The main strategic problem America faces if it wants to be
the world’s peacekeeper is the issue of distance. Even with today’s technology,
it takes a long time to get large military formations to distant locations in
the world. For example, Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2,1990 , but we didn’t begin
the counteroffensive until January 17 of 1991. It took almost 6 months to get
enough troops and equipment assembled to begin a response.
One solution to the strategic problem of distance is to
pre-position ships and troops and equipment all around the world, so that some
are relatively near any potential trouble spot. That’s fine, but it is
enormously expensive.
For example, on average it takes 3-4 ½ ships (depending on
type) to keep one ship on station somewhere around the world; the rest are
steaming to or from station, or in training, or in maintenance. To move a carrier group from the US to, say,
the Middle East takes about 17 days, not counting the time pierside to
provision it and prepare it to leave (typically 30-90 days). That is why we maintain 11 wildly expensive
carrier strike forces, so that at least 2-3 can be on station at any given
time. (and that’s why China’s two carriers are hardly a serious threat).
And moving heavy armor has the same problem. A few pieces
can be airlifted in, but the main body needs to move by ship, taking weeks to
arrive. In 2016 we spent somewhere between $91 and $121 billion, between 15-20
percent of the entire military budget, in 2016 just to maintain our military
forces in the Middle East.
An obvious alternate solution to this problem is to rely on
allies closer to the trouble spots to provide the main military forces used,
rather than carry the enormous cost of maintaining American troops and equipment
everywhere.. Rather than maintaining American
forces in Europe to counter Russia, let the Europeans carry that burden; it’s
their neighborhood, not ours (and their GDP is as big as ours; they can afford
it). Rather than maintaining American
troops in the Middle East at enormous expense, let Turkey and Israel and Saudi Arabia
and even Russia manage the quagmire there; it’s their neighborhood, not ours.
Rather than facing off against China, let Japan and South Korea and India and
Australia carry that load; it’s their neighborhood, not ours. We can certainly
help by providing training and weapons systems and overhead intelligence and
even some logistics support, but we don’t actually have to commit major forces
there unless there is an active war going on..
The Washington neoconservative foreign policy consensus (or perhaps
groupthink) of course thinks we ought to keep American forces everywhere, which
is why the dismay when Trump pulls them out of Syria. But in fact we need to be
realistic about the national budget – we simply can’t afford to maintain troops
and equipment everywhere. We are already deeply in debt, and it is getting
worse.
Posts
