Obama’s New Strategy Shall not Help Asia, but Lowers America’s Global Commitment

The Obama administration has announced that the United States will shift its defense focus to the Asia Pacific region from the Middle East, while cutting the scale of armed forces. This is utterly ridiculous. Certainly, the threat of China is growing rapidly. However, its expansionism advances not only eastward but westward as well. China can fill the vacuum of power in the Middle East through Iran and Pakistan, after US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. We must remember that none of Asian economies assume continual high growth without stability in the Middle East. They import oil from there. Also, Chinese influence prevails in Central Asia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Therefore, it is utterly naïve for Asia Pacific people to praise Obama’s pivot to Asia. Moreover, as I argued in a previous post, defense spending cut poses severe constraints to the F-35 joint strike fighter project. The Obama administration’s mess with F-35 can inflict negative impacts on the allies. From these perspectives, I would like to comment global security strategy of the Obama administration critically.





For an over view of this issue, let me mention a forum entitled "Maintaining America's Global Responsibilities in an Age of Austerity" moderated by Robert Kagan at the Foreign Policy Initiative last December. Among leading guest speakers, Senator John McCain talked about key problems of US defense and budget. In the above video, Senator McCain articulates that political leaders must convince American voters to pay for state of the art arsenals like air craft carriers and stealth fighters. On the other hand, McCain points out that lack of competition in defense industry make research and development price costly. Also, he mentioned that military personnel costs be cut to reduce waste spending and keep US forces well armed. Regarding Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea, which is the focal issue of East Asian security, McCain denounces it a violation of free navigation. As to the Middle East, the Arab Spring can prevail anywhere in the world, including China, Russia, other repressive regimes, and even the United States itself as witnessed in the Occupiers. McCain asserts that the United States must endorse those political transitions. While the United States faces security challenges around the world, McCain is concerned with the rise of isolationism in the presidential election because voters are preoccupied with domestic economy. Senator McCain makes it clear that it is presidential leadership that can promote understandings of US foreign policy requirements and necessity of global commitment among voters. The problem today is European allies are less involved in global security, and even Britain is cutting defense as shown in the Strategic and Defence and Security Review in 2010. On the other hand, rising and increasingly nationalist states in the rest of the world claim great power rivalries against the West. Finally McCain urges presidential candidates to discuss more on foreign policy, since no other nations can play the role of providing global public goods as America does.





The United States needs to strengthen its presence in Asia, while facing new political challenges in the Middle East. Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, told Asia strategy in such global environment in the above video. The problem is whether the United States can sustain military presence in this region, in view of drastic defense cuts. Campbell says that US defense focus needs to shift from current ground operation against terrorists to naval and air force rivalries in the Asia Pacific region. For Asia Pacific nations, strong relations with the United States will be helpful to cope with China whether they confront Chinese threat or pursue good economic ties with Beijing. While stressing interdependence between the United Sates and China, Campbell also mentions that human rights and political liberalization are critical issues of bilateral clash as geopolitical rivalry in the South China Sea is.

Having watched both videos to understand an overview, let me talk about defense budget at first. The Budget Control Act last August and the failure of super committee agreement last November pose critical restraints to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. The United States faces various global challenges including China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Islamic terrorists, and so forth. Also, drastic spending cut will curtail advanced weapons programs like stealth fighters. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney raises critical concerns with Obama’s proposed reduction in military personnel and arsenals (“Defense Secretary Panetta faces tough choices on national security in 2012”; Washington Post; January 3, 2012). In view of such defense debates, President Barack Obama announced new defense strategy at the beginning of this year. The rise of China is its primary focus, as Panetta said the United States was a traditional Pacific power. However, Iran is the most immediate threat currently, in face of nuclear proliferation and tensions around the Strait of Hormuz. Experts talk of nuclear arms reduction in order to streamline the defense and avoid further cut in conventional forces (“Obama unveiling strategy for slimmed-down military”; Boston Globe; January 5, 2012). On the Hill, Obama’s new defense strategy exacerbates partisan split on national security since the Iraq War. A key issue like defense and the budget needs a national consensus. Republicans must demand the White House to modify the strategy at the congress to defend the interest of the Unites States and the allies around the globe (“Obama military strategy: Is it bipartisan enough?”; Christian Science Monitor; January 5, 2012).

The problem is whether the United States can pick and choose its defense focus. Remember that America faces multiple threats around the globe. Among key regions, the most problematic one in the new Obama strategy is the Middle East. The War on Terror has not completed, and Arab nations need more American involvement. To begin with, I would like to mention a comment by Jamie Fly, Executive Director at the Foreign Policy Initiative. President Obama ruined his achievement to kill Osama bin Laden last May, as he announced withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Afghanistan before successfully nullifying extremists that threaten stability in both countries. Obama is too reckless to retreat from the Middle East when Arab nations are in the midst of political transition and American presence is required in the region (“Did the leader of the free world actually lead?”; Shadow Government; December 30, 2011). Is 2011 a missed opportunity for American leadership in the Middle East? Though security challenges in East Asia cannot be underscored in view of China and North Korea, Buck McKeon, Republican Member of the House of Representatives, comments “It’s baffling that, in this fiscal environment, the President would be talking about a pivot to Asia before our work is done in the Middle East.” Congressman McKeon also points out that there is no guarantee that a smaller armed force can act more flexible and agile to cope with various global crisis from Libya to Japan (“America’s new defense strategy: a Q&A with House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon”; AEI Interview; January 5, 2012). In addition, Russia is building up nuclear capabilities. At the end of the last year, President Dmitry Medvedev announced to deploy long awaited Bulava SLBM (“Bulava missile ready to deploy”; RIA Novosti; December 27, 2011). Furthermore, Russia plans 11 ICBM test this year (“Russia Schedules 11 ICBM Tests for 2012”; Global Security Newswire; January 5, 2012). The New START has not reset US-Russian relations. Now, Russia articulates its position to challenge US hegemony while the Obama administration cuts the size of US forces.

The most critical decision Obama has made is withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator John McCain comments that the United States retreated from Iraq unilaterally. McCain criticizes that the Obama administration has rejected to reassure security and political stability in Iraq that US troop presence could have done. He also points out that US withdrawal will provoke further turmoil in Afghanistan. Afghan leaders may be tempted to appease anti-American neighbors and terrorists, if US security umbrella is not guaranteed. Ultimately, this will embolden US enemies in the region (“John McCain on Iraq: Losing the peace”; AEI Interview; December 22, 2011). As to US role in the Middle East, we should not dismiss Iran. In view of the tension over the Strait of Hormuz, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper urged the global community, even including Russia and China, to act resolutely against Iran because it was the greatest threat to the world (“Iran is the ‘world’s most serious threat to international peace’: Stephen Harper”; National Post; January 5, 2012). It is far from sufficient to manage Iranian threat simply through providing bunker buster bombs to the United Arab Emirates. China can fill the vacuum of power after US pull out. More importantly, the economy of Asian allies depends on oil import from the Middle East. Therefore, the pivot to Asia does not guarantee peace and prosperity in the Asia Pacific region.

Let me mention global reaction to the new Obama strategy. While Obama’s troop cut in the Middle East and Europe raises concerns in those regions, Australia welcomes the pivot to Asia. The idea of cost efficient, small, agile, and flexible armed forces is nothing new. As launched by Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, structural reform of US military has been a key policy agenda in the post Cold War era. The problem is, the Obama administration’s down sizing is too rapid (“World reacts to Obama's new military focus on Asia”; Christian Science Monitor; January 6, 2012). As Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates articulated in his farewell speech, the size of armed forces must be maintained for global operational requirements. Obama’s shift to Asia intensifies alert among Chinese experts, and the South China Sea has become the primary focus of Sino-American geopolitical rivalry (“China stays cool as new US defense strategy targets Asia”; Christian Science Monitor; January 6, 2012).

It is nothing wrong to keep more alert against Chinese expansionism. But　the Obama administration should keep in mind that it is overall strength of US military power that can deter Chinese ambition rather than relative focus on Asia. Certainly, the allies must build up their own defense power as Obama says. However, current mess with the F-35 fighter project reveals that the Obama administration’s defense policy is utterly incoherent. How can allies make their own effort to arm up by themselves, if new stealth fighters are unavailable? More importantly, it seems that President Obama does not understand the fundamental structure of current world politics and the role of the United States. Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, points out that policymakers are preoccupied with new trends such as globalization, the rise of Asia, the decline of the West, the end of ideological rivalries, and so forth. However, he says that most of the key global agendas present days are so familiar for many years. The clash between democracy and autocracy will be intensified, and democracy promotion in the Middle East, North Korea, and Myanmar will be a vital issue this year. Long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may have led to “demilitarizing” psychology of US foreign policy, but Kagan argues that soft power can work under secure protection of hard power. In the war in Libya, allied forces provided security for civilians. He also comments that none of BRICS plus Turkey can provide global public goods, which America and Europe do (“New Year, old problems”; Washington Post; January 6, 2011). Kagan mentions good points. In current financial crisis in Europe, none of rising economies suggest resolutions but simply worry the loss of their export market. The Obama strategy announced at the beginning of this year is too reactive to supposed changes in global politics, which makes it utterly incoherent as shown in the case of F-35. As Senator McCain comments, waste spending must be reviewed critically, before cutting necessary defense arsenals. Obama’s “pivot to Asia” does not bolster American presence in Asia, but simply lowers US influence in global security. Can Republicans on the Hill modify this strategy? How will Obama’s opponents argue the new defense strategy for the presidential election?

Happy New Year!

T-rex, the Dragon of the Real World

New Year has come. New Global Initiatives with America and Global America Discourse have made noteworthy achievements last year. Through expanding contacts with civic political activists, the organization and the blog have become more widely known.

I hope this is the year for further development of our global interventionist advocacy, like a roar of Tyrannosaurus rex. It is the year of dragon. Happy New Year, every one.

Obama’s Terrible Mess with F-35 and Its Negative Impacts on Allies

The development of the Joint Strike Fighter F-35 has been delayed substantially due to skyrocketing research spending and contracting defense budget. Also, since this is a multinational project, it must meet diversified demands of international partners. Will F-35 be deployed at the right time? Walter Pincus, Reporter of the Washington Post, discusses some difficulties to advance the F-35 project (“F-35 production a troubling example of Pentagon spending”; Washington Post, December 27, 2011). Let me review his recent article.





At this stage, only 20% of the test of this multi role fighter has been completed. The most advanced stealth technologies are used for this plane, but it is the development of software to control the fighter that poses the most burdensome challenge to the project team. That makes the research cost considerably higher than initially expected. As a result, Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates lowered production of F-35 fighters. On December 15, Senator John McCain criticized the Department of Defense because it promoted the F-35 project to build cost-effective fifth-generation fighter without understanding technological difficulties. McCain calls such a poorly coordinated plan “a recipe for disaster”.

Along with unexpected rise of development cost, defense spending cut impose another constraint on the Joint Strike Fighter project. Initially, 3,000 F-35 fighters were planned to replace fighter bombers of three services of US armed forces and military forces of the allies. Instead of satisfying such diversified necessities of each service and country, Michael O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, recommends to cut the total number of the Joint Strike Fighter and focus on the Air Force version of F-35A, while canceling the Marine Corps' V/STOL version of F-35B and the Navy version of F-35C. So does the Simpson-Bowels deficit reduction commission. O’Hanlon suggests that US forces order unmanned aircraft to replace cancelled or reduced F-35 fighters.

The problem is, whether the United States can sustain superiority in air power, in view of rapid military build up of China, and still formidable air force of Russia. Both of them are currently developing stealth fighters, and they will export those fighters to anti-Western autocracies. Walter Pincus is too optimistic to dismiss these threats simply because the Soviet Union had collapsed long before. In addition, as it is a multinational project, suggested cancels will coerce allies to change their defense plans. Italy and Spain will lose their carrier planes to replace current Harriers, if the V/STOL version is cancelled. Britain, the second largest partner in this project, will have to redesign its CVF (future aircraft carrier) plan, if F-35C is not available. Though Japan has decided to choose F-35 for its next generation fighter, it is still necessary to watch Britain’s Queen Elizabeth class carrier plan, because unbearable delay may lead British policymakers to reconsider current idea. Present mess with F-35 can jeopardize national defense of America’s top allies in the Atlantic and the Pacific.

Certainly, Pentagon made an immature plan, which pushes the price of new stealth fighter unexpectedly upward. But I would question whether the Obama administration is firmly committed to the defense of the United States and the allies. It is not the shift to Asia that serves US interests but maintaining sufficient strength to defend the world order. It is right to pay more attention to China, but its expansionism is not just in East Asia but advances westward as well. China craves for more influences in Central Asia and the Middle East. The shift to Asia simply creates a huge power vacuum in the region where Iran acts belligerently and Arab nations face unprecedented political transitions. America needs to be well equipped to manage diversified challenges. It is an issue of America’s mainstay fighter, and Republican presidential candidates must talk more about this vital policy agenda to challenge President Barack Obama in the forthcoming election.

An Invitation from a Uighur Activist

I was invited to the year end party on December 17, hosted by a Uighur independence activist, Tur Muhhamet. Mr. Muhammet lives in exile in Japan because of repression by the Chinese Communist Party to ethnic minorities in Xingjian, i.e., East Turkistan. He received a PhD degree in agricultural engineering from Kyushu University, which is one of best colleges in Japan. Currently, he heads the Central Asia Research Institute, and contributes articles to some Japanese journals such as “Ethnic Minorities in China” (中国民族問題研究), and also to the Proud Japan Network. Mr. Muhammet frequently joins a rally with Japanese conservatives who are keenly aware of growing threat of China.

I have come to know Mr. Muhammet through Twitter and Facebook. Particularly, since I published a post about the lecture of Chinese ambassador Cheng Yonghua on my blog, he and I become closer friends each other. I mentioned his Uighur liberation activity in that blog post, and contributed this article to an online policy journal “Hyakka Saiho” of the Japan Forum on International Relations, and the Proud Japan Network. I hope those will be of some help to raise awareness on Chinese repression in East Turkistan among my fellow Japanese people.

The party itself was nothing political. It was held at a Turkish restaurant Pamukkale Shinjuku. We just enjoyed Turkish food, belly dance show, and conversations. The food and the show were marvelous, and I would recommend this restaurant for some kind of event.

Attendants were Uighur, Japanese, and Turkish. Someone took me for a Uighur at first. I was marveled to see Uighur and Turkish talk effortlessly each other, though their mother tongues not identical, strictly speaking. As I repeatedly argue, the threat of China goes beyond the Asia-Pacific, and its westward expansionism needs more attention. I really realize that security of eastern and western Eurasia is deeply interconnected.

North Korea after Kim Jong-il

North Korea’s supreme leader Kim Jong-il died suddenly on December 17, and his son Kim Jong-un is expected to succeed the position. Most of the experts around the globe foresee that Jong-un is too young and inexperienced to govern the country, and it takes a while to found his power base.

However, Richard Bush, Director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, comments “We cannot rule out the chance, small as it may be, that the regency will assess the failures of the Kim Jong-il reign and undertake true reform” (“Kim Jong-un’s Shaky Hold on Power in North Korea”; Daily Beast; December 19, 2011). Michael Mazza, Senior Research Associate at the American Enterprise Institute, argues furthermore that the Obama administration seize this opportunity to make a big progress in denuclearization talk with North Korea (“President Obama’s ‘wait-and-see approach’ to North Korea?”; Enterprise Blog; December 19, 2011).

Currently, it is urgent to freeze uranium enrichment program of Pyongyang. North Korea has plutonium to make four to eight nuclear bombs. The second step for North Korean nuclear project must be stopped in the nuclear negotiation this week (“Exploiting Kim's death”; Chicago Tribune; December 20, 2011).

America should not “lead from behind”, and close ties with Japan and South Korea will be increasingly necessary to manage unpredictable changes in North Korea. In addition, we should not assume that China can use decisive influence on Pyongyang as political process in this country is so opaque and isolated from the global community.

Manage Global Proliferation of Access Denial Missiles!

Rapid expansion of Chinese naval power and access denial capability draws much attention among Western policymakers these days. Though seemingly defensive, access denial capability is more offensive than commonly thought. It is a nonverbal Monroe Doctrine to deploy missiles to destroy Western fleets. While experts speculate China, a recent article in the Diplomat Magazine notes that an increasing number of authoritarian regimes are building up access denial capabilities to defy Western naval supremacy in their neighboring sea area, and establish dominance in their self-assumed maritime sphere of influence. Therefore, Western policymakers must explore the strategy to stop proliferation of anti-ship cruise missile and nullify their access denial capabilities (“Anti-Access Goes Global”; Diplomat Magazine; December 2, 2011).

Regarding China’s access denial capability, Associate Professor Andrew Erickson at US Naval War College commented “[those missiles] put U.S. forces on the wrong side of physics” in his lecture entitled "Chinese Aerospace Power: Evolving Maritime Roles" at Naval War College Museum on September 8, 2011. See the video below.





Along with China, some autocracies, including Iran, Syria, and North Korea, are keen on deploying access denial missiles. Among them, North Korea poses little threats as their missiles are converted from old Soviet weaponry. More serious threats are Syria and Iran. Both countries import access denial missiles from Russia and China. Although Iran has been posing critical dangers to the global community by pursuing nuclear project and sponsoring terrorism, China exports advanced anti-ship cruise missiles to Iran, and even built a factory to make such missiles there (“Inside the Ring --- China-Iran Missile Sales”; Washington Times; November 2, 2011). This summer, Iran tested Tonder land to sea missile near the strategic Strait of Holmuz. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard claims that this missile flies in Mach 3 speed and its maximum range is 186 miles (“Iran Fires Anti-Ship Missiles near Key Gulf Strait”; Defense News; 6 July, 2011). It is likely that Iran used advanced technology from China to make this missile. Therefore, I argue repeatedly that the threat of China is beyond the Asia Pacific. Furthermore, Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates noted that non-state actors like Hezbollah possesses　more advanced anti-ship missiles than some sovereign states in his farewell speech at the American Enterprise Institute on May 24.

As to missile technology, Harry Kazianis, Assistant Editor of the Diplomat Magazine, comments “While such technology isn’t new, the effective ranges of such weapons have increased tremendously, along with their accuracy, speed of delivery and availability. Defending against such systems is therefore a major headache for military planners.” It is estimated that China currently has anti-ship missiles with a range of 1,500 to 2,700 kilometers, which exceeds the combat radius of Western fighters on aircraft carriers. Technically speaking, Western navies may be able to learn real combat lessons from the Falkland War. The Royal Navy fought against Argentina within the striking rage of French-made Exocet anti-ship missiles. The problem not only war capability but also psychology. As naval vessels are more high tech-equipped, the cost of losing them in the combat has grown greater, which makes Western navies more cautious. Therefore, the threat of nonverbal Monroe Doctrine by autocracies is considerable.

Talking of the Monroe Doctrine Robert Kagan, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues repeatedly in his book “Dangerous Nation” that it is offensive than defensive　as it legitimizes American expansion in the Western Hemisphere. Professor Terumasa Nakanishi of Kyoto University comments more harshly in his book “The History of the Decline and Fall of the British Empire”. Until the end of the 19th century, British elites found the doctrine too Yankeeism and unacceptably bizarre, according to Nakanishi. Only when the rise of Germany posed critical challenges to British hegemony, did Marques of Salisbury accept it. Remember, Lord Salisbury is the prime minister who founded well known Anglo-Japanese alliance to manage the change in global power balance in the post Victorian era. History suggests how costly it is to leave authoritarian regimes to claim nonverbal Monroe Doctrine as they like. Therefore, it is urgent for us to explore strategies to nullify their access denial capability, so that we can defend our sea lanes around the globe. Tomahawk attack to anti-ship missile sites from nuclear powered submarine can be one of those strategies. We should not allow China and other autocracies to “occupy the sea”.

Action Alert from Act for Israel: Protest Anti-Semitism

An American Jewish civilian group, named Act for Israel, sent an e-mail alert on December 7 to call an attention to a questionable remark by US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman. Ambassador Gutman stated that Muslim antisemetism exists as a result of Israeli self-defense campaigns, and insisted that “old” European anti-Semitism doesn't exist any more.

In protest to this derogatory and racist comment, please copy and paste the message below on this webpage, and send it to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.


Dear Secretary Clinton,

I am writing to you today to express my dismay at Ambassador Gutman’s recent remarks legitimizing Muslim anti-Semitism and minimizing all other forms of anti-Semitism. It is wholly unbefitting of a representative of the US government to express such ill-conceived and erroneous views in an official setting.

Racism, including anti-Semitism, is never the fault of the person being discriminated against and always an indication of the immorality of those who are discriminating. It is troubling that Amb. Gutman, as an official representative of the US Government and your prestigious and good intentioned State Department, fails to understand this basic truth and uses his position to promote his misguided views.

In order to maintain the prestige of the State Department which you have successfully lead and to maintain American principles of tolerance and goodwill it is essential that you work to ensure that Amb. Gutman’s can no longer make use of the State Department’s good name to espouse hurtful messages. It is not in America’s interests to have an ambassador with such premature notions of racism and demand that you immediately remove Amb. Gutman from his post.