NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED IN THE PENTAGON
06 02 2012
The New Defence Doctrine and Strategy of the USA is not much different from the old
The USA’s defence budget will be higher than it was at the end of Bush’s presidency. We know this because President Obama has said so. It is seen that the present understanding of defence and security conception will continue into the new period.
AS Obama has emphasised, in its new defence doctrine, the USA describes itself as the “greatest force of freedom and security in the world”. Given that the US armed forces are, naturally the best trained, led and equipped forces in the world, this approach may not be entirely without justification.
Starting the new year and a new defence strategy, the USA enjoys the comfort of both the occupation of Iraq and the leadership of Al Qaeda becoming history. For the USA, both the Iraq War and Al Qaeda are to a great extent closed files. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the USA has in the main transferred the security of these countries to local forces and authorities.
On the other hand, one of the most important steps of the USA after Bush was Libya. Over Libya the USA was in dialogue with its allies, the international community, countries of the region and Libyans. In the process that led to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, the USA managed through this approach to appear as the “bad cowboy”.
The USA was careful not to come to the fore during the Arab Spring. Washington was not conspicuous in any point during this process. The Arab Spring will continue in coming years. One can guess that the USA’s present approach will also continue. It is especially to be seen that the USA would rather remain in the background over Syria.
Following a decade of war, the USA is moving on to the next phase. Three years ago, the USA had 180,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today the number of troops deployed is about half of this. Among the USA2s priorities are the transfer of Afghanistan’s administration and security to Afghan authorities. 2015 is the date foreseen for transfer. However, the USA will almost certainly retain the bases is wants in Afghanistan, as it did in Iraq. In any case the number of US troops going home will increase. The USA plans to be more active in the Asia-Pacific region in the near future. It is also certain that the USA will not overlook the Middle East. However, the Asia-Pacific comes a step further. According to the USA, its national interests are linked inseparably with the Western Pacific, Eastern Asia, the Indian Ocean and Southern Asia. This belt contains new opportunities and challenges for the USA. The USA plans to be more active and influential in this region politically, diplomatically, militarily and in terms of trade.
For a while the USA has not mentioned the AfPak strategy which considered Afghanistan and Pakistan as one. This strategy had aimed at stabilising Afghanistan in order to hold on to Pakistan and keep it from falling into chaos. The USA might find developments in Afghanistan to be satisfactory. However the remainder of the process shows that one may expect any surprise in Pakistan.
Opposition to the USA is becoming increasingly widespread in Pakistan. Those who support the idea that the country should turn its back on western support and assistance are rising in numbers. Pakistan, which has received USD 20 billion in support from the USA since 2001 has consumed more than USD 60 billion worth of resources over the same period of time due to internal security threats arising from the Taleban, Al Qaeda and Afghanistan.
In the meanwhile, Pakistan’s rising foreign debt, 60 percent of the population living in absolute poverty and 34 percent unemployment is making Pakistan, which is already resting on a delicate balance, a riskier place. For this reason the UA might consider limiting or halting the nuclear capability of Pakistan, which according to US sources has between 90 and 110 warheads. Given the frequent references to the prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the USA, the “only Muslin nuclear power” Pakistan might come easily to mind.
In the coming period, overcoming economic difficulties will be the foremost priority for the USA. The USA knows that its economy allows for its worldwide power. The USA therefore hopes to take the financial sector out of the crisis and to support economic recovery. In the coming decade it will make USD 450 billion worth of spending cuts in its defence budget.
The USA’s defence expenditure will nevertheless continue to rise, despite the cuts. For as Obama has stated “In the decade following September the 11th, the USA’s defence budget has risen with extraordinary pace. It will continue to rise slowly in the coming decade. For the USA has global responsibilities arising from its leadership.”
Among the factors forcing Obama to be cautious and prepared is the fact that the USA can no longer revert to a policy of isolationism, turn its back to the world and close in on itself. Obama also thinks that there might be certain uncontrollable developments, such as Iran. For Obama, protecting himself and his nation from surprises is probably worth any price tag.
Should an Iran centred security issue one day arise, there will be reflections of this on Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Its effects might be felt on the Arabic Peninsula and in the Bay of Eden. Certain Gulf countries may be added to this list. Israel will take top place.
Many details of the USA’s new defence policy are yet to be announced. However, the possibility that Washington will take a surprising step out of line in the new period is low. In any case, fixed and mobile missile shield systems will form the backbone of US defence policy in the coming decade.
It would be logical and coherent to expect Washington to demand a reform of the UN and the UN Security Council in coming years. For the USA, it is not desirable for Brazil, India, Russia and China to form a pole in world politics. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation also involves some risks for the USA in its structure. For the USA, it seems very important to develop cooperation between South East Asian countries and to overcome Russia and China’s veto card in the UN Security Council.