February 23, 2022
Don't Trust the Process: Moving from Words to Actions on the Indo-Pacific Posture
This article was originally published by War on the Rocks.
Far from being a deterrent to aggression, American military bases in Asia are a tempting target. U.S. Indo-Pacific bases are vulnerable to myriad Chinese attacks. Threats to airbases are especially worrying since they host so much concentrated U.S. combat power, incentivizing a Chinese first strike. Actions to address these problems have been tardy and insufficient, despite repeated Pentagon statements prioritizing U.S. posture in the region.
Few defense analysts focused on the Indo-Pacific would quibble with these statements, yet these problems continue, and solutions remain unclear. Two recent War on the Rocks articles by my colleagues Stacie Pettyjohn and Dustin Walker aptly describe the Pentagon’s failure to improve U.S. posture in the Indo-Pacific. Pettyjohn cites a Cold War-era Air Force chief of staff who emphatically argued for airbase resiliency in Europe as a model for today’s senior leaders to advocate for passive defenses. Walker prods the secretary and deputy secretary of defense to take a more aggressive role on force posture. Both argue that these problems cannot be solved absent senior leader engagement.
Moving from words to poured concrete requires subordinate organizations and processes to execute guidance and policies.
I agree with both authors that senior leader engagement is necessary, but I believe the Pentagon also needs to reform the processes and organizations responsible for overseeing posture. Secretaries and service chiefs should prioritize posture, but they can’t fix this issue without help.
Fixing the Indo-Pacific posture will require targeted policies to incentivize the implementation of posture initiatives in the near term in addition to long-term reforms to ensure that posture considerations have a more prominent role in the defense budgeting process.
Read the full article from War on the Rocks.
More from CNAS
-
Who Will Lead on Military AI, the Government or Industry?
Video
The military is going to use artificial intelligence. But while planners in the government may have an idea of the best way forward, can they truly lead, or will industry stee...
By Josh Wallin
-
What Trump Really Wants with Venezuela
Podcast
The Trump administration says it’s targeting narco-traffickers. But critics at home and abroad have decried the attacks and challenged their legal basis. Meanwhile, President ...
By Becca Wasser
-
Video
Defense / Technology & National Security
What to Expect from Military AI in 2030As the US military races to harness artificial intelligence, experts say the biggest AI breakthroughs may not come from “killer robots” or autonomous war machines, but from al...
By Josh Wallin
-
Commentary
Defense / Indo-Pacific Security / Technology & National Security
To Compete with China on Military AI, U.S. Should Set the StandardsThe United States has an opportunity to lead in global norms and standards for military AI at a critical moment, when the foundations laid today could shape how militaries use...
By Jacob Stokes, Paul Scharre & Josh Wallin
