A New American Doctrine
Published in El Watan
(Algeria) on 7 January 2012
by Mohammed Larbi (link to original)
The Pentagon’s budget has been called many things. “Elephantine” was a commonly heard adjective, before the economic crisis forced budget cuts to be made. For the United States, the crisis has led not only to a new budgetary strategy, but to a whole new doctrine. The U.S. has spent the past several months drafting general ideas for the new way of thinking. On Thursday, President Barack Obama addressed this issue that has captured the entire world’s attention. He spoke about budgetary restrictions and his country’s commitment to maintaining military superiority.
The experts, of course, see a cut of hundreds of billions of dollars as a cut in funding. Priorities must be pruned back, strategies must be modified and so-called “essential” missions must be redefined. In Thursday’s address, the president gave strategic priority to Asia and announced the end of some long military operations. However, Obama promised that the United States would remain “vigilant” in the Middle East and would continue to work with allies and develop strategic partnerships, similar to NATO. The Secretary General of NATO found these comments reassuring and praised the Americans’ commitment to “continue investing in NATO.” This effort is hard to see, though, especially since last October when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed to the Alliance in Brussels that the predicted cuts would affect the United States’ ability to finance NATO’s operations. This is not just simple arithmetic.
First and foremost, the other 27 members must reach deep into their pockets. “As for the United States, many might assume that the U.S. defense budget is so large it can absorb the shocks and cover alliance shortcomings — but make no mistake, we are facing dramatic cuts with real implications for alliance capability,” Panetta warned. There is also the fact that the United States is not the only country affected by the economic crisis, and that NATO no longer has the funding to match its policy. But finally, there is the all-important question of the Alliance’s future. More precisely, is it at last, this time, fated to disappear? Obama declared, “We’ll be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific and budget reductions will not come at the expense of this critical region.” Many analysts expect this to imply a reduced role in other regions, which will undoubtedly include the Middle East. Once the first part of the year has passed, we may see that such cuts could put an end to Israel’s stubborn unwillingness to compromise. Simple mathematics? Perhaps more. The Americans talk of economics, but a whole new doctrine is implied: the Obama doctrine.
The experts, of course, see a cut of hundreds of billions of dollars as a cut in funding. Priorities must be pruned back, strategies must be modified and so-called “essential” missions must be redefined. In Thursday’s address, the president gave strategic priority to Asia and announced the end of some long military operations. However, Obama promised that the United States would remain “vigilant” in the Middle East and would continue to work with allies and develop strategic partnerships, similar to NATO. The Secretary General of NATO found these comments reassuring and praised the Americans’ commitment to “continue investing in NATO.” This effort is hard to see, though, especially since last October when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed to the Alliance in Brussels that the predicted cuts would affect the United States’ ability to finance NATO’s operations. This is not just simple arithmetic.
First and foremost, the other 27 members must reach deep into their pockets. “As for the United States, many might assume that the U.S. defense budget is so large it can absorb the shocks and cover alliance shortcomings — but make no mistake, we are facing dramatic cuts with real implications for alliance capability,” Panetta warned. There is also the fact that the United States is not the only country affected by the economic crisis, and that NATO no longer has the funding to match its policy. But finally, there is the all-important question of the Alliance’s future. More precisely, is it at last, this time, fated to disappear? Obama declared, “We’ll be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific and budget reductions will not come at the expense of this critical region.” Many analysts expect this to imply a reduced role in other regions, which will undoubtedly include the Middle East. Once the first part of the year has passed, we may see that such cuts could put an end to Israel’s stubborn unwillingness to compromise. Simple mathematics? Perhaps more. The Americans talk of economics, but a whole new doctrine is implied: the Obama doctrine.