Can the US Afford the Asia Pivot?

[JSCh]

Can the US Afford the Asia Pivot?
A senior U.S. defense official says the Asia pivot “can’t happen” if budget cuts continue.

By Zachary Keck
March 05, 2014

According to the Navy Times, a privately owned publication, Katrina McFarland, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, told an industry conference on Tuesday: “Right now, the pivot is being looked at again, because candidly it can’t happen.”


This seemingly stood in direct contrast to previous statements from the U.S. Defense Department and Obama administration, which claimed that the Asia-Pacific would be shielded from the defense budget cuts.

However, following the original article reporting her remarks, McFarland clarified her original statement. Speaking through a Pentagon spokesperson, McFarland said:

“This a.m. when I spoke at a conference, I was asked a question about the budget, that will be officially released today, and how it relates to our pivot to Asia. I was reiterating what [Defense Secretary Chuck] Hagel said last week: That the shift in focus to the Asia-Pacific requires us to ‘adapt, innovate, and make difficult (budgetary and acquisition) decisions to ensure that our military remains ready and capable.’ That’s exactly what we’ve done in this budget. The rebalance to Asia can and will continue.”

It’s unclear how the two statements coincide, if at all, assuming the first reported statement was taken in context.

However, the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) seems to reaffirm Washington’s commitment to the U.S. pivot to Asia. In stating DOD’s priorities for the next four years, the document lists “rebalancing to the Asia-Pacific region to preserve peace and stability in the region” as the first priority, followed by sustaining commitments to Europe and the Middle East and countering violent extremism.

Another part of the QDR notes that: “modern warfare is evolving rapidly, leading to increasingly contested battlespace in the air, sea, and space domains – as well as cyberspace – in which our forces enjoyed dominance in our most recent conflicts.” The emphasis placed on air, sea, space and cyberspace—as well as the absence of ground—suggests that the Pentagon had Asia in mind with that statement. Later, the document lists overcoming anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) challenges alongside the challenge of dealing with states armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

In the new QDR, the Pentagon also says “the Navy will modernize its fleets of surface ships, aircraft, and submarines to meet 21st century threats. We must ensure that the fleet is capable of operating in every region and across the full spectrum of conflict.”

Nonetheless, a growing number of observers are questioning the viability of the U.S. rebalance to Asia in an era of fiscal constraints, and comments like the ones made by McFarland are likely to cause concern in the capitals of U.S. allies in the region. China doesn’t exhibit any of the same doubt that is alive and well in Washington. For instance, a Chinese spokesperson on Tuesday stated:

“If some countries wish to provoke or wish to damage … regional peace and the regional order, then we must make a response, and an effective response at that…. The point of this response, is to, on the one hand, maintain China’s territory and sovereignty, and on the other hand to maintain the regional order and peace.”

China is expected to release a new defense budget on Wednesday local time.

 

[BoQ77]

US can do it without doubt. But they keep run it smooth as the intl law follower.
Any outlaw acts created to challenge them cause they break their principle would help them to dominate the ASIA again ... without care about the intl law ...

 

[cirr]

Instead of empty talks，the US should bring to Asia，especially its so-called allies，hundreds of billions of dollars worth of investments each year and for the next 20-30 years。

One policy goal for the US should be that the economy of its allies in Asia as a whole，including Japan，average an annual growth rate of over 6% for the next 20 years。

I am sure China would open its arms for a prosperous Asia that's founded on American money。

 

[senheiser]

i am pretty sure the US will also establish a fleet in the blacks sea in future, they will keep going until they go bankrupt

 

[Nike]

Why US always doing something with the most expensive bill to charge these days? in past they are more like the Chinese today, simple, cheap, massive and effective.......

 

[Mighty Caty]

Policy do not create under one's own ability. Policy create out of necessity.

Many people do not understand this concept. Some people think policy should not be make if it is too expensive to do something or it is too complicated. Policy exist not because any country can or cannot afford it, policy exist because they are needed.

If you look at the American policy in Asia, the shift, or the so called "Pivot" have already shifting from US to provide protection to Asian allies alone, the focus have already been shifting to US helping their allies in Asia. By means of selling arms and building military relationship to country that were not explored before.

The quest, if one look carefully, is not focusing on how many US soldier stationed in Asia or how many US fleet was being deployed to Asia, the quantity side of the argument remain unchanged throughout recent years, however, the supporting side changed dramatically.

It's impossible for anyone in the 1990s to imagine that India or Vietnam alike buying or leaning to US, but recent development states otherwise. The reason for this development is the perceived "Chinese Threat" Theory.

In global politic, it's nearly impossible to unite a group of nation by common interest, almost all group of nation we see today is simply united by common enemy As long as the American "Chinese Threat" making noise and the Chinese behave exactly what the American wanted, the American can blow the Chinese trumpet virtually forever. Many of the Asian Nation currently pivoted in favor the United States mostly because of the common enemy the American portrait, that's China

Can American itself afford the Asian Pivot? Probably no, but why would they be?? As long as those Asian country buying the American "Chinese Threat" theory, the American do not need to be able to afford to, that would be bought and pay for by the Asian Country the American wanted to pivot. You will bankrupt Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippine, India, Australia, New Zealand first before it would bankrupt America and what Chinese is currently doing does not help.

 

[kalu_miah]

Policy do not create under one's own ability. Policy create out of necessity.

Many people do not understand this concept. Some people think policy should not be make if it is too expensive to do something or it is too complicated. Policy exist not because any country can or cannot afford it, policy exist because they are needed.

If you look at the American policy in Asia, the shift, or the so called "Pivot" have already shifting from US to provide protection to Asian allies alone, the focus have already been shifting to US helping their allies in Asia. By means of selling arms and building military relationship to country that were not explored before.

The quest, if one look carefully, is not focusing on how many US soldier stationed in Asia or how many US fleet was being deployed to Asia, the quantity side of the argument remain unchanged throughout recent years, however, the supporting side changed dramatically.

It's impossible for anyone in the 1990s to imagine that India or Vietnam alike buying or leaning to US, but recent development states otherwise. The reason for this development is the perceived "Chinese Threat" Theory.

In global politic, it's nearly impossible to unite a group of nation by common interest, almost all group of nation we see today is simply united by common enemy As long as the American "Chinese Threat" making noise and the Chinese behave exactly what the American wanted, the American can blow the Chinese trumpet virtually forever. Many of the Asian Nation currently pivoted in favor the United States mostly because of the common enemy the American portrait, that's China

Can American itself afford the Asian Pivot? Probably no, but why would they be?? As long as those Asian country buying the American "Chinese Threat" theory, the American do not need to be able to afford to, that would be bought and pay for by the Asian Country the American wanted to pivot. You will bankrupt Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippine, India, Australia, New Zealand first before it would bankrupt America and what Chinese is currently doing does not help.

From Chinese point of view, it will be great to have these countries bankrupt. What will happen after they are bankrupt? They will realize the futility of their effort and switch over to China led order in Asia, the two exceptions are Australia and New Zealand, who will remain Western outposts for obvious reasons (demography). South Korea and Taiwan may not join the arms race as they may already see a future with China, without taking the bait and getting bankrupt, for reasons of their past history, geography and demography.

 

[shuttler]

Policy do not create under one's own ability. Policy create out of necessity.

Many people do not understand this concept. Some people think policy should not be make if it is too expensive to do something or it is too complicated. Policy exist not because any country can or cannot afford it, policy exist because they are needed.

If you look at the American policy in Asia, the shift, or the so called "Pivot" have already shifting from US to provide protection to Asian allies alone, the focus have already been shifting to US helping their allies in Asia. By means of selling arms and building military relationship to country that were not explored before.

The quest, if one look carefully, is not focusing on how many US soldier stationed in Asia or how many US fleet was being deployed to Asia, the quantity side of the argument remain unchanged throughout recent years, however, the supporting side changed dramatically.

It's impossible for anyone in the 1990s to imagine that India or Vietnam alike buying or leaning to US, but recent development states otherwise. The reason for this development is the perceived "Chinese Threat" Theory.

In global politic, it's nearly impossible to unite a group of nation by common interest, almost all group of nation we see today is simply united by common enemy As long as the American "Chinese Threat" making noise and the Chinese behave exactly what the American wanted, the American can blow the Chinese trumpet virtually forever. Many of the Asian Nation currently pivoted in favor the United States mostly because of the common enemy the American portrait, that's China

Can American itself afford the Asian Pivot? Probably no, but why would they be?? As long as those Asian country buying the American "Chinese Threat" theory, the American do not need to be able to afford to, that would be bought and pay for by the Asian Country the American wanted to pivot. You will bankrupt Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippine, India, Australia, New Zealand first before it would bankrupt America and what Chinese is currently doing does not help.

The "common enemy" label so conveniently befalls on China is because all these countries are occupying a share of our territorial claims. They are benefiting themselves taking the resources therefrom the occupation and also they are either trade or/and global competitors

Japan - Territorial claims, Trade and global competitions and Territoral dominance, influenced by USA and Nato
S Korea - largely trade but it doesnt stand out as a staunch advocate of "China Thread" because it needs China's market, in balancing N Korea as well as both countries have a common enemy in Japan
Vietnam and Philippines - Territorial and Trade (low end goods), aids from the USA (Philippines), influenced by USA and NATO
India - Territorial claims, Trade and global competitions, Territorial dominance, influenced by USA and NATO
Australia and New Zealand - due to influence by USA and NATO
Taiwan - different ideologies and government, time is not ripe for reunification, trade competitors, influenced by USA and Japan

The only way to bankrupt USA is they would engage in another protracted war themselves (not through proxies）

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

The only productive post I've seen is from @Mighty Caty everyone else is just post padding.

The American military is entering the 21st century. The future of warfare is lean,high-tech, muti-role soldier.

No more 'conventional' battle lines. Small unit/Spec Ops it the new frontier in warfare. In the past Delta or the SEALs only had 1-2 maybe 3 operations a year. That changed, US showed and perfected Spec Op capabilities in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Intel Operators became embedded with the teams allowing for actionable operations continuously throughout the night.

And the US is improving upon that. The Spec Ops branches are getting massive. The new Military budgets will focus on and improve them. There no more old fashion Boot Camp, everything is getting modernized to give the American War Fighter into the 21st century. Infantry is put through a more rigorous and specialized training camp, watered-down Spec Ops training.

The question isn't when the US and China will have a war. It's can the US show that it's still the boss. The US will pump billions into counter-measures of Chinese battle space denial systems. Whether it's the 'carrier killer' or the anti-satellite platform. There's a new arms race in town.

Can the US get it's budget on track and get the R&D divisions within budget allocations not over-budget and delayed.

Because we all know, if the US wants something it will get it. The US Marines will storm the beaches of any country. The USAF will level any city. The Army will own any piece of land it wants.

 

[Mighty Caty]

From Chinese point of view, it will be great to have these countries bankrupt. What will happen after they are bankrupt? They will realize the futility of their effort and switch over to China led order in Asia, the two exceptions are Australia and New Zealand, who will remain Western outposts for obvious reasons (demography). South Korea and Taiwan may not join the arms race as they may already see a future with China, without taking the bait and getting bankrupt, for reasons of their past history, geography and demography.

From the Chinese point of view, they SHOULD NOT expect Japan, South Korea, India and Taiwan to bank up, those 4 countries combined have the same impact with China-US trade. Which is approximately 17-20% (About 850 billions) of total Chinese Trade.

If Japan(342.9 Billions -4th Trading partner), Taiwan(160 Billions - 7th Trading partner), South Korea (245 Billions - 6th Trading partner), India (74 billions -9th Trading partner) - and Singapore bankrupt from China, Chinese will be dealt with a big toll, not to mention if those are the case, US and EU would either imbalance the military situation or they will sanction China, so essentially, China will lose US (446 Billions -2nd Trading partner) and EU market (567 Billions - 1st Trading partner with China) too, that would be another 50-60%, which left China with only 20% of trade as of now. And the above figure does not include Part of ASEAN (Vietnam, Philippine and Laos) and also Australia and New Zealand

Essentially, if China bankrupt Japan, India, South Korea and Singapore, effectively, they are taking out 850 billions of trade, that number have to go somewhere else or they will be total lost. If it does, then China will not going any better than all those country. And that is if US and EU does not take any action, if they do, there will be another 1 trillion dollar trade goes down the drain. It will certainly bankrupt China in a sense as you take out No1, No2, No3 (Partially), No 4, No6 , No7 and No9 top trading partner with China......

If an Arms race happened in Near Far East, it will only draw the Asian Country more toward the America. it will not bring them closer to Chinese camp. And it will only do American a favor, it sap the Chinese Economic will and increase the Asian country reliance to the US.

 

[Beidou2020]

The only productive post I've seen is from @Mighty Caty everyone else is just post padding.

The American military is entering the 21st century. The future of warfare is lean,high-tech, muti-role soldier.

No more 'conventional' battle lines. Small unit/Spec Ops it the new frontier in warfare. In the past Delta or the SEALs only had 1-2 maybe 3 operations a year. That changed, US showed and perfected Spec Op capabilities in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Intel Operators became embedded with the teams allowing for actionable operations continuously throughout the night.

And the US is improving upon that. The Spec Ops branches are getting massive. The new Military budgets will focus on and improve them. There no more old fashion Boot Camp, everything is getting modernized to give the American War Fighter into the 21st century. Infantry is put through a more rigorous and specialized training camp, watered-down Spec Ops training.

The question isn't when the US and China will have a war. It's can the US show that it's still the boss. The US will pump billions into counter-measures of Chinese battle space denial systems. Whether it's the 'carrier killer' or the anti-satellite platform. There's a new arms race in town.

Can the US get it's budget on track and get the R&D divisions within budget allocations not over-budget and delayed.

Because we all know, if the US wants something it will get it. The US Marines will storm the beaches of any country. The USAF will level any city. The Army will own any piece of land it wants.

Obviously not China since we won the Korean war.

i am pretty sure the US will also establish a fleet in the blacks sea in future, they will keep going until they go bankrupt

It's already bankrupt, it's just that the dollar being the reserve currency gives them more rope to hang themselves. The reserve currency gives them more time than they would have if they didn't have the reserve currency.

But even the reserve currency isn't saving the Yankee empire as you can see their economy struggling with 0% interest rates and $1 trillion in annual QE can only buy them 1.9% in 'growth'. The debt is rising rapidly and they are forced to make budget cuts.

 

[sincity]

Before 9/11/2001 US have 300 billions dollars in reserve, after 13 yrs of fighting 2 front war to destroy a group of terrorist, US is 18 trillions dollars in debts. In 13 yrs China amass upward to 4 trillions dollars in their foreign reserve, Asia pivot not only didn't impact in China ecomy or slow down China GDP grown as the same span China GDP grown over 1 trillions dollars in 3 yrs with Obama declaration of Asia pivot and containment of China policy.

 

[Mighty Caty]

The "common enemy" label so conveniently befalls on China is because all these countries are occupying a share of our territorial claims. They are benefiting themselves taking the resources therefrom the occupation and also they are either trade or/and global competitors

Japan - Territorial claims, Trade and global competitions and Territoral dominance, influenced by USA and Nato
S Korea - largely trade but it doesnt stand out as a staunch advocate of "China Thread" because it needs China's market, in balancing N Korea as well as both countries have a common enemy in Japan
Vietnam and Philippines - Territorial and Trade (low end goods), aids from the USA (Philippines), influenced by USA and NATO
India - Territorial claims, Trade and global competitions, Territorial dominance, influenced by USA and NATO
Australia and New Zealand - due to influence by USA and NATO
Taiwan - different ideologies and government, time is not ripe for reunification, trade competitors, influenced by USA and Japan

The only way to bankrupt USA is they would engage in another protracted war themselves (not through proxies）

Here you have made two mistake,

One: Trade have nothing to do with Military Relationship. It did not dictate nor forbade anyone from trading with anyone.

The term "Free Market" is coin so that no one country can trade with only one country, of course, unless a certain pact was given.

If you kindly read my comment on Kalu Miah. You would see the 4 country in question (For argument sake, Leave Vietnam, Philippines, Australia and New Zealand out of the equation), if you take out Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and India alone, You also take out 800+ billions trading figure from China, either those figure need to replenished with the other trading partner. Or that would be a Chinese Total lost. 500 Billions is about 1/5 of total Chinese Trade. It will be catastrophic if China indeed go ahead and trying to bankrupt them, as there are no replacement market.

And if all you said about the military and geopolitics have anything to do with Trading figure and economy, then EU, USA, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and India will not be the NO,1,2,4,6,7,9 on Top Chinese trade partner.

Military and Geopolitics aside, country, any country needs to survive, and trade simply have to do without any political and militarily influence.

The other things you got wrong is you believe a total war with US is the only way to bankrupt the US.

If you take a look at both US war in Iraq and US war in Afghanistan, you will see that both war cost about 10 trillions in 10 years. about 1 trillion dollar a year in 2 wars.

The problem is, the war is not bought and pay for by the US government. But rather the funding was digested by a combination local US Economy, US government, and Foreign government via the notorious US Treasury bond. IN effect, China, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and any country beside the US Business, Banking institution and US government whom bought the bond is paying for US to go to war, technically speaking, that's 40% out of those 10 trillions are pay for by foreign government.

But in the Chinese case, if China indeed going to war with the American heads on, they will need to finance their war themselves. That would bring 2 changes on table.

1.) Majority of the Chinese money will be diverted to Fight the war, by either making planes and warship to actually paying for services render (Soldier's pays to maintenance paid)

2.) Majority of resource will be diverted to fighting a war, mostly iron, steel, and other material will be diverted for Military use and most importantly, Manpower.

While money come from trade, with China shift from a peacetime economy to a war time economy, there are not much trade goods production. If you are expected to fight a protracted war with US, China would need constant resupply of war material. That would draw down trade goods production, and that would draw down the money coming in.

And then you will have a manpower issue on hand, soldier are not made up with old man, children and women, they mostly made up with Serviceable strong and capable man at their prime age. If China is going to war with the US, China will lose a great deal of those and they will either be killed or disable and be out of the normal workforce forever, Without them and with no replacement worker since China is neither an immigrant country nor a country with high birth rate (roughly half of the US), the time for economic recover will be hinder to at least twice as long if you just factor in the Birth issue.

And then the more appropriate question is, if a war between US and China be fought, where will you fight them? The answer is, within the next 50 years, there are literally no to slim to none chance that the war will be fighting in US or near US Soil so that primary manufacture capability in Continental US will be threaten. The war, if it does happen are more than likely to be fought in the West Pacific, Near the Chinese border or actually in Chinese Border. That mean At best, China can take out US Bases in the Pacific, which do not have much of economic value and the US allies in the Area, which also does not have much economic value with the US. However, Chinese city will be bomb and Chinese sovereign will be violated. That would present a problem for Chinese economic development both during and after the war.

the only way to bankrupt US via a direct war is over-the-horizon war, which means a thermonuclear war. Then both China and US and possible the world would be gone, then we have no reason to talk about what's after after.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Before 9/11/2001 US have 300 billions dollars in reserve, after 13 yrs of fighting 2 front war to destroy a group of terrorist, US is 18 trillions dollars in debts. In 13 yrs China amass upward to 4 trillions dollars in their foreign reserve, Asia pivot not only didn't impact in China ecomy or slow down China GDP grown as the same span China GDP grown over 1 trillions dollars in 3 yrs with Obama declaration of Asia pivot and containment of China policy.

US does not have 300 billions plus surplus in reserve, that would mean US have no national debt and 300 billions in federal reserve, US have 300 billions plus surplus in budget, US have 5+ Trillions national debt in 2001.

The actual cost of war by measure of Debt accumulated is only about 10-11 trillions with a 2 front war over the duration of 10 and 14 years. Consider that, this is relatively cheap.

And you need to look at it this way, even after the foreign government involvement, US would not have spend that 7 trillion of those 11 trillions debt had they do not gone to war, which translate to they can spare 7 trillions dollars to do something like that, but at the same time China can only spare 4 trillions in that 13 years....Which is actually proportional to the GDP figure.

 

[revu]

@Caty

U are making a mistake by grouping China with Iraq n Afghanistan, both didn't have enough defense or anything to put a decent fight against US, but it's different with China. With that, the cost for war with China will increase a lot, it can be 10x 20x or more.