| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Air Sea Battle: Politics blocks military-approved program bolstering U.S. forces in Asia |
| 2011-10-13 |
| The Pentagon is engaged in a behind-the-scenes political fight over efforts to soften, or entirely block, a new military-approved program to bolster U.S. forces in Asia. The program is called the Air Sea Battle concept and was developed in response to more than 100 war games since the 1990s that showed U.S. forces, mainly air and naval power, are not aligned to win a future war with China. A senior defense official said Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is reviewing the new strategy. “We want to do this right,” the official said. “The concept is on track and is being refined to ensure that we are able to implement it wherever we need to - including in the Asia-Pacific region, where American force projection is essential to our alliances and interests.” The official noted that the program is “the product of unprecedented collaboration by the services.” Officials familiar with the classified details said it is designed to directly address the growing threat to the United States and allies in Asia posed by what the Pentagon calls China’s “anti-access” and “area denial” weapons - high-technology arms that China has been building in secret for the past several decades. The Chinese weapons of concern are called “assassin’s mace” systems, which Beijing strategists calculate will allow its weaker forces to prevail over the U.S. military. They include anti-satellite weapons, cyberwarfare forces, ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, sea mines, advanced fighters and unmanned aircraft. Nuclear arms and exotic electromagnetic pulse weapons also are included. The U.S. response in the Air Sea Battle concept is said to be a comprehensive program to protect the “global commons” used by the United States and allies in Asia from Chinese military encroachment in places such as the South China Sea, western Pacific and areas of Northeast Asia. The highly classified program, if approved in its current form, will call for new weapons and bases, along with non-military means. Plans for new weapons include a long-range bomber. Other systems and elements of the program are not known. Speculation has focused on a suite of exotic weapons and capabilities that will allow U.S. and allied forces to strike Chinese targets, especially mobile missile launchers and bases that Beijing plans to use for attacks on U.S. ships and aircraft carriers, regional military bases and satellites. U.S. strike systems also will target infrastructure and key electrical nodes in China that are used by its cyberwarfare forces. Air Force Magazine reported in its current edition that the new concept was ready for final approval in February, but was held up during the summer by officials in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, now headed by Michele Flournoy. In August, the Air Force announced that the concept was approved in June by the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps service chiefs, and the Air Force and Navy secretaries. The final directive was to have been signed by departing Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates before he left office in late July. However, defense officials said China’s government was alerted to some aspects of the concept earlier this year when the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank presented its own concept for a new warfighting strategy against China. As a result of the disclosure, China launched a major propaganda and influence campaign to derail it. The concept was raised in several meetings between Chinese and U.S. officials, with the Chinese asserting that the concept is a sign the Pentagon does not favor military relations and views China as an enemy. Officials in the Obama administration who fear upsetting China also are thought to have intervened, and their opposition led Mr. Panetta to hold up final approval. The final directive in its current form would order the Air Force and the Navy to develop and implement specific programs as part of the concept. It also would include proposals for defense contractors to support the concept. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #2 Compare and contrast to AirLand Battle doctrine developed under Reagan -- arguably, it allowed us to win the Cold War with minimal deaths by putting enough doubts into the minds of Soviet military leaders as to the probability of conventional forces victory in a Warsaw pact invasion of western Europe. The Pacific requires naval power, lots of intelligence and counter-recon technology, as well as some remnants of the AirLand doctrine in that you go after logistics critical points, and destroy C3I systems to prevent the enemy from effective use of whatever forces they have. Blocking this sort of doctrinal development decreases deterrence - and to do so in fear of "upsetting" the Chinese, well that practically invites aggression from them, especially in areas like the Spratleys, and the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan, as well as various trade routes that run the area between Japan (and the US West Coast) and the middle east & east Africa. Where is Cap Weinberg when you need him? Or for that matter, since these are Dems, where are the "Scoop Jackson" and "Sam Nunn" parts of the Dem party anymore? Screw the Chinese and their getting upset. The Soviets got upset too, and as long as we had the courage to stay the course, it didn't matter. Tp put China's concerns above our defense is treasonous. We should be defenestrating some of these people, not giving them veto control over our defense policy. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2011-10-13 15:53 |
| #1 Nothing like having a full-bore political operative as Secretary of Defense. /s |
| Posted by: tipover 2011-10-13 11:51 |