WASHINGTON (AP) – The Biden administration is puzzled as it rethinks the positioning of armed forces around the world: how to focus more on China and Russia without withdrawing from the protracted threats in the Middle East – and to make this shift with potentially leaner Pentagon budgets.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered a month-long review of the “global attitude” just days after taking office. It will assess how the United States can best organize and support its widespread network of troops, weapons, bases and alliances to support President Joe Biden’s foreign policy.
The review is part of the government’s attempt to chart a path for an army still trapped in decades-old Middle Eastern conflicts, with flat or declining budgets, and grappling with internal issues such as racism. and extremism.
Its outcome could have a long-lasting impact on the military’s first priority: making it ready for war in an era of uncertain gun control. Relations with allies and partners are also at stake, in some cases weakened by the Trump administration’s “America first” approach to diplomacy.
Austin’s review is closely linked to a pending government decision on whether or not to honor the previous administration’s pledge to withdraw completely from Afghanistan this spring. And it comes apart from the big questions about modernizing the strategic nuclear force.
Like the Trump administration, Biden’s national security team sees China, and not militant extremists like al-Qaeda or the Islamic State group, as the greatest long-term security challenge. Unlike its predecessor, Biden sees great value in the US commitments to European nations in the NATO alliance.
That could lead to significant shifts in the US military “footprint” in the Middle East, Europe, and the Asia Pacific, although such changes have previously been attempted with limited success. For example, the Trump administration felt compelled to send thousands of additional air and naval forces to the Persian Gulf in 2019 in an effort to deter what it termed threats to regional stability. Biden has seen memories of this problem in recent days with violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It could also mean that Biden is embracing recent efforts by military commanders to find innovative ways to deploy troops, apart from permanent bases that incur political, financial and security costs. A recent example was a visit by an American aircraft carrier to a Vietnamese port. Commanders see value in deploying troops in smaller groups on less predictable cycles to keep China off balance.
Hints of change surfaced before Biden took office.
In December, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of his own view that technological and geopolitical changes call for a rethinking of old ways of organizing and positioning forces.
The survival of the US forces will depend on adapting to the rise of China, the proliferation of technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics, and the emergence of unconventional threats such as pandemics and climate change, Milley said.
“Smaller will be better in the future. A small force that is almost invisible and undetectable, is in a constant state of motion and is widely distributed – that would be a force that can be survived, ”he told a conference in Washington. “You don’t reach any goal when you’re dead.”
Austin made a similar, more limited point last month about the positioning of US forces in Asia and the Pacific.
“There is no doubt that we need a more resilient and more divided force in the Indo-Pacific in response to China’s counter-intervention capabilities and approaches, supported by new operational concepts,” Austin wrote in response to Senate questions raised in advance. to his confirmation. to hear.
Austin also reported concerns about competition with Russia in the Arctic.
“This is fast becoming a region of geopolitical competition, and I am deeply concerned about Russia’s military build-up and aggressive behavior in the Arctic – and around the world,” he wrote. “Likewise, I am very concerned about China’s intentions in the region.”
That does not argue in favor of leaving the major hubs of the US military abroad. But it suggests more emphasis on deploying smaller troop groups on shorter rotations to non-traditional destinations.
This shift is already underway.
The military, for example, is developing what it calls an “Arctic brigade” of soldiers as part of a greater focus on the far north. That area is seen as a potential flash point as great powers compete for natural resources that are more accessible as ice packs deteriorate. Likewise, for the first time, the Air Force is sending B-1 long-range bombers to Norway, a NATO ally and neighbor of Russia.
China considers itself an Arctic nation, but the US’s main concern with Beijing is growing assertiveness in Asia and the Pacific. According to the US, China wants to build military strength to deter or block any attempt by the US to intervene in Taiwan, the semi-autonomous democracy that Beijing sees as a renegade province that must eventually return to the communist group.
A report from the Council on Foreign Relations this month called Taiwan the most likely spark to a war between the US and China, a prospect with dire human consequences that it said “should preoccupy the Biden team.”
Millions of Americans could die in the first war in human history between two nuclear weapon states, the report said.
Washington is also concerned about China’s efforts to modernize and possibly expand its nuclear arsenal, while refusing to participate in international negotiations on nuclear arms control.
The sharpened focus on China began during the Obama administration. The Trump administration went on to formally declare that China and Russia, not global terrorism, were the greatest threats to US national security.
Some now wonder if this shift has gone too far.
Christopher Miller, who served as acting Secretary of Defense for the last two months of Donald Trump’s presidency, said in an interview that he agrees that China is the number one threat to national security. But he said US commanders elsewhere in the world told him that focusing on China was costing them the necessary resources.
“So I thought it was time to rethink this and make sure we didn’t create any unintended consequences,” Miller said.