Bush’s New Rollback: Its Impact and Implications for Asia J.J. Suh (Cornell University) PYUNG HWA: Alternatives to the American War Korea Regional School Workshop November 26 – December 3, 2003 Labour Education Training Centre Seoul, Korea

Roadmap New Rollback Conventional War From Containment to Two Wars Nuclear Strategy From Deterrence to Offense Contingencies Other than War From Counterinsurgency to War on Terror Blowbacks and Alternatives

New Rollback 1991 Gulf War Reaction to aggression No regime change 2001 Afghanistan War Reaction to terrorism Regime Change 2003 Iraq War Prevent WMD Regime Change

Conventional War 2 Wars Strategy Win-Win in Middle East and East Asia  Multiple smaller wars? Revolution in Military Affairs Military Transformation = high tech + new organization + new op

QDR: 2 wars strategy 1997: US must “be able to deter and defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping timeframes.” 2001: “will remain capable of swiftly defeating attacks in any two theaters of operation in overlapping timeframes.”

Preemption & Regime Change National Security Strategy 2002 “we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self- defense by acting preemptively” QDR 2001 “This capability will include the ability to occupy territory or set the conditions for a regime change if so directed.”

Joint Vision 2020 Asia will replace Europe as the focus of US military strategy Closer cooperation with Japan US military in Korea even after unification China as “peer competitor”

Japan as the “hub” 1995 East Asia Strategy Report 100,000 U.S. troops US-Japan alliance as the “hub” 1996 US-Japan Communiqué Ongoing study of BMD 1997 “New” Guidelines for cooperation “situations in the areas surrounding Japan”

U.S. Military in Okinawa 0.6% of Japan’s land; 75% of 63,000 US troops Land disputes Crimes Accidents Role of U.S. military

South Korea as a Forward Base 37,000 US soldiers To be consolidated and realigned To deter and defeat North Korea To be a “regional stabilization force”

“Visiting” SE Asia Philippines Singapore Thailand

US Forces Deployment

Reorienting U.S. Posture Develop a basing system that provides greater flexibility for U.S. forces …, placing emphasis on additional bases and stations beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia. Provide temporary access to facilities in foreign countries … in the absence of permanent ranges and bases. Redistribute forces and equipment based on regional deterrence requirements. Provide sufficient mobility

Realignment Decisions Army: “accelerate the introduction of forward- stationed Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs)”; “will explore options for enhancing ground force capabilities in the Arabian Gulf.” Navy: “increase aircraft carrier battlegroup presence in the Western Pacific”; explore “homeporting an additional 3 to 4 surface combatants, and guided cruise missile submarines”

Air Force: “develop plans to increase contingency basing in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as well as in the Arabian Gulf.” Marines: “shift some of the Marine Corps‘ afloat pre-positioned equipment from the Mediterranean toward the Indian Ocean and Arabian Gulf”; “training … littoral warfare in the Western Pacific for the Marine Corps.” Change “the worldwide alignment of special operations forces assets to account for new regional emphases in the defense strategy.” “maintain its critical bases in Western Europe and Northeast Asia”

US Forces Realignment

US Military in Asia “need for a strong forward United States military presence in the Asia-Pacific region to protect vital American interests” – Nye, AS of Defense, 1994

U.S. Security and Economy US seeks “a climate where the global economy and open trade are growing” “The overall health of the international economic environment directly affects our security” “This prosperity … also ensures that we are able to sustain our military forces, foreign initiatives and global influence.” – A National Security Strategy for a New Century, 1997

Nuclear Strategy Deterrence to War-fighting Nuclear Posture Review 2002 Non-proliferation to Counter- proliferation National Strategy to Combat WMD (Dec-10-02)

Nuclear Posture Review 2002 “New Triad” Deterrence/Offense Bunker busters Mini-nukes Defense Missile Defense Defense infrastructure Retaliate conventional aggression with nuke

Estimated Targets in the SIOP 2,260 targets in Russia 1,100 nuclear weapons facilities 500 conventional military 500 war supporting industry 160 leadership and command and control China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea-100s of targets

National Strategy to Combat WMD 2002 Counter-proliferation Interdiction: “enhance the capabilities … to prevent the movement of WMD”; ex. PSI Deterrence Defense: “through preemptive measures. This requires capabilities to detect and destroy an adversary’s WMD assets before these weapons are used.” Non-proliferation Consequence Management National Security Presidential Directive #17

Nuclear Stockpiles

US-Russian Nuclear Forces By 2003 (START II) US: 3500 warheads Russia: 3000 warheads Bush-Putin Treaty May 24, ,200 by end of 2012 No limit on “reserve” force

For What? “Our overall nuclear employment policy [states that] the United States forces must be capable of and be seen to be capable of holding at risk those critical assets and capabilities that a potential adversary most values.” – Walter Slocombe, Department of Defense, May 23, 2000

Nuclear Attack on China

Nuclear Attack on US & NATO

Nuclear Attack on Russia

Blowbacks Domestic Budget deficit Budget priority Illiberal state International Taliban 9-11 More?

U.S. Military Budget Trend

U.S. Budget Priority

Patriot Act Permits FBI to share info with intelligence Wiretap eased Permits arrest of noncitizens “reasonably believed” to be involved with terrorism Permits monitoring of attorney-client conversations Military commission to try al Qaeda & Taliban

Alternative Policy Ending the Cold War Korea: peace treaty with N Korea China: build partnership Reduce and withdraw military Sustainable prosperity Building collaboration US-Japan-China security dialogue Multilateral discussions Networking Civil Society