The most memorable Christmas for many of us occurred in 1991 when the Soviet flag that had for decades flown over the Kremlin came down. I suspect every living room in the nation had a television set turned on and though muted with folks all about as the holiday unfolded, watched as the world changed. It was far more than symbolism as the flag slipped away. It was further confirmation of the continuance of massive changes that would move faster and reshape a once superpower where millions of people were caught up in the darkness of totalitarianism. Many have looked at the collapse of the USSR and asked with hindsight what we missed when thinking long-term about the next global challenges to be faced after the collective emphasis on fighting the Cold War was removed. We should have focused on China.
9/11 shook the foundations of the American psyche, it was obvious we were not an insulated nation from the storms of the world. But then with recklessness, we misapplied our outrage with the absurdity of an invasion of Iraq. Terrorism was a real and thorny issue to deal with, but there must always be pragmatism built into the construction of foreign policy. After all, there were many reasons that President Bush (41) did not remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein following his ouster from Kuwait. Some argued that it would have run counter to UN agreements, others that the Arab allies would have left the coalition, but Bush and his advisors knew a vacuum of power in Iraq would prove highly troubling. What Bush knew then is what we all would come to agree with in the decades that followed. We spent so much time chasing the wrong goals for eight years under President Bush (43). We should have focused on China.
From the Cold War to the terrorism that consumed much of the bandwidth of some pols and state department staff there simply was not enough thinking about the next large global approach that needed to be considered. The last (roughly) 500 years of Atlantic-dominated power from Western Europe to the Americas was giving way in varying ways and at varying speeds to the energetic and highly competitive nations and people of Southeast Asia. Over the years trade routes and supply lines and military threats have increased. The interconnected nature of the world has increased, and with it has the threats to world economic stability should military strife occur. While President Obama was pivoting his administration to a new reality in that region, he was followed in the White House by a failure of monumental proportions in international relations at every turn starting in 2017.
Over the past weeks, reports of a new emphasis on preparations for military assets and requirements designated for the Pacific forces have been coming from the Defense Department. More of the details of what is being sought regarding defense funding caught my attention with a news report from Politico.
Alongside President Joe Biden’s budget request for next year, the Pentagon will submit a new $15.3 billion plan to fund Pacific forces, according to an unclassified version of the report obtained by POLITICO. That’s more than twice what DoD asked for last year, $6.1 billion, and a significant boost from what Congress authorized, $11.5 billion. The money will go toward buying missile defense systems, radars and space sensors, as well as increasing exercises and training.
The report warns of China’s rapid military buildup, and the increasing pressure on countries in the region to bend to its will. It follows a concerted push by the Pentagon in recent weeks to expand American military influence in the region, including a flurry of new deals with regional partners. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin recently traveled to Manila to announce an agreement with the Philippines giving the U.S. increased access to bases there, and the Marine Corps in January activated a new base on Guam.
The need for more defense funding is never a popular issue on my side of the political aisle. But alongside the correctness of trade agreements with other nations in the region (which also gins up misplaced angst from my side) and the strengthening of resolve from the US by aligning with nations for security deals we can and must send the correct message about the needs of the international community. At a time when many scholars are asking if the mindset of the American Century is passing away it could be argued that with this new test of commitment and purpose, the US can renew its centrality to a world that needs a democratic-based adult on the world stage.
The question that will be answered, in part, by House Republicans who are blustering and threatening all sorts of things relating to our federal budget is if they will demonstrate our understanding of this global moment in Southeast East by placing our resources behind what we should have focused on since the Soviet flag came down from over the Kremlin. Last fall in the midterms, House Republicans had outlined a number of policy aims, with one being about investing in an efficient, effective military. What that meant was not outlined, but now might be the time for the House GOP leadership to commit to standing alongside liberal democracies and committing themselves to international law and rules of conduct.