Pivot means smaller presence outside Pacific

Pivot means smaller presence outside Pacific

The “Pacific pivot” of U.S. forces to the region encompasses much more than the Pacific and will require close coordination and partnering with allies by the budget-stretched U.S. military, Navy and Marine Corp officials said Tuesday.

“It’s more than just the Pacific,” said Navy Rear Adm. Mike Smith. “We can’t lose sight of the Indian Ocean” and its vital sea lanes, Smith said at the Sea-Air-Space exhibition sponsored by the Navy League at National Harbor, Md.

“We want to work with the Indian Navy” to bolster security over vast stretches of sea, Smith said at the Sea Air Space Expo at National Harbor, Md. The Navy must look at “how best we can leverage that relationship” with India, he said.


“No longer can we continue to go it alone,” Smith said.

A major challenge for the services with the Pacific pivot is dealing with “the tyranny of distance,” said Marine Brig. Gen. Michael Rocco, the assistant deputy commandant for Plans, Policies and Operations. “The problem is huge,” he said.

The U.S. has no choice, given the vastness of the region, but “to work with any and all allies and partners,” said Rocco, who joined Smith at a forum Tuesday on “Engaging In Asia.”

“We’re long past the time when we could just plant the flag and say we’re here,” Rocco said. “In our absence, others will come in,” Rocco said without ever mentioning China’s spreading influence in the region.

Rocco and Smith said the entire strategy for rebalancing towards Asia was dependent on joint exercises with regional militaries to ensure a capability to cover more territory, but they warned that those exercises were threatened by the budget constraints imposed by Congress.

“That’s the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” Smith said. To enable the Marine Corps to meet its new commitments in the Pacific, “we are making sacrifices in other areas,” Rocco said.

Rocco and Smith also said they wanted to make more use of the unique capabilities of the Coast Guard to aid in the shift to the Pacific. In the past, when tensions rose in the region and China cut off military-to-military ties with the U.S., “they have been able to continue their relationship” with China, Smith said of the Coast Guard.

But Coast Guard Vice Adm. William Lee said the Coast Guard will be limited in its contributions to the Pacific pivot by budget constraints.

“We really don’t have the capability or capacity to forward deploy,” said Lee, the Coast Guard’s deputy for Operations Policy and Capabilities.

The rebalance to the Pacific for the Coast Guard is “almost impossible,” Lee said. “We also have another ocean opening up in the Arctic,” where the thaw of the polar ice cap was opening up sea channels, Lee said.

When it comes to Coast Guard assets, “there’s far more demand than there is supply to meet the demand,” Lee said.

Tags: ,

Join the Conversation

First headline I’ve seen that makes sense in a long time.

We need sea lane control strategies for the area. I wonder if Singapore is amenable for a foreign power to return. The Atlantic is likely to be deprioritized for the Med and the Indian Ocean. I wonder if amphib units will be based out of Spain for quick sortie to North Africa and West Africa.

This may be the right time to approach India on cooperation. The GOI is said to be increasingly concerned about Chinese naval vessels (and submarines) in the Indian Ocean. ASEAN is always concerned about Chinese encroachment into disputed areas. However, all this requires a very delicate balancing act so as not to reprise the Cold War with the Chinese in place of the Soviet Union.

As for the Coast Guard’s concerns, why doesn’t the USN give them the LCS? Then they could go about buying real warships that would actually be able to perform combat operations if the need should arise.

That tells you how the balance of power has changed from West to East. Europe, what Europe?

Given that Singapore only green lighted deployments of LCS at this point and not permanent basing, I would say probably not, at this point. Of course if there is further deterioration in regards to territorial issues who knows.

Notwithstanding growing and continued efforts in Africa and ME by certain European allies

Lest it be exploited possibly, by certain propaganda efforts, that the US is clearly implementing of a provocative strategy to ‘contain’ and ‘encircle’ Asian interests… in retrospect, it should be understood and realized in the greater context that in the Pacific, there will actually still be a SMALLER combined US presence, relative to what has been ‘present’ in say, the past 5–12 years!

It’s not like more naval combatants and Carrier Strike Groups will be stationed in Pacific region compared to say, 10 years ago, or more fighter wings and Army troops will be stationed and permanently deployed in the Pacific compared to 10 years ago, etc.

This ‘pivot’ is simply meaning that a greater ratio of US’s future REDUCED total force structure will be stationed in the Pacific theater. Thus, in absolute terms, it will indeed be a SMALLER combined force structure, reduced deterrent, and reduced capability in totality. It will be relatively larger only as a portion of distributed forces around the world/US.

Unfortunately though, there’s the apparent need to hype up the ‘pivot’ today, only because as the decided strategy we are deciding to talk up perception (illusion) of a big stick deterrent.

This growing ‘illusion’ is sadly not surprising in an era when the USN is not refurbishing existing ships, is acquiring $12B CVN’s, is not buying Frigates, but $3+ Billion destroyers instead, and planning to buy $225m fighters to replace $50m fighters. The economics alone, despite the unsustainable cost of funding active personnel in numbers previously funded, is going to unfortunately force a significant shift in scope of overall force structure ‘presence’ to the downside. That’s the harsh cold reality.

We need a larger Military, a Bigger Navy, a Larger Army, more Marines and a much larger Air Force! We also need to spend much less on Welfare, Medicaid, and stop all Aid for illegal Aliens (I mean all aid).Our Constitution calls for a military, but not a word for a large Welfare department, or aid to illegal Aliens.

A lot of defense analysts seem to think that the era of the large deck carrier is on the way out, and are pushing instead for ARG’s and ESG’s with an emphasis on smaller deck carriers. That way, the carriers are a less tempting target, cost a lot less, and are more spread out — hence better overall coverage.

And, then there are more marines along for the ride, adding more versatility to the package. In a sense, we’d be solving two problems at once: more flight decks, smaller targets, and more ARG/ESG coverage for the marines.

At the end of World War 2We had the world’s largest Navy .Ship’s numbering in The Thousands .In all Types of ship’s.What did We do ? We mothballed most of them and sold them off to developing third world navies and Scrapped those that we deemed unnscessary.Now we don’t have enough ship’s to fill our requirement’s to full fill our commitment’s to the Security of “This Nation“not counting the decurity of other nation’s that have fallen to the false sense of security of the Umbrella of the “United States”.That Umbrella is now “Gone”.We didn’t defeat “Communism it is more powerful than it’s ever been.It’s sense of Governmental Cotrol has shiftec from Russia to China and North Korea.which China is using as a Scapegoat.

On the subject of a smaller Aircraft Carrier .during World War 2 The United States Navy developed the CVL’s and CVE’s which were small aircraft carrier’s used in operation’s suporting the Maeine Landing’s on Iwo Jima and the Philippines and Okinawa.They were used in europe at Normandy and southern France operations and “Anti Submarine Operation’s in the “Atlantic”.We sold a lot of them to foreign nation’s after World War 2 .They wer also used in South Korea in support of Ground Troop operations.The y were also used in Vietnam to transport Aie Craft and supplies to South Vietnam so The Navy has a lot of experience of small aercraft carrier operations.I have alway’s said that it would be more profitable for the Navy to down size their Aircraft Carrier’s so that the price would come into a lesser price than what we are paying for them now.
and we would have more of them andhave money left over to uild other type’s of vessel ‘s that the Navy need’s.

Pardon My niss Spelling of words but i’m Vision impaired and sometimes miss the correct buttons on my keyboard but I hope you undetstand what I’m trying to say.

The US can afford to cut its military presence in Europe and the Middle East. Redesigning our commands in Latin America and Africa will enable us to afford the Asia-Pacific pivot: http://​thirdeyeosint​.blogspot​.com/​2​0​1​3​/​0​4​/​n​a​v​a​l-w

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2014 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.