Stratfor
In a recent Stratfor commentary, Robert Kaplan discusses the move from counter-insurgency to maritime strategy and the implications for humanitarian work. An extract is below...
The
United States has made a choice, one in favor of an Indo-Pacific
maritime strategy as opposed to a Middle East counterinsurgency
strategy. This is not just a matter of what the Obama administration
wants but of what the mandarins in the defense community in Washington
demand. In other words, for example, there will be more submarines
moving about in the South China Sea and fewer Army sergeants helping
villagers on the ground in Afghanistan. To continue to conduct ground
wars in the Muslim world, even as the U.S. Navy and Air Force pivot to
Asia, could mean a rise of the defense budget by as much as a third over
time. And that is not going to happen. A war against Iran would be an
air-sea campaign; forget army divisions.
This
means that the role of humanitarians will be diminished. Humanitarians
were front and center advising the Army on how to win over civilian
hearts and minds in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though they might have
opposed those wars at the outset. Humanitarians prefer to reduce foreign
and defense policy to a branch of relief work; patrolling the sea lines
of communication for the benefit of world trade simply does not
interest them, while saving citizens of Benghazi from the depredations
of Moammar Gadhafi's troops does. Humanitarians now demand some sort of
action on Syria, even as many of them are oblivious to the rise of
Chinese naval power.
Read the full article here at Stratfor.
No comments:
Post a Comment