Login
iscover
Bradley Bowman, senior director for the US-based Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and his colleague US Air Force Major Shane Praiswater are calling for the US to redouble efforts in modernising the “Fortress of the Pacific”, Guam, to better protect US strategic dominance.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
For the first time in nearly a century, two great powers stare across the vast expanse of the Pacific, the incumbent heavyweight champion, the US, tired and battle-weary from decades of conflict in the Middle East, is being circled by the upstart, China, seeking to shake off the last vestiges of the “century of humiliation” and ascend to its position as a world leader.
Further compounding the US position is its broader global responsibilities – maintaining tactical and strategic deterrence in Europe against potential Russian aggression, the economic impact of COVID-19 and simmering societal challenges are combining to erode US resolve and capability at a time when traditional allies, including Australia, are looking to Washington for certainty.
While US President Donald Trump has sought to counter the rise of China by providing an unprecedented level of funding to the US Armed Forces, with a focus on expanding the modernisation and replacement schedule of Cold War-era legacy platforms in favour of fifth-generation air, land, sea and multidomain capabilities supported by an expected budget of US$738 billion for FY2020, with US$740.5 billion expected for FY2021.
As a result, the US Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) recently handed down its comprehensive summary of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which focuses on solidifying the priorities established in the FY2020 budget, namely, America’s focus clearly aimed at reaffirming its position as the premier global superpower.
The SASC summary of the 2021 NDAA seeks to build on growing concerns about great power competition, stating: “Two years ago, the National Defense Strategy outlined our nation’s pre-eminent challenge: strategic competition with authoritarian adversaries that stand firmly against our shared American values of freedom, democracy and peace – namely, China and Russia.
“These adversaries seek to shift the global order in their favour, at our expense. In pursuit of this goal, these nations have increased military and economic aggression, worked to develop advanced technologies, expanded their influence around the world, and undermined our own influence.”
The Indo-Pacific presents a dramatically different set of challenges for the United States and its allies as they seek to balance global responsibilities against adversaries that can concentrate their focus on single theatres of strategic imperative.
China in particular is able to focus the full might of its political, economic and military efforts against the Indo-Pacific, directly challenging and diminishing the capacity of the US and allies like Japan, Australia and South Korea to protect the post-Second World War order.
Foundation for Indo-Pacific security: Guam
Recognising this, Bradley Bowman, senior director for the US-based Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and colleague US Air Force Major Shane Praiswater have issued renewed calls for the US to reaffirm their position as the premier power, with a key foundational investment: Guam.
Explaining the logic of this, Bowman and MAJ Praiswater state, “American military superiority compared to China has eroded in recent years. The frequent inability of Congress and the Pentagon to provide timely capabilities for combatant commanders represents an important reason. The current debate surrounding the defence of Guam will demonstrate whether anything has changed in Washington.
In a report to Congress earlier this year, US Indo-Pacific Command warned that the military balance of power in the region continues to become “more unfavorable”, potentially inviting aggression from Beijing. To address this dangerous situation, INDOPACOM says the “most important action we can take” is establishing a “360-degree persistent and integrated air defense capability in Guam”.
“Some Americans not following this debate closely may wonder what is so special about Guam. Yet, America’s military command, which understands best the threat from Beijing, believes Guam is the US military’s ‘most important operating location in the Western Pacific’ — one the United States “must fight from” and “must also fight for”.
Guam has long been recognised as a central pillar of America’s forward deployed military presence in the region, providing a range of infrastructure and support services for projecting American presence, power and resolve throughout the region, which ironically makes it a priority target for the ever growing arsenal of advanced weapons systems being fielded and in development by the People’s Liberation Army.
“Guam houses Andersen Air Force Base and Naval Base Guam and is home to nearly 169,000 Americans. In a potential conflict with China, the United States would need Guam to support forward-positioned blocking forces engaged in combat along the first island chain, while also using Guam to facilitate the flow of reinforcements from Hawaii and the continental United States.
“In other words, Guam is close enough to likely conflict areas with China to provide essential support to forward-positioned American and allied troops, but far enough away to be out of the range of many Chinese weapons. For that reason, Beijing has been sprinting to field an increasingly formidable missile arsenal to target the island,” Bowman and MAJ Praiswater explain.
Bipartisan support needs action
Both the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) have echoed the development and introduction of an Indo-Pacific Deterrence Initiative to emphasise the “strategic competition” with Russia and China, particularly as both these great powers continue to consolidate their positions as anathema to the post-Second World War economic, political and strategic order.
As part of this growing bipartisan push, HASC chairman Adam Smith has outlined his own US$3.6 billion plan, titled the “Indo-Pacific Reassurance Initiative” plan, as part of this, a committee aide told US-based DefenseNews:
“Our goal in this was to send a signal to our partners and allies that we have an enduring commitment to the region and that collectively we want to help address the full spectrum of security threats that our partners and allies in the region face.”
While the consensus is that more needs to be done by the US to counter the mounting challenge of China, identified by Defense Secretary Mark Esper as America’s “top adversary” – there appears to be a difference of opinion as how to best establish and implement an Indo-Pacific Deterrence Initiative concept.
Each of the respective plans is based on the original European Deterrence Initiative, which was established in the aftermath of Russia’s pseudo-invasion of the Crimea in 2014, something that has drawn the attention of Randall Schriver, the Pentagon’s former top Pacific policy official, seeing similarities between Crimea and the rising challenge of China in the Indo-Pacific.
The HASC ranking Republican representative, Mac Thornberry, identified a variant of the Indo-Pacific Deterrence Initiative that earmarks US$6 billion – all of which is planned for FY2021 – which specifically focuses on rolling out air and missile defence systems and identifying critical military infrastructure development in key partner nations, especially hardened infrastructure.
Supporting the debate, Indo-Pacific Command provided Congress with a plan for US$20 billion worth of expenditure out to FY2026 so that America’s largest combatant command is capable of fulfilling the mission identified in the National Defense Strategy and as head of INDOPACOM Admiral Phil Davidson describes: “Regain the advantage”.
As part of the $20 billion associated with the proposed Pacific Deterrence Initiative, ADML Davidson has made a US$1.67 billion request of six years to establish a persistent, integrated 360-degree air-and-missile defence capability, with one platform in mind: the highly contentious Aegis Ashore.
ADML Davidson’s request, as part of an unclassified report, stated, “The backbone of Homeland Defense System Guam would be the Baseline 10 Aegis Ashore system.
“The reason I’m a key advocate for that is, first, it is technology that is available to us now and could be delivered by 2026, when I believe that the threat will require us to have a much more robust capability than the combination of THAAD (the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile defence system), which is deployed there now, and an Aegis ship in response can provide.”
While the bipartisan support for developing such capabilities is important, for both Bowman and MAJ Praiswater, further action needs to be taken urgently to ensure that the defences of Guam remain at the forefront of capability and remain effective for defending the critical assets deployed there.
“Beijing has already fielded a number of ballistic and cruise missiles that can target Guam. That includes the land-based DF-26, a road-mobile intermediate-range ballistic missile sometimes called the ‘Guam Killer’. The arsenal also includes cruise missiles that could be launched at Guam from any direction using H-6 bombers or naval vessels. And Beijing is also developing hypersonic missiles, such as the DF-17, that can target Guam.
“In response, the Pentagon has deployed the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system to Guam. And as a stopgap measure, anti-missile-capable Aegis destroyers ply nearby waters to provide protection.
“The THAAD system, however, is designed to defend against high-altitude terminal threats and cannot be expected to address cruise missiles. And parking multi-mission Aegis destroyers off of Guam’s coast to provide protection against missiles is hardly the best use of finite US Navy vessels desperately needed elsewhere to deter an increasingly aggressive Chinese Navy that is growing in both size and capability.”
While there has been a number of concerns raised about the Aegis Ashore system, particularly following the withdrawal of Japan, both Bowman and MAJ Praiswater believe more action must be taken to perfect and field the system at Guam.
“Guam, in fact, offers unique advantages with regard to improving missile defence capabilities. As an isolated US territory in the Pacific with THAAD already installed, Guam is an ideal location to test Aegis Ashore’s ability to integrate with existing systems. The remote location of Guam and its live-fire weapons’ ranges provide an unprecedented opportunity for rapid testing and improvements, particularly because the Aegis Ashore system is adaptable.
“Aegis Ashore represents the best first step to meet the threat timeline, and it could and should be adapted and augmented over time. This augmentation process alone – supported by sufficient funding and accompanied by robust testing – would provide critical insights regarding missile defense. Due to Aegis Ashore’s open architecture, many of the capabilities Walton and Clark suggest could be added as they become available.
“Aegis Ashore is not a perfect solution, but it provides the best hope for addressing urgent threats and creating the space for the additional capabilities that will undoubtedly be necessary.
“In light of these realities, Washington should support INDOPACOM’s request on Aegis Ashore, encouraging the siting and survey work to start without delay. After all, the burden of proof should rest with anyone suggesting the combatant command closest to the threat doesn’t know best what it needs,” Bowman and MAJ Praiswater explain.
Your thoughts
Indo-Pacific Asia is at the epicentre of the 21st century’s era of great power competition and global maritime trade, with about US$5 trillion worth of trade flowing through the South China Sea and the strategic waterways and choke points of south-east Asia annually.
For Australia, a nation defined by this relationship with traditionally larger yet economically weaker regional neighbours, the growing economic prosperity of the region and corresponding arms build-up, combined with ancient and more recent enmities, competing geopolitical, economic and strategic interests, places the nation at the centre of the 21st century’s “great game”.
Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia.
Australia is consistently told that as a nation we are torn between our economic relationship with China and the longstanding strategic partnership with the US, placing the country at the epicentre of a great power rivalry – but what if it didn’t have to be that way?
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of shaking up the nation’s approach to our regional partners.
We would also like to hear your thoughts on the avenues Australia should pursue to support long-term economic growth and development in support of national security in the comments section below, or get in touch with
Stephen Kuper
Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.
