This morning, keys turned in the front doors of thousands of American business offices "forward deployed" all over the world. American companies invest in overseas presence because actually "being there" is clearly the best way to do business.
Also this morning, United States Navy amphibious assault ships carrying 4,400 combat-ready American Marines were forward deployed in waters of the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf. Aircraft carrier battle groups with 16,000 sailors and two air wings of combat ready aircraft are also there.
And in the Far East, the United States has permanently deployed a third aircraft battle group and a third amphibious ready group. The vigilant "forward presence" of these forces is vital, but not as visible to Americans as it is to the rest of the world. Their routine daily efforts don't always make the headlines, but they are vitally important to world peace and stability.
Some argue that the forward presence these forces represent is no longer necessary. They say forces based in the United States are enough to maintain international stability. They maintain that "brushfires," or outbreaks of regional instability, are insignificant, or incidental at best. And they argue America can no longer afford the forward presence of these forces on what amounts to a near continuous basis.
We would argue just the opposite. Forward deployed U.S. forces, primarily naval expeditionary forces - the Navy-Marine Corps team - are vital to regional stability and to keeping these crises from escalating into full-scale wars. To those who argue that the United States can't afford to keep this degree of vigilance anymore, we say the United States can't afford not to.
These brushfires, whether the result of long-standing ethnic tensions or resurgent nationalism in the wake of the Cold War, will only continue. The Cold War was an anomaly. Never again will we live in a bi-polar world whose nuclear shadow suppressed nationalism and ethnic strife. We have, in some respects, reverted back to the world of our ancestors: a world in disorder. Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda, Iraq and the Taiwan Straits are examples of the types of continuing crises we now face.
This world demands a new approach. The concepts of choice must be selective and committed engagement, unencumbered global operations and prompt crisis resolution. There is no better way to maintain and enforce these concepts than with the forward presence of the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps team.
There are four basic tenets to international security in today's world: Prevention, deterrence, crisis resolution and war termination. The underlying assumption of these tenets is that the U.S. and its allies should not be forced into winning a war in an overwhelming (and expensive) fashion. Instead, it is better - and cheaper - to resolve a crisis before it burns out of control.
Prevent: The key to prevention is continuous presence in a region. This lets our friends know we have an interest and lets potential foes know that we're there to check any move. This regional presence underwrites political and economic stability.
This is forward presence.
Deter: Presence does not prevent every crisis. Some rogues are going to be tempted to strike no matter what the odds. When crises reach this threshold, there is no substitute for sustained actual presence. Naval expeditionary forces can quickly assume the role of the visible fist. Friends and potential enemies recognize these forces as capable of defending or destroying them. This fist, free from diplomatic and territorial constraints, forms the bedrock of deterrence.
For example, the mere presence of naval expeditionary forces deterred Chinese attempts to derail the democratic process in Taiwan and countered Iraqi saber-rattling toward Jordan. It's hard to quantify the cost savings of deterring a crisis before it requires our intervention. But the savings are real - in dollars, and often in blood and human misery.
This is forward presence.
Resolve: If a crisis can neither be prevented nor deterred, then prompt and decisive crisis resolution is imperative before the situation threatens vital interests. U.S. naval expeditionary forces are a trans-oceanic key that finds and opens - forcibly if necessary - any gateway into a fiery world. Perhaps most importantly, naval expeditionary forces don't need permission from foreign governments to take unilateral action in a crisis. This both unencumbers the force and takes pressure off allies to host outside forces.
During the past two years, U.S. naval expeditionary forces simultaneously and unilaterally deployed to Liberia and to the Central African Republic (1,500 miles inland) to protect U.S. and international citizens. They also launched measured retaliatory Tomahawk strikes to constrain unacceptable Iraqi behavior, and conducted naval air and Tomahawk strikes which brought the warring parties in Bosnia to the negotiating table.
This is forward presence.
Terminate: Each of the above tenets is worthy of the United States paying an annual peace insurance premium. Otherwise we, and our allies, risk paying emotional, physical and financial costs of a full-blown conflagration that began as just another brushfire. If there is a war, naval expeditionary forces will be first to fight. And they will remain on-scene to enforce the settlement that ends the conflict.
This is forward presence.
Who else is capable of this type of presence on a global basis? For the United States, maintaining a steady commitment to stability will be a challenge. But maintain it we must, or the price, literally and figuratively, will be much greater down the road.
America's Navy-Marine Corps team is ready and on-scene at trouble spots around the world. Forward presence makes it - and will keep it - the right force, tailor-made for these uncertain and sometimes fiery times.