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.