Critics force U.S. to refocus on Pacific

Critics force U.S. to refocus on Pacific

Richard Halloran looks at how America is responding to Asian concerns about its waning regional security role.

For the first time in more than two decades, United States military leaders are contemplating a shift in strategic focus to put more emphasis on the Pacific and eventually to deploy more armed forces to this region.

Since the end of the war in Vietnam, American strategic attention has been directed primarily towards Europe and the Middle East. After the Vietnam debacle, the U.S. paid scant attention to Asia and was riveted on Europe, with whom Americans share culture, tradition and race. More recently, the demise of the Soviet Union and its Eastern European empire has preoccupied Washington.

Now, however, the Navy Department has begun to discuss a new look that would bring more ships, aircraft and marines to the Pacific. The leading advocate of this fresh thinking is the new Marine Corps Commandant, General Charles R. Krulak.

This proposed shift, which has far to go before becoming a reality, is in response to the rising economic, political and military power of Asia. It also suggests that Washington is beginning to see that the security posture of the U.S. in Asia is flawed by a lack of credibility, as highlighted by regional critics. More and more Asians have expressed a fear that the Yankees are going home and will not be around when trouble starts.

General Krulak, who commanded the marines in the Pacific from his headquarters in Hawaii before going to Washington in July, outlined his ideas in a recent interview in Honolulu. "Perhaps the time has come," he said, "to shift some of our assets," referring to Navy and Marine forces, to the Pacific.

"As we move toward and into the 21st Century," he said, "I believe you're going to see elements of the naval service probably make just that kind of shift." The Navy and Marine Corps are components of the Navy Department within the overall Department of Defense.

In the past five years, however, U.S. armed forces have been cut by about one-third. In Asia and the Pacific, they have dropped to 100,000 people today from about 135,000 in 1990. With these cuts, General Krulak was asked whether a tilt towards the Pacific would be possible. His reply was emphatic: "Absolutely."

It is too soon to tell what forces might be moved into the Pacific but another aircraft carrier, bringing the total to seven in the Pacific, seems a possibility. So too is the possibility of more amphibious ships and new "arsenal ships" armed with guns and missiles on a platform that would lie low in the water.

No new deployments of ground forces are currently being discussed, nor is it needed in the maritime environment of the Asia-Pacific.

Another sign of new American interest in this region is the Asia-Pacific Center for Strategic Studies being set up in Hawaii by the Pacific Command. Its stated mission: "To foster understanding, cooperation, and study of security-related issues with military and civilian representatives of the United States and other Asia-Pacific nations."

At the center's inaugural conference last month, a repeated theme was Asian concern over U.S. commitments to the region. To help such concern, General Krulak said that "one of the things I'm trying to do is to take the Pacific perspective to the Joint Staff."

Much of that perspective comes from a study he had done while on duty here. "It laid out what I thought the Pacific was going to look like in the year 2015," he said.

The commandant has obtained the support for his concept from the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral J. M. Boorda. His views were reflected by the Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Joseph Prueher, who was quoted as saying the concept "is an effort to think about Asia, what we are doing there and whether anything we see requires force structure changes."

Admiral Richard C. Macke, leader of the Pacific Command, emphasized in recent testimony before Congress that "we need more than forward presence, we need a forward capability. No diplomatic note, no political mission, no economic commission conveys the same clear message of enduring commitment."

In response to the Marine and Navy commanders, Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton has convened an "Asia Roundtable" of military and civilian specialists to deliberate the strategic aspects of the proposed shift. The Under Secretary of the Navy, Richard J. Danzig, plans a long trip through Asia in late October and early November, including a stop in Singapore, to educate himself on the American posture in Asia.

In the long run, real changes in strategy and force deployment must be approved by Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and President Clinton. Beyond that, key members of Congress must be brought abroad as Congress would be obliged to provide funds.

Here enters domestic politics, because bases and armed forces mean jobs in nearby economies. The concept of moving forces from the Atlantic to the Pacific thus has already generated opposition in Virginia, home of large naval bases on the East Coast.

On the other side, support can be expected from the West Coast state of California, which is critical to President Clinton's re- election in 1996.

Even so, General Krulak said, "a stable and growing Asia and Indian Ocean littorals" are vital to U.S. national interests and require visible American forces.

"Asians," he said in the contemporary language of computers, "are not going to accept virtual presence."

Richard Halloran, formerly with The York Times as a military correspondent in Washington and foreign correspondent in Asia, writes about Asian security from Honolulu.