The US Defense Strategy: Do Not Raise Tensions in Asia
Regardless of economic difficulties, attempting to increase one's reliance on allied nations for national security is an act of selfishness.
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) announced by the U.S. Department of Defense once again emphasizes an attitude that “focuses on Asia” in order to oppose China — with its prolific military expansion — as it advances to the sea. As part of the goal to strengthen the overall U.S. naval presence in Japan, the U.S. intends to deploy 60 percent of U.S. naval vessels to strategic points throughout the Pacific Ocean by the year 2020, and to deepen its alliance with nations such as Australia, South Korea and Japan.
However, the only outcome of this will be an increased risk of surrounding nations being pulled into a conflict between the U.S. and China. Rather, the more important endeavor is to reduce military tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel released a statement saying, “This QDR defines the historic transition unfolding throughout our defense enterprise. As we move off the longest continuous war footing in our nation's history, this QDR explains how we will adapt, reshape, and rebalance our military for the challenges and opportunities of the future.” Secretary Hagel also acknowledged the challenging financial situation the U.S. currently faces.
The defense budget draft (the requested baseline) for the 2015 fiscal year (October 2014 to September 2015) is $496 billion (approximately 50 trillion JPY); that would make it roughly a 6 percent reduction from the previous fiscal year. Furthermore, it will remain under the continual obligation to reduce the budget by approximately $1 trillion within a 10-year time frame.
In a few years, the number of U.S. army personnel will go from around 520,000 to between 440,000 and 450,000, making it the smallest it has been since the end of World War II.
The United States’ current economic difficulties are the result of large military expenditures on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The prevailing public sentiment is one of war weariness, and attitudes regarding congressional defense expenditures are severe.
Two years ago the Obama administration gave up on trying to maintain “military operations on two fronts” in dealing simultaneously with anticipated large-scale conflicts in the Middle East and on the Korean peninsula. The U.S. military will also completely withdraw from Afghanistan before the end of the year.
The Obama administration, which exemplifies an attitude of discretion in the use of military force, touts the importance of Asia; in the background of that, there is a route for Chinese military expansion. The defense budget lacks the inflated scale it possessed 10 years prior when it was nearly four times as large, and it also lacks in transparency.
The United States’ caution is understandable. However, if what it is seeking is a unilateral expansion of Japan’s role in military affairs, then it is extremely misguided.
Shinzo Abe’s administration, which stresses the importance of an alliance with the U.S., is moving toward a revision in U.S.-Japan cooperative defense guidelines and is attempting to expedite approval for the right to exercise collective defense. By the current constitutional interpretation, the right to exercise collective defense is forbidden; the public is in agreement. We cannot use the United States’ current state of affairs as a pretext to violate a fundamental rule.
If the U.S. and China really do have their sights set on “a new type of relationship between major countries,” then what they need to do is strive to build stability in East Asia. In which case, the framework for a multi-layered security conference — one that includes other involved nations — should also be considered.
And Japan should not merely comply with the U.S., but should consider that which is beneficial to the entirety of East Asia.
The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) announced by the U.S. Department of Defense once again emphasizes an attitude that “focuses on Asia” in order to oppose China — with its prolific military expansion — as it advances to the sea. As part of the goal to strengthen the overall U.S. naval presence in Japan, the U.S. intends to deploy 60 percent of U.S. naval vessels to strategic points throughout the Pacific Ocean by the year 2020, and to deepen its alliance with nations such as Australia, South Korea and Japan.
However, the only outcome of this will be an increased risk of surrounding nations being pulled into a conflict between the U.S. and China. Rather, the more important endeavor is to reduce military tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel released a statement saying, “This QDR defines the historic transition unfolding throughout our defense enterprise. As we move off the longest continuous war footing in our nation's history, this QDR explains how we will adapt, reshape, and rebalance our military for the challenges and opportunities of the future.” Secretary Hagel also acknowledged the challenging financial situation the U.S. currently faces.
The defense budget draft (the requested baseline) for the 2015 fiscal year (October 2014 to September 2015) is $496 billion (approximately 50 trillion JPY); that would make it roughly a 6 percent reduction from the previous fiscal year. Furthermore, it will remain under the continual obligation to reduce the budget by approximately $1 trillion within a 10-year time frame.
In a few years, the number of U.S. army personnel will go from around 520,000 to between 440,000 and 450,000, making it the smallest it has been since the end of World War II.
The United States’ current economic difficulties are the result of large military expenditures on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The prevailing public sentiment is one of war weariness, and attitudes regarding congressional defense expenditures are severe.
Two years ago the Obama administration gave up on trying to maintain “military operations on two fronts” in dealing simultaneously with anticipated large-scale conflicts in the Middle East and on the Korean peninsula. The U.S. military will also completely withdraw from Afghanistan before the end of the year.
The Obama administration, which exemplifies an attitude of discretion in the use of military force, touts the importance of Asia; in the background of that, there is a route for Chinese military expansion. The defense budget lacks the inflated scale it possessed 10 years prior when it was nearly four times as large, and it also lacks in transparency.
The United States’ caution is understandable. However, if what it is seeking is a unilateral expansion of Japan’s role in military affairs, then it is extremely misguided.
Shinzo Abe’s administration, which stresses the importance of an alliance with the U.S., is moving toward a revision in U.S.-Japan cooperative defense guidelines and is attempting to expedite approval for the right to exercise collective defense. By the current constitutional interpretation, the right to exercise collective defense is forbidden; the public is in agreement. We cannot use the United States’ current state of affairs as a pretext to violate a fundamental rule.
If the U.S. and China really do have their sights set on “a new type of relationship between major countries,” then what they need to do is strive to build stability in East Asia. In which case, the framework for a multi-layered security conference — one that includes other involved nations — should also be considered.
And Japan should not merely comply with the U.S., but should consider that which is beneficial to the entirety of East Asia.