A long and rambling article by a an American officer which is neither very comprehensive or logical nor coherent. A nation's national doctrine determines its military doctrine and both of these lie in the domain of the power/authority that rules/governs the nation. As regards America, it is the American president assisted by his chosen advisers who formulate the national and military doctrines which are vetted by the elected representatives of America. From the US military doctrine flow the doctrines of the respective services like the USAF, US Army , USN and the USMC. How is it then that we have a marine corps officer theorising on what the likely role and scope of his service may be. I mean, the parameters are strictly laid down. There is no scope for hypothesis and imagination here. The political bosses of America will tell the service chiefs what political/military objectives they expect the US military to attain or facilitate in attaining and in what time frame. The US military will then decide the best way to do the job and roles and objectives will be assigned to various services towards that goal. Thus will continue down the chain till every battalion, company and platoon commander is assigned his tasks and objectives. That is how it is done in most parts of the world. The USMC does not function in a vacuum. It is a small cog in a giant wheel. While, it may be prudent to work out the likely future scenarios in which the service may be deployed, care should be taken to ensure that the cart is not put before the horse. That seems to be the case here.
The article talks of a paradigm shift in the role of the US military necessitated by fiscal problems which beset the US as also the rise in economic and military capabilities of non western powers. That this rise also coincides with a general decline of traditional allies of the US. This shift is all too obvious. The other visible shift is the transition of the role of the US military from a post Cold War asymmetric sphere of COIN ops to a conventional military role. The US finds itself retracing the very same steps which its western allies took when they degraded their military capabilities severely after the collapse of the USSR. We all heard the cries of 'Where is the enemy? The enemy has ceased to exist. Why do we need the huge military apparatus? Dismantle the military, send the buggers home.' Not so, it would appear. The USSR is fast being replaced by China. The enemy remains. While, COIN and CT operations need special capabilities and skills, but conventional military capabilities are far more expensive. Hamstrung as it is by its grave fiscal problems at home, the US suddenly finds itself without friends. The UK has no carrier, France has just one. Submarines are being mothballed all the time. Europe is desperately trying to save its own a$$ from a crumbling banking sector and a terminally sick Euro. The traditional friends of the US are far too weak to project any viable military presence in the Indo Pacific. But this is the space in which America's war for continuing relevance will be fought. The Indo Pacific is where the US will make its last stand. Chinese A2/AD plans threaten to deny most of America's western sea board in the long run. As of now China simply aims to secure for itself a space in which it can conduct its maritime commercial and energy needs. However this space will expand with Chinese economic and military power till it will directly threaten the US western sea board and cut off US freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean. The US knows this too well.
It is really amazing that the Americans did not see this coming and continued their fruitless and expensive battles of attrition in west Asia. The US is primarily a maritime power and without one of its two sea boards, it is as good as gone. Better to stop the Chinese and keep them busy in the east and south China Seas than let them foray further deeper into the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. hence the AirSea battle concept. The only problem is that the AirSea Battle concept necessitates huge financial investments which the US can't afford. How effective a scaled down model will be remains to be seen.
The way I see it, America will be fighting it battle for survival as a world power and a nation of relevance on its western flanks sometime in the coming decades and in this most important of battles, America finds itself woefully short of friends and resources. But America will not go down without a fight, of that I am sure.
India? Well yes, our interests do coincide where China is concerned. They also diverge in other areas. I disagree with the major where he says that India is America's staunch ally. But then neither is China our staunch ally!!! So we have a thing in common and definitely, we can be of help in this 'neck of the woods' which is the Indo Pacific. Much more so than UK or Germany or Australia. So while we may never become lovers as US and Pakistan were once, we can remain friends. And the only way to do that is for America to be careful not to step on our toes and never to treat India as a client state.
Regards.
PS : I am sorry, I mistook this for an atricle written by a USMC Maj Gen. Maybe, that explains my dissatisfaction with the article, it is so half baked (half assed in Americanese) and incomplete that it does not merit a comment. Had I realised that the author was a major, I would not have taken the trouble to comment on it. I do not believe that a major with his limited knowledge, understanding and experience can do adequate justice to a subject such as this.
