The Rising East
Posted around the globe,
U.S. military can’t
stretch much furtherOnce again, the United States seems to be stumbling into a long-term military commitment in Asia with no evident objective, no carefully forged strategy, and no thought given to a way out.
Moreover, the nation's armed forces, having been reduced by one-third over the last decade, are stretched to the breaking point. The latest reach is the buildup of U.S. bases in what are called "the stans," meaning Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and even in remote Kyrgyzstan.
For the past month, a base that will support 2,000 to 3,000 U.S. Air Force people and two dozen fighter-bombers has been under construction near Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. "We're establishing a mini-air force base from which we can fly a variety of military missions, mainly airlift, aerial refueling and tactical air," Brig. Gen. Christopher Kelly, commander of the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing told The New York Times.
This is classic "mission creep." When the United States began attacking Afghanistan in October, the objective was to defeat the oppressive Taliban regime, break up the al-Qaida terrorist network and hunt down Osama bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind. Then American forces were to leave, presumably to go after terrorists elsewhere.
Now, however, 1,000 soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division are settling down at a base near Khanabad, Uzbekistan, leaving Fort Drum, N.Y., nearly abandoned as depicted by David Wood in a story on the front page of this week's Insight section. A similar unit the 101st Air Assault Division has relieved 1,500 U.S. Marines at Kandahar, Afghanistan. Four bases in Pakistan are being refurbished for American forces.
At sea, the United States plans to keep two aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea within striking distance of "the stans." One carrier will come from the Atlantic Fleet, the other from the Pacific fleet. The Navy prefers to deploy carriers in pairs so that if an attack or accident closes one flight deck, planes in flight will have someplace to come home to.
This military presence in Central Asia, the land of the 19th century's "Great Game," where British and Russian imperialists conspired with feudal and feuding tribes across forbidding mountains and deserts, may well be in the national interests of the United States.
President Bush, however, has so far not articulated or justified that need to the American voters and taxpayers who, in the end, must approve and pay for it. The costs of a long-term commitment are nearly impossible to calculate now, for it will include the cost of getting the forces there and, even more, the cost of sustaining them far from home. Behind every soldier on the front line is about 10 others supporting him or preparing to take his place.
President Bush, President Clinton before him, conservatives, moderates and liberals contend that the United States neither wants to be the policeman of the world nor could be if it wanted to. Sen. John McCain, Republican of Arizona, once said: "I know of no one, on the left or the right of the political spectrum, who believes that the United States should assume the role of global cop."
Yet the commitment of forces abroad continues apace. Those in Central Asia are in addition to the 11,000 troops spread around the Persian Gulf and out to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. There are 5,500 Americans still in Kosovo and 3,800 in Bosnia despite pledges by Presidents Clinton and Bush that those missions would not be open-ended. The United States has 37,000 troops in South Korea 49 years after the Korean War and 40,500 in Japan, occupied by their fathers -- and maybe their grandfathers -- 57 years ago.
Altogether, more than 250,000 American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, or 20 percent of the force, are on duty outside the United States. Only the Romans, Mongols and the British in their heydays of empire had comparable deployments. For the United States at the present rate, it is only a matter of time before something snaps.
Two great military thinkers have warned against trying to stretch too far. Said Sun Tzu, the Chinese strategist 2,500 years ago: "Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished." Frederick the Great echoed that 220 years ago: "He who defends everything defends nothing."
Richard Halloran is editorial director of the Star-Bulletin.
He can be reached by e-mail at rhalloran@starbulletin.com