America and Uncertain Steps in the New Military Climate

Despite the rewriting of America’s military strategy by the president of this country, which makes any chance of engagement in a new military operation fainter than before, Washington still continues to show a threatening military posture against Tehran. During a press conference held Jan. 18 at the Pentagon, the headquarters for the Department of Defense, Leon Panetta, the U.S. secretary of defense, announced that if the Strait of Hormuz is closed and the Islamic Republic of Iran ignores America’s warnings, the U.S. military is prepared to enter into a new military theater in order to deal with Iran.

About two weeks ago on Jan. 5 in the same location that Panetta threatened Tehran with military confrontation, Barack Obama, declaring the principle doctrine of his nation’s new military strategy entitled “Military Strategy Review,”* emphasized through implication the decreased desire of White House leaders to enter into another theater of military operation. Panetta, despite the cautious view expressed earlier in regards to military confrontation with Iran, made his position toward Tehran clear. This is while all the evidence indicates the absence of readiness and desire on behalf of Washington’s top decision makers to enter into a military operation however limited. The interesting point is that even while the escalation of the media and propaganda war in regards to attacking Iran was pursued, which was focused on Tel Aviv, the U.S. secretary of defense had warned against any kind of imprudent action against the Islamic Republic of Iran. In considering this issue, it seems the declaration of Panetta’s current stance has become more distant than ever before from the current situation. The principles and reality of America’s major decision making [process] therefore can be examined more as an infeasible contrast or propaganda.


Analysis of the current decision-making climate in America in regards to starting military action:

The U.S. secretary of defense spoke of America’s complete military readiness in response to any conflict with Iran. If they should close the Strait of Hormuz by pointing out the presence of the aircraft carriers USS Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln in the waters of the Persian Gulf, the forces stationed in Bahrain, the U.A.E., Qatar, and Kuwait, the review of the internal climate in America on the threshold of presidential elections and particularly the conditions of key decision-making in the White House tells a different story.

Within the framework of the new doctrine provided by Obama, analysis of the military challenges facing America has caused some of the experts to express concern. In particular, the policy of the strategic doctrine of the American war-machine has changed. Along with the decrease in military spending, this is a sign of the diminishing willingness of Washington’s leaders to expand military interventions all over the world. Others consider these key components to be intermediate changes, which due to America’s inability to fund the expenses of its militarism on a world-wide level, lead to changes independent of the economic crisis. On the other hand, a number of researchers point directly to the necessity of expanding its military presence and increasing its military capability in East Asia, clearly against an undeniable power like China. They interpret the emphasis on expanding cyber warfare and the strengthening of key armed forces such as the Air Force and the Navy to be an indication of the effort to improve America’s military might, which is reflected in the new military doctrine with due attention paid to this country’s internal and international fears and destiny.

Key points of the military strategy review

The $450 billion decrease to the Pentagon’s military budget over the next 10 years has been mentioned as perhaps one of the most important points of America’s military doctrine review, and the most probable alternative for adopting such a decision is a massive crisis which still casts its shadow from four years ago over the economy of this country. In a broader view of the current status of the financial system in America, one could deduce that this system has registered earnings in full decline. The U.S. government’s $4 trillion budget deficit in 2011 and the more than $14 trillion foreign debt, has displayed that the financial and economic situation of the government is in crisis. Of course, a significant factor of the foreign debt was accumulated from the sudden increase in Washington’s military expenditures over the past decade and the ongoing attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. This issue has made balancing military and security expenditures transform into one of the major financial planning requirements for White House decision makers. In preparing the new military strategy document, on which planning began from the moment the president and Congress agreed on a reduction in military spending, it is anticipated that this budget adjustment will be extended to providing a $600 billion reduction plan. The impact of a reduction in military spending to operations is what stands out more than any other issue for key skilled personnel — meaning U.S. Army and Marine forces. In connection with this, authorized officials are looking into a 10–15 percent decrease in the number of U.S. Army and Marine forces. This reduction means that tens of thousands of American military will be let go.

Considering the relative success of the military operation of America and its Western allies in the NATO attack on Libya, unlike the not-so-successful experience of the Iraq War, examining this point in the new military doctrine shows that a ground attack and use of man-power have been removed from the military agenda of White House decision makers. The negative repercussions of military casualties on the internal stage — in the event of American conflict on another front — could be another important reason for minimizing America’s battle capability in the ground forces of this country.

Another important point in the military strategy review document is related to the strengthening of America’s military presence and power in geographical areas led by China. Under the new military strategy, the increased growth of China’s military strength is declared one of the most prominent threats to America’s international security plans and goals. Differences of opinion between Washington and Beijing on certain issues have increased the concerns of American officials about the growth of China’s power, especially its military capability. The approach to dealing with Pyongyang and the nuclear and missile program of North Korea, military/security cooperation in the Taiwan Peninsula, America’s widespread military presence in the Asia-Pacific region and the mounting faceoff and all-out competition between China and America as two global hubs of military/security contribute to this uneasiness.

Prior to this, the Pentagon had announced in its yearly report to the U.S. Congress that China’s military has increased investment in nuclear weapons sectors, long-range missiles, aircraft carriers, and cyber warfare. According to the U.S. Department of Defense, the balance of power in East Asia is undergoing change at this time according to the desires of China. Based on the realities of Beijing’s expansion of military power, America is extremely concerned about the ability of the Chinese military to prevent the comfortable presence of Americans in East Asia and it was this same aspect that Obama had spoken about in his Asian trip last year to East Asia — of Washington’s concerns about the existing tensions in the China Sea — and he had emphasized the necessity of forming a strong coalition against threats in the region.

Operational changes for improving America’s military ability under the new conditions

Despite the considerable superiority of the Americans in the areas of computer warfare and technology, which are the factors that make the U.S. war machine superior, experts have pointed out blind spots in the utilization of computer warfare or faulty gears. This can present a challenge to the battle capability of the Americans in a confrontation with rivals more powerful than the militaries of the Libyan dictator on the warfront of that country. The bringing down of one of the most advanced generations of American spy planes on the soil of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the commandeering of the control of this airplane by Iranian air defense forces showed that America cannot blindly rely on its technological superiority on the battlefield. In addition to increasing the level of technology utilized in military equipment, the necessity of investing in cyber capacities has been emphasized in the new strategy document approved by Congress and signed by Obama.

Unlike the previous doctrine during which the U.S. military must simultaneously be ready for combat in two wars, under the new strategy, military planning will occur when appropriate for participating in a war. However, in special and exceptional conditions, diplomatic alternatives or preventative operations have been mentioned to postpone a “second threat.” This means that Americans are no longer willing to enter into military conflict on several fronts. The exit of U.S. military forces from Iraq at the end of last year and the declaration of withdrawal of military forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 have been analyzed by experts as being in line with the overall military strategy. Based on the new strategy, in addition to what has already been stated, policymakers in Washington D.C. intend to decrease the expensive activities of its nuclear arsenal so long as it does not inflict any blemish on the national security of their country. Conversely, increasing “conventional” military strength or developing various equipment and facilities for preserving American military superiority in rivalry with its competitors in the world will continue as it has in the past. According to high-ranking U.S. officials, the plan to decrease the budget and forces of the nation’s military, which has been compared to “surgery”, pursues the goal of showing that America plans to preserve its military superiority in the world with armed forces that are agile, flexible, and ready to confront any kind of threat.

Repercussions and consequences of announcing the review in American military strategy

To some extent, one could say announcing the review of the military doctrine of the United States is influenced by the competitive climate prior to the presidential elections of this country. Obama is trying to satisfy public opinion, which remains committed to the slogans that less than four years ago in the race with the Republican candidate for the presidency, sent him to the White House victorious.

In spite of America’s participation in the few-month military operation toppling Gadhafi in Libya, Obama is trying to prove — by tactics like military withdrawal from Iraq, negotiation with the Taliban to be rid of the front in Afghanistan, and lastly decreasing Army and Marine combat forces and expenditures — that actually he has implemented “policy change” compared to the American interventionist and force-centric attitudes on the international level during the time of his statesmanship. On the other hand, in the country’s current climate, Obama and his Democratic supporters in the government and Congress could use the announcement of America’s military strategy review to target two marks with one bullet and as an example of the President’s efforts for solving the challenges of the economic crisis.

However, in confirming the recent decisions of Obama in the new military strategy, General Martin Dempsey, the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has emphasized in a press conference at the Department of Defense that the changes in strategy do not indicate an American military decline but rather are for the purpose of planning for the improvement of the performance of the nation’s military. In response to critics he stated that right now is a tough time for the economy and this new strategy under the current conditions has required difficult decisions. Likewise, the execution of this plan will be the real test. General Dempsey has expressed the assurance that this strategy will adequately respond to America’s needs in the future.

While the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed his assurance concerning the efficacy of the American military force’s new strategy, from the perspective of the U.S. secretary of defense, decreasing the defense budget is counted as a tragedy and an about-face in empowering America’s military, which he intends to fight. Internationally, China, as a country that sees the arrowhead of the new security plan pointing at them, has tried to deal with the recent subject in a calculated way. However, despite the cautious stance taken by the political leaders of Beijing, military commanders and media such as the Communist Party Newspaper have not concealed their anger concerning Washington’s military/security strategy review and have demanded that the Chinese government oppose America’s actions and strengthen their military deterrence against America by building up their long-range attack capability.

As for NATO, the most important military partner of Washington internationally, it has announced its support of the new doctrine a few days after the publication of the 8-page review of American military strategy. In this regard, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the secretary-general of NATO, in an interview with Agence France-Presse, welcomed America’s new military strategy which includes the changing attitude of Europe towards the Asia/Pacific region. In regard to the Middle East and especially in response to the increasing challenges presented by the uncompromising attitudes of Iran against the hegemony-seeking of America’s military/security in the region, the security threats arising from a nuclear Iran have been considered in line with the security/military threats of Pyongyang in the new strategy. The aforementioned document, by putting forth baseless and repeated allegations against the Islamic Republic of Iran pertaining to its efforts to build an atomic bomb, advises that American policies emphasize the security of the Persian Gulf, the appropriate cooperation with the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (comprised of six Arab countries) in order to prohibit Iran from expanding its capacity to build a nuclear weapon, and countering Tehran’s policies. Considering Panetta’s new comments regarding responding to Iran’s actions if they block the Strait of Hormuz, one can assess the overall approach of Americans based on continual military threats, propaganda, and psychological operations against Tehran as being parallel to avoidance of any type of confrontation and creating security/military tension in the region.

In addition to the statement mentioned earlier, a number of American experts believe that the new military strategy of Obama’s government, in subsequent priorities to pursuing the goal of saving money and manpower, is built upon a military/security confrontation with Iran and China with the lowest expense possible. Therefore, within the framework of long term measures and avoidance of non-localized action, issues such as the configuration of forces in the Persian Gulf and Pacific Ocean regions on the one hand, and the sale of advanced weapons like fighter aircraft and anti-missile and anti-aircraft missile systems to American allies in these two areas — especially Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea — are among the key sections of and are central to this strategy.

*Editor's note: President Obama called it a “comprehensive defense review,” and the actual title is "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense."

Additional reading below:
Full transcript of Secretary of Defense Panetta’s comments during January 18th press conference available (here)
Full Transcript of Jan 5 comprehensive defense review for Obama, Panetta, Dempsey and others available here (here)