WASHINGTON (AP) – The Biden administration is facing a mystery as it reconsiders the position of military forces around the world: how to focus more on China and Russia without withdrawing from protracted Middle East threats – and to make this move with potentially slimmer Pentagon budgets.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin ordered a month-long review of “global attitudes” a few days after taking office. It will assess how the United States can best organize and support its distant network of troops, weapons, bases and alliances to support President Joe Biden’s foreign policy.
The review is part of the government’s effort to pave the way for an army still trapped in decades-old Middle East conflicts, with a flat or declining budget, and struggling with internal problems such as racism and extremism.
Its outcome could have a lasting impact on the army’s first priority: to ensure it is ready for war in an era of uncertain gun control. Also at stake are relations with allies and partners, which in some cases are being weakened by the Trump administration’s ‘America-first’ approach to diplomacy.
Austin’s review is closely linked to a pending administrative decision on whether to honor the previous administration’s promise to withdraw completely from Afghanistan this spring. And this is separate from big-dollar questions about modernizing the strategic nuclear power.
Like the Trump administration, Biden’s national security team considers China, not militant extremists like Al Qaeda or the Islamic State, to be the longest-running security challenge. Unlike its predecessor, Biden sees great value in American commitments to European countries in the NATO alliance.
This could lead to significant shifts in the US military “footprint” in the Middle East, Europe and the Asia-Pacific, although such changes have been tried with limited success in the past. The Trump administration, for example, felt compelled to send thousands of extra air and naval forces to the Gulf region in 2019 in an effort to deter what it calls regional stability threats. Biden has seen memories of violence in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past few days.
It could also mean a Biden embrace of recent efforts by military commanders to seek innovative ways to deploy forces detached from permanent bases bearing political, financial and security costs. A recent example was a U.S. aircraft carrier visit to a Vietnamese port. Commanders see value in using forces in smaller groups on less predictable cycles to keep China off balance.
Tips for change surfaced before Biden took office.
In December, General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke about his own view that technological and geopolitical change was arguing for the rethinking of old ways of organizing and positioning forces.
The survival of U.S. forces will depend on adapting to the rise of China, the spread of technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics, and the rise 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, that is constantly in motion and widely distributed – it is a force that is survivable, ‘he said at a conference in Washington. “You will not achieve any goal if you are dead.”
Austin made a similar, narrower point last month about the position of U.S. forces in Asia and the Pacific.
“There is no doubt that we need a more resilient and dispersed force position in the Indo-Pacific in response to China’s counter-intervention capabilities and approaches, supported by new operational concepts,” Austin wrote in response to questions from heard the Senate before its confirmation.
Austin also noted its concerns about competition with Russia in the Arctic.
“It is fast becoming an area of geopolitical competition, and I am seriously concerned about the Russian military build – up and aggressive behavior in the Arctic region – and around the world,” he wrote. “I am also very concerned about the Chinese intentions in the region.”
It does not argue that the U.S. military’s major hubs are being abandoned abroad. But it suggests that more emphasis be placed on deploying smaller groups of troops on shorter rotations to non-traditional destinations.
This shift is already underway.
The army, for example, is developing an ‘Arctic brigade’ of soldiers as part of a larger focus on the North. The area is considered a potential hotspot as large powers compete for natural resources that become more accessible as ice packs decay. Similarly, 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 main American concern about Beijing is the growing self-confidence in Asia and the Pacific. According to US intent, China intends to build up military force to thwart or block any attempt by the US to intervene in Taiwan, the semi-autonomous democracy that Beijing considers an apostate province that must eventually return to the communist fold.
A report by the Foreign Relations Council this month called Taiwan the most likely spark for a war between the United States and China, a prospect with serious human consequences that he said “should occupy the Biden team”.
“Millions of Americans could die in the first war in human history between two nuclear-weapon states,” the report said.
Washington also mentions concerns over China’s efforts to modernize and possibly expand its nuclear arsenal, while refusing to participate in international negotiations on nuclear weapons control.
The sharpened focus on China began during the Obama administration. The Trump administration went further by formally declaring that China and Russia, not global terrorism, were the biggest threats to US national security.
Some now question whether this shift has gone too far.
Christopher Miller, who has 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 main threat to national security. But he said U.S. commanders elsewhere in the world had told him that the focus on China was costing the necessary resources.
“So I felt it was time to re-examine it and make sure we did not have any unintended consequences,” Miller said.