OFFSHORE BALANCING IN THE USA MILITARY REFORM

Abstract

President Barack Obama has recently operated major changes in the US security strategy, which entails, inter alia, the fact that Europe must enhance its military capabilities and rethink its military investment policy. With a new USA Defence Strategy, Washington will not take sole responsibility to maintain international stability, and it will not stop at involving other state players, but will have the opportunity to opt for non-intervention, without being criticized and lose the strategic position of great power. The strategy requires a force that is agile, technological and capable of confronting global terrorists, maintaining at the same time the power to deter Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions and to counter China's growth in the Western Pacific. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

President Barack Obama has recently operated major changes in the US security strategy, which entails, inter alia, the fact that Europe must enhance its military capabilities and rethink its military investment policy. With a new USA Defence Strategy, Washington will not take sole responsibility to maintain international stability, and it will not stop at involving other state players, but will have the opportunity to opt for non-intervention, without being criticized and lose the strategic position of great power. The strategy requires a force that is agile, technological and capable of confronting global terrorists, maintaining at the same time the power to deter Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions and to counter China's growth in the Western Pacific.

Key-words: strategy; security; reform; military; defence.

Introduction

On Thursday, 5th of January, 2012, President Barack Obama presented a restructured defence strategy at the Pentagon, outlining a plan for a smaller army, which can defeat any adversary, although it will face severe cuts in expenditures for the next decade. The new defence strategy redefines the interventionism in the logic of shared responsibilities. Obama Administration takes election risks by supporting a strategy that requires drastic cuts, but they are not specifically defined. The hegemonic role of the US shifts to integrate the alliance in the power balance of the international system.

In addition, the most important perennial element of the US strategy in the last decades, the goal of fighting and defeating in two and a half wars, is changed and transformed in the ability of fighting in two wars simultaneously, to conquer in one of them and to block the opponent in achieving its purposes in the second.

This is a massive and fundamental change of doctrine, with major costs. But since military disengagement in Europe and the shiftof attention towards Asia are facts, maintaining the US engagement within alliances, especially NATO, is the only good news for Europeans. Europe must move quickly to prepare and equip with important capabilities, redesigning their military contributions and important investments in the military dimension.

1. The Background

The Pentagon is facing a number of issues: the budget crisis, the war in Afghanistan, post-conflict period in Iraq, Iran's nuclear ambitions, the issue of Israel, the relations between the US and Pakistan, military rise of China and the biggest challenge of all - the Congress. The presidential campaign is approaching and a chorus of Republican candidates, as Mitt Romney has already done, will tackle issues such as defence policies of Obama Administration and the level of expenditures.

While the economy will be the main subject of the debate of the campaign, defence will be a second subject. US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, suggested that, if there is a need for further cuts, the Pentagon is allowed to choose where to make these reductions and not to apply them in general. He must also establish how many militaries he will lay off, which smaller weapons programs will be diminished or closed, how much should be spent on future and how much money must be spent, in the future, on research and development.

Sometime this year it must be decided how the withdrawal from Afghanistan will be organized and what arrangements can be made to maintain US forces in this country after 2014, if military trainers are sent back to Iraq and what the response will be if the Congress authorizes sending special forces in Nigeria to help in the fight against terrorist group Boko Haram, the way it sent US troops to help the Lord's Resistance Army in Central Africa.

Also, there are military problems with electoral implications: the personnel coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan to get enough support; what is done to reduce military suicides; commissions are required to determine which officers and troops should be withdrawn since the overall number decreases; how one can monitor the end of an era of "do not ask, do not say" and the new legislation on sexual abuse and rape in the military and who will be part of the promised Commission which will take into consideration changes in the retirement military system and, probably, the Pentagon's health system.

2. The 2012 US Defence Strategy

The new US Defence Strategy focuses on creating a force that is agile, technological and capable of facing global terrorists, while maintaining power to discourage the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea and counter China's growth in the Western Pacific.

"We need a smart, strategic set of priorities. The new focus that the Department of Defence launches does just that", said the President of The United States1. "As we look beyond the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and end of a long-term process of nation building through large military footprints - we'll be able to ensure our security with smaller conventional ground forces. We will continue to get rid of outdated systems belonging to the Cold War era, so we can invest in the skills we need for the future, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, anti-terrorism, combating weapons of mass destruction and the ability to operate in environments where adversaries seek to deny us access"22, said President Obama while meeting with Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta, Chief of Staff(Joint Chiefs of Staff), General Martin Dempsey, and the commanders of the four military services.

Pentagon's new strategy is to make terrorism a top priority for US forces, while moving their attention from major ground operations, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, towards the naval and air from the Pacific. It emphasizes the cooperation with NATO allies in Europe and low-cost options such as common exercises and counselling missions in Latin America and Africa, where budget cut is able to reduce the US presence.

It also requires reducing the rate of increase in personnel costs, a major factor of expenditure raise of Pentagon in the past, although officials have promised that no change will affect current employees.

The strategy is the product of several meetings in the fall 2011, between Obama and military leaders and it enjoys the public support of Pentagon's elite. The President is facing a complex balancing act, since he seeks re-election in November this year, to show that he is dedicated to reducing costs and maintaining and strengthen national security.

The strategy does not specify what will be cut, although Pentagon officials said that this will create a smaller Army and infantry and make new investments in Navy and Air Force capabilities to meet the challenges of Chinese power growth in the Pacific Ocean. Detailed proposals for expenditure will come with the release of government budget in the coming weeks, which will be based on the reduction of 450 billion dollars in planned expenditure from the agreement on debt issued last year33.

President's tax plan will not include the additional 500 billion dollars44 that will come into force in January 2013, and which were triggered by the Super-commission's failure to reach an agreement. Pentagon Secretary, Leon Panetta, has made a strong lobby against further cuts, on which he said that "it will force them to reduce tasks, commitments and capabilities that are deemed necessary to protect key national interests of security, generating a dispirited and shallow force".

Publication, on Thursday, 5th of January, of the eight-page document may ease criticism from the GOP (Grand Old Party - The Republicans)55 Members and presidential candidates that Obama has put budget figures before Defence Strategy, but not complaints that the President endangers national security by cutting too deep Pentagon's expenditure. Although Obama has made clear that, within the budget that he intends to launch, military expenditure will continue to grow, Republicans argue that this increase is not sufficient to maintain a force capable of doing what the president said on Thursday. "This is a strategy for managing, from the back, of an America that has remained behind. The Chairman included our withdrawal from the world in a new strategy to mask the deprivation of our military and national defence", said the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Howard "Buck" McKeon (R. California), following the President's statement. "A fair and valid strategy for national defence can not be based on the premise that we must do more with less, or even less with little", he further said on the same occasion.

One of the key arguments is related to whether the strategy will continue to require the US forces enough to contend with more than one opponent at the same time. Pentagon officials have suggested that it would not be the case for this issue, although many analysts have questioned themselves whether the armed forces are able to do so even at present. While considering this subject, General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffthen stressed that the US strategy has always been the country ability to respond to global events wherever and whenever are happening, and this will not change.

Meanwhile, GOP candidates linking defence expenditure decline to the main issue of the campaign last fall - jobs - will probably receive a boost after Boeing announced on 4th of January that they will close a plant in Wichita, Kansas, that currently produces military tanks, which will lay offmore than 2160 workers. In a statement, the company said that it has sufficient sustainable businesses on the horizon to create a structure at reasonable costs to maintain and win new business.

3. Evolving Trends and Views

In early November 2011, Tom Friedman, columnist of "The Times", stated in his article that the strategic interests in Central Asia are too expensive and that a withdrawal of troops from Iraq will exacerbate the relations between Iran and Iraq and will improve the US strategic position in the area and withdrawing from operational theatres in Asia will replay the United States freedom of manoeuvre necessary to have more strategic options.

If the US will take a few steps back, there will be several options open to them. They let the competing regional powers to act against each other and then to tip the balance of power. This logic can be applied to states such as India, Pakistan, Russia, Iran, China and Afghanistan.

This strategy will give America the option to choose, without having the responsibility to intervene anywhere, anytime. Also, the US geographical position is desirable for such a strategy, since it is far away, geographically speaking, from most "hot" areas in the world, but also from other centres of power.

Such a policy of returning to isolationism is an option discussed, but marginal, in the US. Questions like the reason why US should use such a strategy when the power is not offset by any other state or international organisation and/or why they will not continue to be hegemonic if they have the power to do it are also legitimate.

According to the new policy, the US should behave like any other state of the current international system and act only where is in their best interest to do so. Thus, it will not have the sole responsibility to maintain international stability, other state players will be involved, and beyond, it will be able to opt for non-intervention, without being criticised and not lose its strategic position of great power, will not have the same huge costs, and will be able to focus on internal development and on its primary interests. The US could, therefore, intervene selectively.

The resulted strategy, so called of "offshore balancing", should not be confused with isolationism as long as the US will continue to be involved at the diplomatic level in some areas and even at the interventionist level in other areas where the balance of power fails. So, a situation where the US President would order the withdrawal of all American troops stationed on foreign land and would focus his attention exclusively on the American continent will not be reached. Such a scenario is not only unlikely, but impossible, given the current global interdependent system.

The strategy, which the President of the United States, Barack Obama, adopted by announcing the withdrawal of troops from Iraq could be interpreted in this sense, but it should not be forgotten that this is still mainly an interventionist strategy.

What is new in the offshore balancing policy?

First, the US will not use many ground troops, instead they will focus on unmanned aircraftand cruise missiles. Then, the US continues to intervene in areas of low strategic interest, like Pakistan or Yemen. And, finally, offshore balancing strategy, as it is proposed by theorists of realism, involves alliances with other states, whether democratic or non-democratic, to achieve a balance of power in key regions.

Alliances with other democratic states are certainly preferable, yet no state can afford, no matter how powerful it is, to reject any alliance with an undemocratic state. The argument is obvious: partners are chosen depending of the area that the respective state would like to work, influence, intervene, and in this context the choice is limited. This option is often criticised and avoided from the perspective of the current administration at the White House.

Also, it should not be overlooked the fact that the adoption of offshore balancing strategy came against a backdrop of global financial crisis, so this could be interpreted as a necessary adjustment of the US policy imposed by costs and not as a choice. However, if this strategy would have been adopted in 1992, perhaps the US would not have gone through the events of September 11, 2001 and certainly would not have been involved in costly wars such as Iraq or Afghanistan.

Therefore, the policy proposed by President Obama is not currently an offshore balancing strategy, but it is certainly a step in its favour. Too fast a change could lead to a high degree of instability in the world especially in "hot" areas, where regional actors expect the US to intervene, thereby assuming the responsibility of hegemony. Precisely because there is such a player, these states have begun to rely too much on the US intervention, so a rapid change of responsibility towards these regional actors would generate a lack of response from them, simply because they do not have yet developed such a policy. Offshore balancing strategy would be the desirable book for any time, crisis or financial boom for the US, because it allows not to take unnecessary or undesirable responsibilities; it does not create or emphasize antagonisms between states, in a system where the US is the strongest, thus minimizing the fear that might be caused by this power. Considering that it requires a clear hierarchy of priorities and areas of interest but also it underscores the fact that the US will rely on its regional allies the strategy will determine the avoidance of certain situations in which the state will be drawn into conflicts that are not necessary and will cause others to act and not just to help the US. As mentioned before, the geographical location is an advantage that the US must seize, especially since it determines the regional powers be more focused on themselves and their neighbours than on the US. Perhaps the most important aspect is that offshore balancing is not a passive strategy. Rather, it is a cost-benefit analysis, which does not exclude the involvement of all available resources of US to promote and protect the states' vital interests.

So, the strategy adopted in January this year by President Barack Obama is not fully subject to the rules of offshore balancing strategy, but it clearly comes closest to it. Yet, the message is clear: regional powers must be more active in the future if they wish to maintain their status. Mere helping the US is not enough anymore.

The Chinese state has quickly reacted after the announcement of the new US military strategy, which provides increased staffin Asia. In an editorial published by the news agency Xinhua, the Chinese warned the US to stop "flexing their muscles". They argue that a large American presence in Asia could mean stability and prosperity, but it could also endanger peace. Chinese journalists also said that if the US will militarize the Asia-Pacific region, this would endanger peace instead of increase stability in the region. Pentagon officials are reluctant to speak openly about a possible conflict with China. During a visit to China of US Deputy Secretary on defence issues, Michele Fluornoy, she said to a Chinese military top general that "the US is not trying to counter China" and that "China is not seen as an adversary". However, the US military officials often talk about preparations for a conflict in the Pacific, without mentioning who they will fight against.

Conclusions

The Obama strategy introduced some change and is reshaping the US military far from major expeditionary land wars and towards standoffcapabilities (drones, naval/air strikes) and other different forms of war, such as cyber.

Therefore, the US strategy on defence presented by President Barack Obama will create a profound change for the US Armed Forces. As a result, after a decade of fighting the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US troops are to withdraw by the end of 2014, the number of troops will be reduced, as will especially affect the land forces (US Army) and Navy.

Footnote

NOTES:

1 US President Barack Obama remarks on the Defence Strategic Review at the Pentagon near Washington, January 5, 2012, available at http:// 3chicspolitico.com/2012/01/05/president-obamapress- conference-on-the-defence-strategic-review/u-spresident- obama-speaks-alongside-pentagon-officialsnear- washington/.

2 Ibidem.

3 Ibidem.

4 Ibidem.

5 The Republican Party was founded by anti-slavery expansion activists in 1854 and is one of the two major contemporary political parties in the United States, along with the Democratic Party. The party's platform generally reflects American conservatism in the US political spectrum and is considered center-right, in contrast to the center-leftDemocratic Party. In the 112th Congress, elected in 2010, the Republican Party holds a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, and a minority of seats in the Senate. The party holds the majority of governorships, as well as the majority of state legislatures, and control of one chamber in five states. For more details, see "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Republican_Party_(United_States).

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Buletin de analiza privind decizia strategica În politica externa - DSPE, No.113, Year IV, 9 - 15 January 2012, Center for Conflflict Prevention and Early Warning.

2. Travels with State Secretary Leon E. Panetta, Halifax International Security Forum, November, 2011, http://www.defence.gov/home/ features/2011/1111_panetta1/.