EMPLOYMENT OF LAND FORCES IN THE ASIA PACIFIC United States military experience in the Asia-Pacific region has been based since its inception in the late 1890s on a joint and expeditionary footing. The U.S. Army has maintained a constant presence since then, fighting in more campaigns in that part of the world than anywhere else outside the Americas. The Asia-Pacific remains, as it was in the 1800s, one of the world’s most important, dynamic and challenging regions. Its importance was shown by a U.S. Defense Strategic Guidance, signed by President Obama in early 2012, directing a national refocus of effort or “rebalance” towards Asia Pacific, with special emphasis on preserving peace and stability. Implementing this Asia Pacific-focused strategy has increased the importance of military relationships, activities and the need to employ land forces in this region, placing U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC) on the leading edge of demonstrating our nation’s continued commitment in the Asia-Pacific—a unique position replete with myriad challenges and opportunities.
Land Forces Employment, Air and Naval Access The U.S. military has enjoyed unfettered air and naval access across the Pacific since World War II. Working with treaty allies in Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, the Philippines, New Zealand, and Thailand, the United States has built a network of ports and bases that allows it to project and sustain military power. China’s recent investment in its military capabilities, especially in intermediate-range missiles whose range and capabilities pose a risk to the U.S. Navy as well as forces stationed nearby, has the potential to disrupt the military balance in the Pacific. As above, while China is not the threat the Soviet Union once was, it can now impose unacceptable costs on the American military, economy, and homeland in the event of a conflict. Managing this challenge to America’s regional role in the Asia Pacific while keeping options for global U.S.-China cooperation open have led to dissonance among American policymakers. America’s 2010 National Security Strategy cites the need to “pursue a positive, constructive, and comprehensive relationship with China” while emphasizing that “disagreements should not prevent cooperation on issues of mutual interest, because a pragmatic and effective relationship between the United States and China is essential to address the major challenges of the 21st century.”1 Building on this, the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance cites the need to “build a cooperative bilateral relationship” while at the same time stating that “the United States will continue to make the necessary investments to ensure that we maintain regional access and the ability to operate freely in keeping with our treaty obligations.”2 The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, though, emphasizes the need to ensure military access in a contested environment through the development of an Air-Sea Battle concept and the expansion of future long-range strike capabilities.3
Maintaining Influence
If the fundamental change in the international system is the rise of China, consistency of logic must view this as a global change that involves all elements of national power and not as a predominantly military effort confined to the western Pacific. The United States—and only the United States for the foreseeable future—will be the primary sustainer of the international system that it built along with other likeminded countries over the last 70 years. Realist balance-of-power inclinations must be weighed against a constructivist approach that posits the international system will reflect the inputs entered into it. While these inputs are not exclusively military, hard military power must underwrite diplomatic, economic, and soft power efforts. In this sense, America will continue to provide the collective good of relative empathy for and awareness of other countries’ needs coupled with the desire and ability to address challenges across the
