Wednesday, December 5, 2012 - 6:40 AM

I've long found Paul McHale, a former member of Congress and also a former Pentagon official, a clear thinker. Here he questions the Pentagon's "pivot" to Asia:
"Does it make sense for the United States Army to prepare for a protracted land war against China? . . . Should the Army really be focused on North Korea while paying insufficient attention to Iran? And if a post-2014 civil war in Afghanistan spills over the Durand Line and threatens the stability of Pakistan's government, are there any issues in Myanmar that trump the possible acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Taliban?"
Flickr
EXPLORE:EAST ASIA, CHINA, DIPLOMACY, IRAN, MILITARY, NATIONAL SECURITY, PAKISTAN, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
AUSTEN_NICK
6:37 AM ET
December 6, 2012
The post betrays so much
The post betrays so much ignorance that I doubt that the Mr. McHale has read any news concerning Asia in the last year or even thought about what the "pivot to Asia" means beyond the basic idea expressed in those three words. For starters, the pivot to Asia seems to be more about balancing the rise of China than it is about refocusing the Army on North Korea or responding to any crisis in Myanmar. In fact, the pivot to Asia has the most implications for the Navy and Marine Corps. The Marine Corps has recently secured an agreement to rotate Marines through Australia and the Navy plans to increase the number of vessels in the Pacific. This should come as no surprise as the military draws down it's presence in the Middle East.
The pivot is in a large part a response to Chinese encroachment in the East and South China Sea and the PLAN's rapid naval modernization. In the past year China has had high profile disputes with Vietnam, China, Japan, and recently harassed Malaysian vessels, a country that was until this recent incident left largely alone by China. China's claim to the entirety of the South China Sea and the "9 dashed line" requires a robust response from the international community. Right now the United States is in the best position to use it's naval assets to assert freedom of navigation and deter further Chinese encroachments. A strong case can be made that China would be much more assertive at the Senkaku Islands, the Spratly Islands, or concerning any of its numerous other disputes if it wasn't for the US presence in Asia. The implications of Chinese control over the South and East China Seas is very troubling.
I think the question needs to be asked why the administration thought it was prudent to announce a "pivot to Asia" when the United States never left Asia. The US has had tens of thousands of troops in Japan and Korea ready to respond to any manner of contingency. One thing the announcement of a pivot does is highlight China's concern of the United States attempting to contain China. The US should have quietly redeployed assets back to Asia from the Middle East while emphasizing economic growth and security in Asia.
The United States has never really pivoted away from Asia and if a few thousand troops and a few more naval vessels making their way to Asia over the next few years does not mean that Pakistan, Iran, or Afghanistan are any less important to US national security.