Print This Post
13 January 2012, Gateway House

U.S. defence: Focus on China

The new U.S. defense strategy calls for less military spending, and a focus on Asia-Pacific with the strategic emphasis to counter China’s defense build-up as the focal point. This shift could drive the debate toward an aggressive new Cold War rhetoric against China, or accommodation driven by economic necessity.

post image

U.S. President Barak Obama’s new leaner, and possibly meaner, defense strategy will attempt to refocus the mammoth U.S. defense establishment from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from old Europe to the new Asia, while trimming both troops and machines over a decade.

Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” released by the U.S. Department of Defense on January 5, lays out the main reason for the cuts right upfront – budgetary constraints. All federal spending, including defense, must be cut under the Budget Control Act of 2011. It means at least $500 billion in cuts for the Pentagon over 10 years.

Even with less military spending, the U.S. defence budget still adds up to more than that of the next 10 countries combined. But the contraction, nonetheless, will have far-reaching implications for countries that have routinely relied on the U.S. to maintain order in the world. In other words, the free ride may get more complicated, possibly creating minor and major strategic holes, making space for unfriendly actors to move in.

The document – rather unsubtly – hones in on China as a potential adversary against which the U.S. should maintain its fighting prowess. It draws a line in the sand, as it were. The direct references to China as a country which “will continue to pursue asymmetric means to counter our power projection capabilities,” have so far met with a stony silence from Beijing, at least officially.

India is seen as a long-term partner in Asia and an anchor of stability. But this comes as American power is declining and China is rising. The realists in New Delhi must worry about the consequences of this equation.

The new guidelines, meant to be a blueprint for the U.S. forces in 2020, reflect a strategic turning point after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, which tested the U.S. military while exhausting their citizens’ patience for foreign adventures. The drain on the economy became unsustainable.

The idea behind the latest strategy is to do more with fewer funds, and with a greater dependence on technology. Nation-building, occupation and Cold War-era systems are definitely out while drones and cyber warfare techniques are in.

The document calls it “smart defense” where allies and partners pool, share and develop specialized capabilities. It will be low-cost and innovative with a smaller footprint, dependant more on military exercises and rotational presence of U.S. troops. It envisages a much smaller nuclear arsenal and a reduced role of nuclear weapons in the overall U.S. national security strategy.

The strategy document begins with the threat of terrorism, which will hang on the horizon for the foreseeable future, mainly in South Asia and the Middle East, but it is not the primary focus. While the U.S. will continue to monitor and act against non-state actors, its gaze will be on the arc stretching from the Western Pacific to East Asia, into the Indian Ocean and South Asia – because that is where the U.S. sees its security and economic interests becoming interlinked.

“While the U.S. military will continue to contribute to security globally, we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region” (italics in the original) because of the “evolving challenges and opportunities” in the area, the document says. The reorientation, although necessitated largely by budgetary problems, is mainly aimed at China’s military rise. It says that both the U.S. and China have “a strong stake” in peace in the region and in building a cooperative relationship. “However, the growth of China’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region,” it adds. And most agree that there is little clarity on China’s intentions.

The document assumes that China and Iran will use electronic and cyber warfare, mining, and cruise and ballistic missiles to block U.S. access, which will be countered by improved missile defenses, undersea capabilities and a new stealth bomber. It calls this “anti-access/area denial” challenges.

Some analysts have interpreted the new strategy as “containment” of China, which they say will likely backfire because it does not recognize Chinese territorial claims. They argue that China should be “accommodated” in the region rather than restricted. Stephen Harner, a contributor to Forbes, wrote: “I say that smaller states, like the Philippines or Vietnam or even Korea–formerly tributaries of China–should not be allowed to place the burden of defending their claims on the United States.” The debate between the “Panda huggers” and the “Panda muggers” is expected to heat up as details of U.S. counter-measures become clearer over time.

The new strategic emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region and particularly on countering China’s defense build-up may calm Indian nerves to a degree but New Delhi may also be asked to do more to maintain security. And given the upcoming presidential elections, politics will soon come into play. It could drive the debate toward an aggressive new Cold War rhetoric against China, or accommodation driven by economic necessity. India will have to closely follow and evolve its own strategies.

The Republican candidates running for president have already decried the proposed cuts. Retired army officers have said Obama’s strategy “guts” U.S. defense. The contractors whose war systems will be axed will soon be preparing scenarios, which need exactly the weapons they produce.  They will fight and resist the cuts through their Congressmen and senators who will pander to the American version of vote bank politics.

But even so, cutting weapon systems might be easier than downsizing the army. According to reports, the Pentagon plans to reduce the number of U.S. army troops from 570,000 to 490,00 and the Marines from about 200,000 to 175,000. The Air Force and Navy personnel would maintain their numbers because the new strategy focuses more on air and sea power.

Space is another area where the U.S. plans to ensure clean access. “Today, space systems and their supporting infrastructure face a range of threats that may degrade, disrupt or destroy assets. Accordingly, the Department of Defense will continue to work with domestic and international allies and partners and invest in advanced capabilities to defend its networks, operational capability, and resiliency in cyberspace and space,” the strategy document outlines.

The threats to the U.S. have not diminished in any significant manner; they have only become more complex. Consequently, the greatest challenge will be to find the “delicate” balance between resources and security needs. Indian policy makers and military strategists would do well to think long and hard about many of these issues.

Seema Sirohi is a Washington-based Journalist and Analyst.

This article was written exclusively for Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. You can find more exclusive features here.

TAGGED UNDER: , , , , , , , , ,