds itself in such operations despite the strategy, the Department of Defense could retain most of today’s Army National Guard and Reserve and supplement their training time.
The Air Force currently plans to eliminate six of its 60 squadrons of fighter and attack planes. Yet for the types of operations the Department of Defense envisions in the future, the bases those planes need to operate from may be under attack or absent. A sensible plan for the Air Force is to drop another eight tactical squadrons, retaining about 950 fighter and attack planes in 46 squadrons. The service could then make smaller cutbacks to the airlift, air refueling, and surveillance fleets that would provide important support during a major war in an access-challenged environment. The resulting land-based tactical fleet would keep more than enough capability to provide air support to the smaller Army in a major war where land basing is not under serious challenge.
With the money freed up by cuts to the Army and to land-based tactical air assets, the Department of Defense would have plenty of money to fund its current plans for the Navy and Marine Corps, despite the ten-percent budget cuts to the department overall.The resulting military would be better suited to the missions the nation’s leaders want to emphasize in the future. It would also still be the most capable, best equipped, and best trained armed force on the planet.
Cindy Williams is a Principal Research Scientist of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). She is co-author, with Gordon Adams, of Buying National Security: How America Plans and Pays for its Global Role and Safety at Home (Routledge 2010).
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Kim’s Uncle
It is glaring to see that sino nazi state has only one ally in the DPRK while in Asia and the Pacific the US has allies like S. Korea, Japan, PI, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, Australia, NZ not to mention India n Indonesia? LOL. Little sino nazis are alone in the world! Why no one wants to be an ally of the PRC?
Luke Nguyen
Welcome back America!
Rogelio Rodriguez
Oh…and you are saying that the seas of Asia are one peaceful pond are you? Dont you see that China is subtly shoving all the other Asian nations around? You see this in the claims that China is making against islands that very, very obviously belong to Japan, the Philippines, and the other Southeast nations. It is beginning to throw its weight around by lawlessly occupying territories that were never theirs.
History is fraught with examples of countries becoming bullies once they have acquired some degree of prosperity and grown "strong". They become bullies in other words. I am not defending the US as they have their faults, but so far of the "hegemonistic" states that have sprung up over the centuries, they have shown that they have no intention to invade other countries. In the first and second world wars, the United States would not have entered the melee if it werent for the pleas of the Allies for help. They did not join the war because they wanted to have a piece of Germany, or Italy or Japan? In the case of Japan, where the US was responsible for most of the victory, their first priority was to assist Japan in in the post-war period and towards becoming self-sufficient and independent as soon as possible. They could have been gloating victors and have the Japanese suffer if they had wanted but they did not do that, not because of a sense of righteousness (the american people may feel that way) but out of (the policy makers) hard common sense that it would be better to have a strong, prosperous and friendly Japan that a rearmed enemy. Doesn't that make perfect sense to all of you? In the 90's (and again ten years after that) people were saying they have invaded Iraq because they wanted the oil. But the Americans (and the Europeans) have left and Iraq is independent now. In fact they Iraqis are killing each other such that their are probably more people dead from their own car bombs and suicide bombers than from the US and the Allies attacks in the war. Yes Americans and the Europeans have contracts for oil and gas projects but these are business dealings and yes the Iraqis have contracts with those who have not taken part in the gulf wars, too like Russia and China.
Vietnam war is touted as glaring proof of US hegemonistic intentions but I think that was not theie intent in the first place. The intent was to put a stop to expanding communist takeovers. And by the way when they left Vietnam, the Vietnamese had all the communism that they desired and more than a decade ago have decided that they were no good and have reverted back to capitalism (i suppose, combined with a tinge of socialism). This proves that the Americans were right in the first place in that region of the world.
The Middle Eastern people will kill each other, regardless of the presence of non-presence of western countries in the area. These will only stop unless they wake up to the fact that religion can not be a valid guide for governance because religious ethics and principles will always be non-objective and will always be seen differently by different people. People should never see it as good and valid for one to kill another because he/she doesn't comply with my religion. I don't think a righteous God will want one person to kill another for any reason. In other words, the middle east will always be a cauldron of murder and massacre unless people wake up to the fact that they have to root out all extremism in whatever form they may come. The people in the western countries have woken up to this fact in the middle ages when protestants were massacreing catholics and vice-versa and have decided that religion has no place in politics and governance. It took hundreds of years to see this. I hope the Middle Eastern people will not have to wait another 500 years (and millions of deaths) before this reality sinks in.
Now back to the American influence in the world stage. Every age that the world has been through, their has been one power that has kept the peace. The romans during the roman empire and the US in the current age. During the period when the powers were being contested between the European powers, the British, French, Spanish and Portuguese, their were incessant wars that spring up every few years between the powers. The period from the second world war until today, a period of more than 70 years, has been the longest period when their were no widespread wars. This is in a large degree, owed to the fact that the US and the western countries has led in the creation of international agreements that has kept the peace. It is not a peace dictated by US self-interest alone but the realisation that US self-interest has to be balanced with the interest of each and every other country. That a set of rules have to be observed by all countries guaranteed by treaties and agreements that everyone has to follow at all times. Failure to do so would probably lead to sanctions and the like. But this is infinitely better that having all countries behave as a law to themselves which would lead to a free for all. In the nuclear age, this is a status that nobody can afford to be at.
Yes, the US may have a definite advantage in the economic status quo, but then again playing by these rules have obviously benefited not only the US but such non-world power states such as Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea etc. and also such strong states as Germany, France, Italy and even communist and former communist states such as Russia and China. The only non-players that are collections sanctions and prohibitions are those states that refuse to play by the rules of the game such as North Korea and Iran. But then again, they won't be invaded until they exceed the rules of brinkmanship and only after much warning and only as a last resort.
I hope the things i have said have enlightened and not confused. Thanks.
ACT
except that the U.S has never played by its own rules…the PRC is merely following its example.
angelus512
Great post man. Pretty much sums it up.
Yes those talking about Imperialist US have no appreciation for what a real imperialist is. They come, take…and STAY.
Britain was an imperialist although a lot can be said for Britain's largely positive impact after they withdrew anyways. HK is certainly thankful for clearly being far more international and civilized than the mainland which they dub "locusts" and for good reason.
Lung Sha Shou
The mad dog Be Way speaks of morality and ethics.
Whilst referring to a nation state as a "rapid" (sic) mad dog.
morality and ethics is largely absent from the illegitimate rulers of China whose recent behaviour, ESP in the SCS would put any imperialist to shame.
Be Way's speaking of morality and ethics is about as meaningless as Chinese Justice or rule of law – the courts are subordinate to the party and corruption is rife.
Yet another hypocritical China apologist and indoctrinated intellectual lightweight.
Wise Guy
Well said! This mad dog goes around the world to shit and leave the shit behind for someone to clean, yet trying to justify and made it sounds like a hero by saying you need my shit! lol
MYK
The only countries that didn't want the US pivot was DPRK and China. Otherwise, everyone else in Asia welcomed the US back into Asia!
I believe the huge number of anti-ship missiles ordered by ASEAN countries from the United States speakd for itself!