US Military Presence - Literature review Example

Literature review s Submitted by s: Decreasing military power is particularly discerning since the US military is responsible for underwriting the other aspects of national power (Brown, 2008, p. 81). It can therefore be stated that the efficiency of other tools for global influence such as diplomacy and economic engagements are critically interweaved with and reliant on the apparent strength, presence and promise of the country’s armed forces. This means that any decline in the military powers of the US will lead to a decline in its influence internationally (Russett, 2011, p. 67). Presently, this trend is most apparent in the Western Pacific and even though the US has typically depended on a qualitative edge in order to prevail forces which as superior numerically, this technological advantage may be quickly declining. There have been warnings that the balance of power is changing in a manner that will not favor the US and there is a belief that the increased military upgrading associated with China is developing a challenging environment for the position, preparation and upgrading of the US military. What has not been considered is the disturbing reality that the decreasing military gap between the US and China poses a probability of increased conflicts. In the event that an overpowering US military gain reduces the likelihoods for miscalculations or conflicts, a limited military advantage leads to greater possibilities of conflict. Regardless of the comparative priority placed by high-ranking officials on the presence of US’s military in various areas, the current plans are insufficient to result in supporting of military presence in these regions. According to Bradford (2010, p, 848,) the quickly waning US military remains to be strained by obligations all over the globe, particularly since volatility increasing in the Middle East and assaults instigated by Russia on neighboring countries. Additionally, the required modernization plans are too costly for the resources in existence and this has led to a small and old US military without a capacity to meet numerous regional commitments. With a lack of a higher defense budget, there would be a prompt decline of the nation’s conventional deterrence in various regions of the world. In this context, China and other regional allies can instigate a number of steps with the aim of minimizing the dangers conflict as China has been viewed to increase its defense spending. With increased defense resources, China has an ability to continue expanding its investments in anti-access capacities that intend to impose asymmetrical expenses against Chinese forces. With the significant attention from the media and congress, that has accompanied the cuts to the US military, it becomes easy to forget that the decreasing spending on defense did not start in 2013 at the time when sequestration came into effect (Inbar and Zilberfarb, 2013, p. 55). The defense cuts actually started in 2009 when the administration under President Obama redirected approximately four hundred million that had been planned for pentagon spending which was mostly meant for important modernization initiatives (Rajaee and Miller, 2012, p. 13). Even though Pentagon attempted to downplay the effect of the reductions on national security, it is clear that cancellation, premature termination and delays of programs including F-22 and the next generation cruiser considerably delayed any fielding of newer military technologies while trying to focus on programs that were more relevant in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since the competition in terms of technology has become more and more important especially in the Western Pacific, it is difficult not to consider the budgetary decisions that instigated the cuts in spending as shortsighted. Melʹvilʹ (2010, p, 83) considers that, on a day-to-day basis, the most important contribution by the US towards peace and security in various regions of the world is its military’s regular presence. This deters adventurism as well as coercion by the countries that may be potentially hostile while at the same time reassuring allies, promoting regional stability and underwriting the nation’s broader strategy that involves international engagements, prevention and partnerships. It also provides the US with a greater influence politically and in terms of the military as far as the matters of key regions are concerned. If the presence of the American military is strong in a particular region, there is more likelihood of the US having greater diplomatic influence but unfortunately, the inverse of this is also true (Belmonte and Keefer, 2012, p. 800). Irrespective of the fact that additional focus in forward presence is a worthy objective, queries arise concerning how the navy will afford its plans with the prevailing budgetary constraints (Hattendorf, 2013, p. 157). The options that are available concerning increasing the presence of ship overseas include extending lengths of deployment, swapping the ship’s crew halfway through deployment as well as forward stationing additional ships. However, most of these options have their own associated limitations, for instance, there are situations where the Navy is already scheduling ten-month deployments and this can stress crews and their families making it an unsustainable structure. Jones, Candreva and DeVore (2012, p, 451) of the opinion that, with the lack of higher budgetary allocations, the Defense Department’s shrinking plans together with the structure of the force will continue to become acute in the future and this will have a negative impact all over the world. It is evident that these present budgetary allocations will inhibit the DOD from generation and supporting of forces needed to implement its strategies. Therefore, it can be concluded that the current baseline cannot entirely support the capabilities as well as the capacity that is needed by the department. A small and incapable military will have difficulties meeting the obligations it has set out to achieve and most of the US military’s platforms and equipment will be older while its advantages in a number of aspects will decline. Budget cuts will also lead to a loss of depth throughout the force resulting in a reduced ability to intimidate any opponents in the event that an escalating conflict is encountered. Various countries along with non-state entities that have inured the presence of the US military may begin acting differently or in a harmful manner. Furthermore, majority of the allies with the most capabilities may end up losing their capacities and this situation will be worsened considering the prevailing concerns about readiness that may become worse. Burden sharing has predominantly been the preferred idea in US military circles as a means of encouraging its allies to increase their contribution to their securities, however, the current environment is such that it is no longer preferable to have increased allied defense investments which is important in ensuring a status quo in the regions considered key (Hamada, 2011, p. 151). The nations that are friendly to the US are forced to increase their spending on defense in order deter aggression and this is particularly important for China as there are arguments stating that the US is not supposed to defend the countries that do not have an ability to defend themselves. With the only long-term solution being a return to supremacy by the US military by means of restored budgetary allocations, modernization, preparedness and structure of the force, the countries that partner with the US have a significant role in the stabilization of the situation before aggression like the one witnessed in Russia is seen in other parts of the world. China will be forced to reverse it defense budget declines in order to make investments in expanded military capabilities since it spent twenty percent less in 2012 compared to its expenditure on defense in 1996. This decrease in defense spending was in contrast with the prompt development of China’s military capability in the past decade and this sends the wrong message to the potential aggressors and allies. Manwaring (2013, p, 112) explains that so that deterrence can be effective, it is a requirement that it remains credible, but the present decline in the capabilities of the US defense continues to undermine its traditional deterrence in various areas all over the world. In the event that this trend continues, there is high likelihood of increased aggression in different regions of the world since the potentially hostile entities will encounter fewer hurdles when instigating their actions. Even though the promptly worsening occurrences all over the world may be the cause of key re-evaluations in regard to the US defense budget, the regional partners of the US should increase their defense as required so that they can maintain traditional deterrence regardless of the decrease in size and capability of the American military. As evidenced by the situation in Ukraine, military vacuums cannot last for long and this necessitates that the US and its allies all over the world to take action before their competitors can take the advantage to act. In the event that the fundamental building blocks, such as the power of the US military that necessitate international order are taken away, there are high chances of major instability, increased rates of conflicts and production of nuclear weapons along with serious and increasing threats to security within the country (Layne, 2007, p. 137). There has also been an increased assumption that the security posture of the US was developed so that it can serve other nations, but in reality, the US came up with its security structure and the best military in the entire globe so that it can serve its own interests. The nation’s network of security ties and agreements especially with NATO, were created in order to address a number of aspects including the prevention of another war involving Western Powers, deterring the Soviet Union and ensuring that the major economic regions continue to be free and global traffic flows. In the seventies, founded on the experiences of the oil embargo, the US became focused on security in the Persian Gulf since there was increasing importance associated with oil in the Middle East to America’s national economy as well as the economies of the industrialized world. Regardless of the fact that the Soviet does not exist anymore, the fundamental self-interest attributes associated with the US military’s role in the world continues to remain (McGonegal, 2009, p. 188). According to oil experts, the US has become less reliant that it was ten years ago on foreign oil, but any cutoff of the flow of this commodity from the Middle East will result in oil prices escalating. In the event that a war rises in the Taiwan Straits or the two Koreas rise against each other, there would be considerable losses in trade along with investment income while at the same time cutting-off the supply of computer chips and other consumer electronics to the rest of the world. The economy of the entire globe together with the well-being of the US is reliant on the independence of a various countries majority of which are allies of the US. Another problem that may arise if the US abandons its position as a security cornerstone of a world order of democratic nature and a global free trade system is that while the country may run, it will not be in a position to hide. The US remains the largest economy and in the worst-case scenario, it will only be number two with China being number one (Weaver, 2011, p. 140). Most of the major companies of American origin operate globally with extremely large investments in various regions of the globe and millions of its people travelling and working overseas leading to the American culture permeating the world. Therefore, completely voiding the international interconnections with the US will be extremely difficult while having negative effects to various economies all over the world. While considering what the appropriate size of the defense budget should be, it is imperative to remain aware immediate threats to the US and its allies from countries such as Iran and North Korea along with the threat posed by terrorist groups from other rogue states. There are also the prevailing challenges in cyberspace that have resulted from undercover activities targeting industrial and national security elements and from cyber-attack risks on the basic infrastructure of the US. Additionally, the current defense spending should also relate with the more distant threat from future policies associated with China’s military. Through considering the per capita income of China, it can be considered relatively poor, as it is less than a fifth of the per capita income of the US. However, since the population of China is more than four times that of the United States, the total GDP of China will be equal to that of the US at the time when its per capita income will reach a level that is a fifth of that in the US. If China’s growth rate considerably decreases from the levels that have been recorded in the near past, its total GDP will surpass that of the United States in the next fifteen years (Finn, 2007, p. 43). The potential military budget of a country is reliant on its total GDP and the current Chinese leadership is focusing on the promotion of economic growth in order to increase the standards of living for its citizens while at the same time dealing with the extremely large inequality existing between various groups. Additionally it is also involved in the development of all the aspects of its military capabilities. China’s military has not yet reached the standard of quality that has been reached by the US military but there is likelihood that the defense budget of China will increase alongside its GDP. This makes it imperative for the US to be aware that future leaders of China may take advantage of its greater GDP to instigate and develop strategies that are more aggressive in nature. The defense policy of the US along with its defense budget must hence concentrate on the future generations of Chinese leaders while remaining aware of the virtual certainty of the increasing economic power of China (Bolt, Coletta and Shackelford, 2005, p. 71). The US should ensure that it maintains military capabilities that will make sure that no future generations of Chinese leaders will decide to challenge it or decide to use military force that will intimidate the US or any allied nations. Future military spending in China together with its development of weapons will be reliant on its view of the current activities of the US as well as it future actions. If the US demonstrates willpower to continue being superior and invincible, China will not bother wasting resources on attempts to challenge it in the arms race. However, if it continues to cut its defense budget, the Chinese will consider this as a sign of weakness from the US presently and in the days to come. In numerous ways, China can be considered as a country that is poor in resources since it depends on imports of various raw materials as well as oil and food for feeding its population (Yao and Wang, 2014, p. 96). There are very little chances of this changing and China has not begun buying oil that is still in the ground all over the world and fertile lands in Africa where it will grow food to feed its population. Previously, some nations have employed military force in order to gain secure access to this kind of materials and the world remains hopeful that China will not follow this path in the future. It is imperative that allies of the US such as Japan and Australia remain aware of the commitment of the US to maintain a strong presence all over the world, especially in Asia. The relations US allies have with China and the US heavily relies on what can be expected in terms of the future of America regarding the strength of its military. The US navy has a very important part to play including its presence in international waters as a means of enforcing freedom in the seas, conducting naval visits to various ports in Asia and conducting joint exercises in collaboration and cooperation with navies from other countries. The implementation of a policy concerning future military superiority cannot be postponed and the US has to work towards developing the weapons of the future. The US has to maintain its technological and industrial capabilities to provide the modernized weapons through making it clear in the budget and actions that it is a global force at present and in the future. Even though the reduction of fiscal deficits is imperative, this activity should not act as a barrier to the endeavors of the federal government to achieve its main responsibility that involves the country’s defense along with its global interest at present and in future. Bibliography Belmonte, M. and Keefer, E. 2012, Foreign relations of the United States, 1969-1976, U.S. G.P.O, Washington. Bolt, P., Coletta, D. and Shackelford, C. 2005, American defense policy, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Bradford, J. 2010, A companion to American military history, Wiley-Blackwell Pub, Chichester, U.K. Brown, M. 2008, Primacy and its discontents, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. Finn, J. 2007, China-U.S. economic and geopolitical relations, Nova Science Publishers, New York. Hamada, K. 2011, Miraculous growth and stagnation in post-war Japan, Routledge, New York. Hattendorf, J. 2013, Naval Strategy and Power in the Mediterranean, Taylor and Francis, Hoboken. Inbar, E. and Zilberfarb, B. 2013, The Politics and Economics of Defence Industries, Taylor and Francis, Hoboken. Jones, L., Candreva, P. and DeVore, M. 2012, Financing national defense, Information Age Pub, Charlotte, NC. Layne, C. 2007, The peace of illusions, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.Y. Manwaring, M. 2013, Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century, Taylor and Francis, Hoboken. McGonegal, J. 2009, Imagining justice. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal. Melʹvilʹ, A. 2010, Political atlas of the modern world, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, Mass. Rajaee, B. and Miller, M. 2012, National security under the Obama administration, Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Russett, B. 2011, Hegemony and democracy, Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon [England]. Weaver, F. 2011, The United States and the global economy, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham. Yao, S. and Wang, P. 2014, Chinas outward foreign direct investments and impact on the world economy, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Read More