23:47 GMT +323 October 2019
Listen Live
    US soldiers take a position during their drill at a military training field in the border city of Paju on March 7, 2017. The US military has begun deploying the THAAD anti-ballistic missile defense system to South Korea, US Pacific Command said, with its first elements arriving on March 6, to protect against threats from North Korea

    New US Defense Strategy Fails to Address Causes of Defeats in Mideast, S. Asia

    © AFP 2019 / JUNG Yeon-Je
    Opinion
    Get short URL
    230
    Subscribe

    WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The new National Defense Strategy calls on the US government to develop coalitions to consolidate gains in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, but it fails to recognize or propose new policies to address US failures in all three conflicts, analysts told Sputnik.

    US Secretary of Defense James Mattis unveiled the new National Defense Strategy with a speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies on Friday.

    Mattis said the primary focus of US national security had shifted from fighting terrorism to great power competition, primarily with China and Russia.

    However, the new strategy and Mattis in his accompanying comments give no sign that US policy towards North Korea and Iran will mellow as a consequence. Mattis referred to the governments of those two nations as "rogue regimes" and claimed that their continuing actions that threaten regional, and even global stability.

    The new strategy advocated the United States should seek to expand its alliances with other nations to maintain stability and influence in Iraq and Afghanistan and indicated that Washington should maintain its existing presence in Syria too, although Washington’s presence there is in defiance of international law.

    US STILL STALEMATED IN AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ AND SYRIA

    The United States and its allies had made no lasting, significant progress in any of the three conflicts, the first of which in Afghanistan began more than 16 years ago University of Pittsburgh Professor of International Affairs Michael Brenner said.

    "The United States has made no gains in any of these places," Brenner said. "We have failed everywhere while our actions have produced instability and generated new hostile forces [such as] the Islamic State."

    Brenner predicted the longer the United States maintained a military presence in the three countries and the more Washington tried to influence their domestic politics, "the more serious those threats would become."

    "None of the senior American policy-makers have a sense of, or aptitude for strategy. They are superficial, one-dimensional thinkers who demonstrate an appalling lack of understanding about the world they presume to dominate," he said.

    Brenner explained that the approach is the intellectual and diplomatic course of least effort and Mattis failed to specify what precise threats other major powers presented to the United States, or threatened to in the future.

    "You identify another power as a threat without specifying why or how. You define it in military terms. You expand your budget, weapons and bases to intimidate, deter and… defeat it. That becomes the sum all of foreign policy," he said.

    However, Mattis’ perspective and the new strategy did not recognize the real world within which the United States functioned, Brenner warned.

    "In today's environment, this approach represents a gross deformation of realities. The United States is more secure today than at any time in its history. The challenge posed by China is political and economic — not military," Brenner said.

    TRUMP WANTS US ENGAGED IN LESS CONFLICTS DESPITE PROCLAMATIONS IN NEW DEFENSE STRATEGY

    The new strategy confirmed the constraints on President Donald Trump in his efforts to dial back US interventionist policies and dangers of new conflicts around the world, retired neurosurgeon and political commentator Professor John Walsh said.

    "It was a welcome move by Trump to denounce the interventionist policies and the regime change operations of his opponents, but one could not expect too much from him, namely a policy that really rejects the demands of the military-industrial complex," he said.

    Even the hawkish elements in the new strategy needed to be understood as part of Trump’s efforts to appease the super-hawks in the US national security establishment while still acting to reduce US involvement in overseas wars at the same time, Walsh explained.

    "So expect a lot more contradictory moves from Trump so long as he is doing battle with the Deep State. The contradictions will end only if Trump capitulates to his foes — or defeats them," he said.

    For the past year, Trump had been trying to move forward on his rapprochement with Russia without looking like a puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin or looking weak to hawks on his every side, Walsh commented.

    "This means that Trump had to make contradictory moves and will continue to do so," he said.

    On April 4, 2017, Trump had approved a pinprick attack on the Syrian air force base at Shayrat after notifying Russia. But he had also arranged ceasefires within southwest Syria and terminated CIA’s aid to the Islamists fighting to topple the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Walsh recalled.

    "That airstrike of April 4, properly understood, did not target Assad, but was aimed at Trump’s domestic adversaries," he said.

    Trump’s policies in dealing with North Korea were also more cautious and responsible than the US media described them, Walsh pointed out.

    "In Korea… Trump tweets tough talk. But meanwhile negotiations have gone forward, and the two Koreas are using the Winter Olympics for a kind of replay of ping-pong diplomacy. So again Trump can look tough and claim that his tough talk is responsible for the negotiations," he said.

    Trump’s controversial and insulting tweets against North Korean leader Kim Jong Un were not primarily about him at all, Walsh stated.

    "In reality his insulting tweets are not aimed at Kim but at domestic hawks," he said.

    The current talks between North and South Korea that were reducing tensions could only have taken place with the tacit approval of the United States, Walsh concluded.

    The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.

    Related:

    Assessing US Policies in the Middle East
    Russia, US Cooperation Essential for Stability in Middle East - Iraqi Lawmaker
    Trump Launches Campaign to Sell Tax Reform to US Voters as Boon for Middle Class
    Sovereign Kurdish State in Iraq 'Would Serve US Plan for the Middle East'
    US Interference Represents Real Threat to Security in Middle East
    Tags:
    defense, Pentagon, Asia, Middle East, United States
    Community standardsDiscussion
    Comment via FacebookComment via Sputnik