December 21, 2011
On November 16, 2011, President Obama announced that, beginning in 2012, the
The strongest came from China . Beijing accused the
President of escalating military tensions in the region, acting antagonistically,
and perpetuating a Cold War mentality. Many Europeans were concerned that
this step meant that the US
was “pivoting” to Asia , at their
expense. Some analysts in the US
worried that the US was
taking on new commitments when our defense budget was being scaled back
drastically because of our deficit problems, while others hoped that this would
be the beginning of a strong US
response to the rapid growth in Chinese military expenditures and a fundamental
rebalancing of US
presence in the world.
But while the deployment
does have some symbolic importance, there are at least five reasons why the
real implications of this step for global security are relatively minor, and
that there is little basis for some of the reactions in the US and around the world.
First, not counting the
forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan , the US
currently has about 150,000 troops, or about 10 percent of its military
personnel, permanently stationed around the globe – about one-third of these in
Asia . Moreover, it routinely deploys
about 100 ships outside the US ,
about half of them to the Pacific, including a carrier battle group permanently
stationed in Japan .
Adding 2,500 troops to the mix is hardly a game-changer, and not nearly as
significant as the current policy of moving 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam .
Second, despite the
apocalyptic statements of the Pentagon’s civilian and military leaders, the US will still
have ample funds to maintain a robust global presence even if projected levels
of defense spending are reduced by as much as $1 trillion over the next
decade. In real terms, such a reduction will return defense spending to
its 2007 levels and will still mean the US would still be spending above its
Cold War average and more than the next 17 nations in the world combined.
Third, because of the US involvement in Iraq
and Afghanistan over the
last decade and the attention focused on the Arab Spring, including the war in Libya , there is an incorrect perception that the
US has shifted its resources
away from the Pacific to the Middle East .
While the US may have
focused more on the Middle East , it has not
shifted any of its forces from the Pacific. For example, half of the $350
million F-22 stealth fighter planes, the Air Force’s fifth-generation fighter
and the most advanced tactical fighter in the world, stationed outside the
continental United States
are based in the Pacific. The first Global Hawk, the unmanned
long-distance surveillance aircraft, deployments were out of Guam .
A carrier battle group, about 30 Navy nuclear attack submarines, and 8
ballistic missile submarines are all based in the Pacific.
Fourth, the claim that
while US defense spending is
being drastically cut, China ’s
military spending is growing dramatically is overblown. While in nominal
terms Chinese military spending grew by 34 percent over the last five years, US
military spending grew by 21 percent over the same period, and, since China had
higher rates of inflation, the real difference was less than 2 percent a year
and the dollar gap actually widened – in 2006 China was spending $314 billion
less than the US, in 2010 it was $374 billion. Moreover, even
with that growth, China ’s
military budget is still less than one-third than that of the US .
Finally, much of China ’s
increase in the last five years had to go to increasing personnel benefits
because of improving Chinese standards of living.
Fifth, the concern among
European nations that as the US
pivots towards Asia they will be left in the
lurch is not true. This fear ignores the fact that even with the
deployment to Australia of 2500 Marines, the US still has more troops
permanently in Europe than Asia, that is, 80,000 as opposed to 50,000.
But since in
international politics, nations can and do act based on misguided perceptions,
supporters and critics of the Marine deployment to Australia must be careful not to
make misleading claims. When all is said and done, the global
implications of this step are comparatively minor, and should be treated as
such. However, in international politics, like many other endeavors,
perception can become reality. The Obama Administration trumpets this as
a significant step, calling it an expanded security presence, and the Chinese
acted as if the US had again
invaded North Korea .
But in the end, the American people, the Chinese, and the world will realize
sending 2,500 Marines to Australia
was not that significant.
Dr. Lawrence J. Korb is a Senior Fellow at American Progress. He is also a senior advisor to the Center for Defense Information and an adjunct professor at
No comments:
Post a Comment