US defence strategy & implications for Pakistan
US remains unconvinced of Pakistan sincerity in war against militants, nor trusting of our nuclear non-proliferation.
In an unprecedented briefing at the Pentagon last week, President Barack Obama unveiled America’s new defence strategy, ambitiously titled Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defence.
Drawn up to maintain America’s global superiority but within constraints imposed by its economic woes, the US, according to the documents, will aim to have “smaller and leaner, but agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced” armed forces. This will ensure that the US remains focused on “defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates, deterring and defeating aggression by adversaries, countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and effectively operating in cyber space, space, and across all domains”.
As the document lists America’s goals with a broad brush, the reference to Pakistan is mercifully indirect, but its impact and effect on us will be deep and profound. In achieving many of its goals, the US will be expecting more than a helpful hand from Pakistan, especially on critical issues of fighting terrorists and ensuring compliance with non-proliferation demands. The administration remains neither convinced that Pakistan has been sincere in its war against the militants, nor trusting enough of our nuclear non-proliferation protestations.
What has, however, evoked great interest is the Strategy’s declaration that the US will “of necessity rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific region”. Leaving little to the imagination, it confirms that the primary reason is that “China’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the US economy and our security in a variety of ways”, which leads it to demand that “the growth of China’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions”. In pursuit of its goal, the US will “emphasise existing alliances, while expanding the network of cooperation throughout the region to ensure collective capability and capacity for securing common interests”. And, as part of this effort, (in confirmation of what Secretary Clinton had stated during her last visit to India), the US “is investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India, to support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region”.
Not surprisingly, Iran finds mention both in the context of Gulf security and WMD non-proliferation. US goals will be achieved “in collaboration with countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), when appropriate”, by bolstering Israel and ensuring US military presence in the region.
The Obama Administration’s strategic objectives are no different from those of its predecessors, though there are important shifts in nuances. In recognition of America’s economic woes, it will avoid a two-war situation as well as engagements that need huge forces for large-scale military operations abroad; and instead opt for ‘smaller and leaner forces’, which will depend on critical help from allies, whether it be India and Japan to counter China; or Israel and the GCC states to keep Iranian ambitions in check. This too, is an area of concern for us, as any worsening of US relations with either China or Iran will have their inevitable fall-out on Pakistan as well.
Though China figures prominently in the Strategy, its officials have refrained from public expressions of concern, preferring to let their scholars do the talking. Professor Yuan Peng of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations warns that such a strategy “could lead to a vicious circle and deepen misperceptions”, while Sun Zhe of Tsinghua University expresses fear “of an escalation of military competition and potential crisis”. On the other hand, Bonnie Glaser of the CSIS in Washington warns of “strategic rivalries”, overwhelming Sino-US cooperation.
This important document needs careful analysis for it confirms some of our fears, while providing guidance on avoiding some of the dangers. There is also a lesson for us in China’s behaviour. Instead of moaning about ‘unfriendly’ attitudes of ‘friends’, what we need is good governance at home and dispassionate analysis of what our national priorities should be.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 18th, 2012.
Drawn up to maintain America’s global superiority but within constraints imposed by its economic woes, the US, according to the documents, will aim to have “smaller and leaner, but agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced” armed forces. This will ensure that the US remains focused on “defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates, deterring and defeating aggression by adversaries, countering weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and effectively operating in cyber space, space, and across all domains”.
As the document lists America’s goals with a broad brush, the reference to Pakistan is mercifully indirect, but its impact and effect on us will be deep and profound. In achieving many of its goals, the US will be expecting more than a helpful hand from Pakistan, especially on critical issues of fighting terrorists and ensuring compliance with non-proliferation demands. The administration remains neither convinced that Pakistan has been sincere in its war against the militants, nor trusting enough of our nuclear non-proliferation protestations.
What has, however, evoked great interest is the Strategy’s declaration that the US will “of necessity rebalance towards the Asia-Pacific region”. Leaving little to the imagination, it confirms that the primary reason is that “China’s emergence as a regional power will have the potential to affect the US economy and our security in a variety of ways”, which leads it to demand that “the growth of China’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions”. In pursuit of its goal, the US will “emphasise existing alliances, while expanding the network of cooperation throughout the region to ensure collective capability and capacity for securing common interests”. And, as part of this effort, (in confirmation of what Secretary Clinton had stated during her last visit to India), the US “is investing in a long-term strategic partnership with India, to support its ability to serve as a regional economic anchor and provider of security in the broader Indian Ocean region”.
Not surprisingly, Iran finds mention both in the context of Gulf security and WMD non-proliferation. US goals will be achieved “in collaboration with countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), when appropriate”, by bolstering Israel and ensuring US military presence in the region.
The Obama Administration’s strategic objectives are no different from those of its predecessors, though there are important shifts in nuances. In recognition of America’s economic woes, it will avoid a two-war situation as well as engagements that need huge forces for large-scale military operations abroad; and instead opt for ‘smaller and leaner forces’, which will depend on critical help from allies, whether it be India and Japan to counter China; or Israel and the GCC states to keep Iranian ambitions in check. This too, is an area of concern for us, as any worsening of US relations with either China or Iran will have their inevitable fall-out on Pakistan as well.
Though China figures prominently in the Strategy, its officials have refrained from public expressions of concern, preferring to let their scholars do the talking. Professor Yuan Peng of the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations warns that such a strategy “could lead to a vicious circle and deepen misperceptions”, while Sun Zhe of Tsinghua University expresses fear “of an escalation of military competition and potential crisis”. On the other hand, Bonnie Glaser of the CSIS in Washington warns of “strategic rivalries”, overwhelming Sino-US cooperation.
This important document needs careful analysis for it confirms some of our fears, while providing guidance on avoiding some of the dangers. There is also a lesson for us in China’s behaviour. Instead of moaning about ‘unfriendly’ attitudes of ‘friends’, what we need is good governance at home and dispassionate analysis of what our national priorities should be.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 18th, 2012.