January 19, 2018 / 4:26 PM / 9 months ago

U.S. military puts 'great power competition' at heart of strategy: Mattis

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military has put countering China and Russia at the centre of a new national defence strategy unveiled on Friday, the latest sign of shifting priorities after more than a decade and a half of focusing on the fight against Islamist militants.

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Secretary for Defense, Jim Mattis, sits opposite Britain's Secretary of State for Defence, Gavin Williamson, before a meeting at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in central London, Britain November 10, 2017. REUTERS/Simon Dawson

In presenting the new strategy, which will set priorities for the Pentagon for years to come, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called China and Russia “revisionist powers” that “seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models.”

The “National Defense Strategy” represents the latest sign of hardening resolve by President Donald Trump’s administration to address challenges from Russia and China, at the same time he is pushing for improved ties with Moscow and Beijing to rein in a nuclear North Korea.

“We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we are engaged in today, but great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security,” Mattis said in a speech presenting the strategy document, the first of its kind since at least 2014.

It sets priorities for the U.S. Defense Department that are expected to be reflected in future defence spending requests. The Pentagon on Friday released an unclassified, 11-page version of the document, which did not provide details on how the shift towards countering China and Russia would be carried out.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking through an interpreter at a news conference at the United Nations, said the United States was using a confrontational approach.

“It is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialogue, instead of using the basis of international law, the U.S. is striving to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts,” Lavrov said.

“We’re open for dialogue, we’re prepared to discuss military doctrines,” he added.

China’s U.S. embassy criticized the strategy, saying Beijing sought “global partnership, not global dominance.”

“If some people look at the world through a cold war, zero-sum game mindset, then they are destined to see only conflict and confrontation,” an embassy spokesman said in a statement.

Elbridge Colby, deputy assistant secretary of defence for strategy and force development, said at a briefing with reporters that Russia was far more brazen than China in its use of military power.

Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in 2014 and intervened militarily in Syria to support its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Still, Moscow was limited by its economic resources, Colby said.

China, on the other hand, was described as economically and militarily ascendant. China has embarked on a far-reaching military modernization that Colby said was in “deep contravention to our interests.”

Experts praised the document’s targeting of the largest national security threats rather than the longer lists of risks in some previous strategies. But without knowing the budget commitments, it was difficult to assess if it was a sound strategy.

“If we don’t actually see where the money is, you know, there is the danger that it could become all words,” said Mara Karlin, a fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank and a senior defence official in the Obama administration.

SUPPORT FOR ALLIANCES

The document also listed North Korea among the Pentagon’s priorities, citing the need to focus U.S. missile defences against the threat from Pyongyang, which beyond its nuclear weapons has also amassed an arsenal of biological, chemical, and conventional arms.

The document said that international alliances would be critical for the U.S. military, by far the world’s best-resourced. But it also stressed a need for burden-sharing, an apparent nod to Trump’s public criticism of allies who he says unfairly take advantage of U.S. security guarantees.

Trump has called the NATO alliance “obsolete”, but Mattis said the United States would strengthen its traditional alliances while building new partnerships and listening more to other nations’ ideas.

“We will be willing to be persuaded by them, recognising that not all good ideas come from the country with the most aircraft carriers,” Mattis said.

The Pentagon is also working on a policy document on the country’s nuclear arsenal. While Mattis did not specifically address that review, he said the priority is deterrence.

“How do we maintain a safe and effective nuclear deterrence so those weapons are never used? It is a nuclear deterrent, it is not a war fighting capability unless it is the worst day in our nation or the world’s history,” Mattis said.

Mattis had harsh words for the U.S. Congress and its inability to reach agreement on budgets.

The U.S. military’s competitive edge has eroded “in every domain of warfare” he said, partly because of inconsistent funding. A bill to fund the government only through Feb. 16, approved on Thursday night by the House of Representatives, appeared on the verge of collapse in the Senate.

“As hard as the last 16 years of war have been, no enemy in the field has done more to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact” of spending caps and short-term funding.

In sheer spending terms, the United States’ military outlay per year is still far more than China and Russia. The United States is spending $587.8 billion per year on its military, China $161.7 billion and Russia $44.6 billion.

Reporting by Idrees Ali; Additional reporting by Michelle Nichols at the United Nations; Editing by Grant McCool, James Dalgleish and Daniel Wallis

0 : 0
  • narrow-browser-and-phone
  • medium-browser-and-portrait-tablet
  • landscape-tablet
  • medium-wide-browser
  • wide-browser-and-larger
  • medium-browser-and-landscape-tablet
  • medium-wide-browser-and-larger
  • above-phone
  • portrait-tablet-and-above
  • above-portrait-tablet
  • landscape-tablet-and-above
  • landscape-tablet-and-medium-wide-browser
  • portrait-tablet-and-below
  • landscape-tablet-and-below