ANDREW EVERSDEN
WASHINGTON: After a nine-month deep-dive by Defense Department planners and policy experts billed as a holistic look at where and how America is deployed around the world, the Pentagon has concluded that no major changes to its military posture are needed — and that no public version of the document will be released.
The Pentagon’s Global Posture Review comes amid US concerns about confronting China in the Pacific, a build-up of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border and an enduring counterterrorism mission that will continue globally despite the end of the war in Afghanistan.
But rather than a large shift in resources and plans, the review, which looked at US troop locations and capabilities across the globe, ultimately concluded that no major strategic changes are needed, aside from “operational level adjustments we have already announced and a couple of other changes that are still being developed,” a senior defense official told reporters during a Monday briefing. What findings backed up those conclusions, however, is not clear, as the department declined to make a version of the review public.
“[The Indo-Pacific] is the priority theater. China is the pacing challenge for the department,” the senior defense official said. “I think you’ll see a strong commitment in the forthcoming NDS [National Defense Strategy] as well that will guide further posture enhancements.”
As to why no public document would be forthcoming, the senior defense official cited operational security and ongoing conversations with allies and partners about changes to force posture.
The review increased focus on China by reducing posture requirements in other theaters and redirecting resources to Indo-Pacific, but the official declined to go into specific details about what was being shifted from Europe, the Middle East or elsewhere. The official did state that the GPR directs “additional cooperation” with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific and calls for improving “infrastructure” in Guam and Australia and “prioritizing” military construction across the region. It includes new permanent stationing of an attack helicopter squadron and artillery division headquarters in the Republic of Korea.
Mara Karlin, assistant secretary of defense for strategy, plans and capabilities, told reporters at a second, on-the-record Pentagon press briefing Monday that the department will send new fighter and bomber aircraft to Australia. She added that across the Pacific, the US military would invest in logistics facilities, fuel storage, munition storage and airfield upgrades in Guam, Australia and the Northern Mariana Islands.
“There are a number of initiatives that we have currently underway that we are fleshing out real time with our allies and partners and you’ll see those manifest over the next two to three years or so,” the senior official said at the first briefing.
The official highlighted an October exercise with two US carrier strike groups and ships from the UK, Japan and other allies as an example of how the US now views the Pacific.
“As we evolve our posture in the Middle East and prioritize strategic alignment of our posture resources, this is the sort of activity we want to focus on in the Indo-Pacific,” the official said.
Military officials in the Indo-Pacific have continuously warned about the challenge the US military faces in the region. In Sept. 2020, then-commander of US Indo-Pacific Command Adm. Phil Davidson warned that the US military was unprepared for Chinese missiles threats in the Pacific.
While Pentagon officials hyped the GPR for several months, the senior official said it’s too soon for the department to implement sweeping strategic changes.
“In the first year of an administration, it’s not the time when we would develop a major strategic level change to our posture,” the senior defense official said.
Becca Wasser, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, told Breaking Defense that the GPR was “never going to produce major changes” to global posture because of the challenges with changing fixed posture, as well as the fact that the review preceded both the National Defense Strategy and National Security Strategy.
“What it does is provide a framework to message longer-term, gradual posture changes to allies and partners,” Wasser said. “If you want to change posture–whether that is expanding or consolidating bases, or deploying a new capability–you need access. Access is something only allies and partners can provide and changes to access usually require a lengthy consultation process.”
The review also didn’t examine space, cyber or nuclear weapons because those capabilities are distinct from the US forces international footprint, the official said. The department has numerous other ongoing initiatives related to some of those categories, including its Nuclear Posture Review, Missile Defense Review and its broader National Defense Strategy. Karlin stressed that the review is a starting point.
“This is not sort of the end all be all on posture around the world,” Karlin said. “The global force posture review came in trying to do a baseline and trying to figure out: what’s where? What is it doing?”
Europe Force Structure
The defense official was vague on what the review found in regards to the military’s posture in Europe, amid a buildup of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border that some experts say may preview a forthcoming invasion. But the official highlighted Biden’s reversal of former President Donald Trump’s 25,000 troop cap in Germany and the US announcement earlier this year that it was retaining seven European installations in Europe.
“There are other posture initiatives that we’re working real time with allies and partners to further strengthen that combat credible deterrent vis-a-vis Russia,” the official said, once again declining to provide specifics.
The official did say that that the review team at the Pentagon found readiness problems among European-based troops, but declined to be specific citing classification.
After the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the review directs the Pentagon to continue its “Defeat ISIS” campaign and to continue analyzing what the department’s enduring troop requirements are in the Middle East, as the counterterrorism mission is still ongoing.
The commander of Special Operations Command, Gen. Richard Clarke, recently told reporters that the threat of terrorism hasn’t subsided but rather “metastasized” into other areas of the globe. In Africa, the official said that the GPR is “supporting” several interagency reviews to ensure the department has the right force to monitor terrorism threats and support allies in Africa.
“The GPR did look at what was required for those those counterterrorism requirements and has a set of recommendations that are classified,” the senior official said.
No comments:
Post a Comment