Re-ordering of priorities in new US defence strategy

 
President Obama and defence chiefs

The Obama administration has dusted off a new strategy for these cash-strapped times: "Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense."

The title sums it up really, for the word "priorities" hints at the cuts to come, but the promise of sustained leadership speaks of a superpower status that even this current White House does not have the courage to abandon.

For decades during the Cold War, the Pentagon doctrine was to maintain a "two war military". The idea was that the US could deal with two major adversaries in different places at the same time.

This was not just an abstract concept - spending decisions involving hundreds of billions of dollars were based on it. So, for example, the US marines maintained major task forces both in the Pacific and Atlantic, complete with dozens of ships and hundreds of aircraft in order to be able to carry out major amphibious operations in both places at the same time.

During the past 20 years the US has cut its forces and Pentagon people started bandying about concepts like a "one-and-a-half war military". That meant being able to fight one major and one lesser adversary at the same time.

Shift to Asia-Pacific

Why did they bother with these ideas?

The US, with its sense of global leadership and "manifest destiny", did not want to admit to its own people that it was scaling back its ambitions in order to save money.

Its strategists were also intensely aware that some enemies to US interests might take a crisis in one part of the world that sucked in the US military to be a green light to start trouble in another.

In today's world, with the Obama administration looking to save anything up to $1tn on defence between now and 2020, there is a new and even more tortured formulation.

Today's paper says, "even when US forces are committed to a large-scale operation in one region, they will be capable of denying the objectives of - or imposing unacceptable costs on - an opportunistic aggressor in a second region".

It is not a two war military, but a war in one place and bit of a nuisance elsewhere military.

As to the geographic and spending impact of this, the paper is clearer. The US is re-ordering its strategic priorities: "We will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region".

Europe, the Pentagon says, is better able to look after its own business now, so American commitments in this part of the world are, "evolving".

This is a polite way of saying what Robert Gates, the previous defence secretary said more baldly, that having seen the paltry defence efforts that Europe is willing to make, its time for the US to drawdown.

Subtlety of language

In its new posture, the US will cut hundreds of thousands of soldiers and marines - precisely the people who have done the lion's share of the bleeding in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US will seek other means to deal with such missions, says the document, and, "US forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations".

Here too though the administration is trying to have things two ways. President Barack Obama always wanted to end the Iraq war. For a while he tried to win in Afghanistan, but now wants out of there too.

However the underlying message about US willingness to take on terrorist or non-state groups is still strong.

The Obama administration does not choose the same language about pre-emptive military action that President George W Bush's National Security Strategy espoused, it expresses a similar idea in a more subtle way: "The United States will continue to take an active approach to countering these threats."

We know this means drone strikes in Yemen or killing Osama Bin Laden in a raid unauthorised by the Pakistani government.

Here too then, the message seems to be that America will pursue similar objectives, but try to achieve them at a lesser cost in lives and treasure.

The proof or otherwise of this approach will be seen in whether the likes of Iran, North Korea, or even China act more boldly than they would have done in time when the US felt more bullish about its defence.

 
Mark Urban Article written by Mark Urban Mark Urban Diplomatic and defence editor, BBC Newsnight

Does Nato have the political will to face up to Russia?

Events in Ukraine involving Russia appear to throw a lifeline to Nato, but do its members have the political will to stand up to the Kremlin?

Read full article

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • Comment number 54.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 53.

    Great piece. The key passage seems to be: "The US will seek other means to deal with such missions, says the document, and, "US forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations".

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 52.

    @Wayne Johnson

    "No offense to Europe, but most Americans are tired of defending those countries when all we get is criticism from them."

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but America needs Europe & Australia, not the other way around. Europe is a stop-over and staging area for America's booty ventures in the Middle East. Australia has a geostrategic location next to Indonesia's oil and shipping lanes.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 51.

    The United States has left a trail of blood and body parts wherever it has participated -both covertly and directly- in pursuit of its geostrategic interests....AHEM, I meant in its quest to "spread democracy and freedom". I'm sure people in places devastated by American foreign policy, from Guatemala to East Timor, will be pretty dry-eyed about America's waning empire in the coming decades.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 50.

    NATO will only survive if the US steps back and makes her European allies realise that their defence must be self sufficient. Nations like Germany, Spain and Italy really should do better. UK and France spend a lot on defence but get nowhere. In our defence I say: Europe experienced devastation through two world wars while US living standards soared. Europe knows total war, USA does not.

 

Comments 5 of 54

 

Features

  • HandshakeKiss and make up

    A marriage counsellor on healing the referendum hurt


  • Pellet of plutoniumRed alert

    The scary element that helped save the crew of Apollo 13


  • Burnt section of the Umayyad Mosque in the old city of AleppoBefore and after

    Satellite images reveal Syria's heritage trashed by war


  • Woman on the phone in office10 Things

    The most efficient break is 17 minutes, and more nuggets


  • Amir TaakiDark market

    The bitcoin wallet with controversial users


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.