It will of course be important in the longer term, but the rebalance should mainly be seen as a signal that the US will remain engaged in Asia Pacific security, reflecting not just US economic ties to the region but also the emergence of China as a regional competitor in both economic and military terms.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Editor of the Military Balance, James Hackett, hit the same note about the less-than-meets-the-eye significance of what Panetta had announced:<\/p>\n
The rebalance could also be seen as a way for Washington to rebuild capabilities, denuded since 9\/11, with the operational demands of Iraq and Afghanistan. Asian states were, meanwhile, trying to discern what was new in the US rebalance. Indeed, it is much a signal to allies (and potential rivals) that the US will be increasingly engaged in regional security.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Accepting the validity of some of the criticism of Panetta’s announcement, the Hagel speech offers further answers and some push back against the sceptics. Changing balance, by definition, means change, and that involves time; just as a pivot is necessarily a change in direction. The rebalance is a work in progress, with much more detail and decision making still to come. As is often the case, this is a set of Washington arguments as much as it is about Asia.<\/p>\n
Hagel acknowledged that the US military faces a shrinking budget, but the 60% rule gives Asia first call on a lot of the future. That’s a strong place to start in any Washington fight. What the Defence Secretary denied in his description of the rebalance is interesting, but some of Hagel\u2019s denials come at a discount. For instance: \u2018The Asia-Pacific rebalance is not a retreat from other regions of the world\u2019. Even if you are<\/i> retreating, it makes sense to deny it is happening. And this is part of the US story that matters in Europe, not Asia.<\/p>\n
The logic of less cash and more emphasis on Asia make that \u2018no retreat\u2019 line a less than compelling denial. But whatever the force of the issue for Europe, Asia isn\u2019t going to worry either way. Being first in the queue, even for shrinking resources, is the best place to be. The brutal truth looks like being that NATO will have to stand further back in line. That’s unfamiliar territory for Europe but it’s a new hierarchy of interests that has all sorts of charms for Asia.<\/p>\n
Equally fascinating was the line from Defence Secretary that the rebalance is not really that much about the military anyway. In Hagel\u2019s words, the rebalance is \u2018primarily a diplomatic, economic and cultural strategy\u2019. So that\u2019s clear, then. Moving 60% of Navy, Air Force, Space and Cyber to Asia is just a subset of more important strategic areas such as… culture. They\u2019ll love that at the Pentagon: time for the Marines to give way to Mickey Mouse as cultural strategy takes the lead. This is a bit like the \u2018no retreat\u2019 line. The US can say it, but not every bit of the Washington system has to believe it. And nor does the region. The 60% rule will have impacts on arguments within the US system that go beyond the military and the options being discussed in Asia.<\/p>\n
Graeme Dobell is the ASPI journalist fellow. Image courtesy of the US Navy.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The United States is doing a pirouette on its pivot. Or, to use preferred Pentagon prose on the pivot, the US is offering more detail about how it is shifting the pieces of military kit …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":79,"featured_media":6757,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[40,143,41,293,378,31],"class_list":["post-6756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-alliance-2","tag-asia-pacific","tag-asian-century","tag-pivot","tag-rebalance","tag-united-states"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Asian gazing (part III): pivot to pirouette and prioritised posture | The Strategist<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n