Washington Rules_ America's Path to Permanent War - Andrew J. Bacevich [10]
institute a vigorous program of war games and exercises in countries around the world, to include the Western Hemisphere, while maintaining in instant readiness the land, air, and naval forces needed to convert such games and exercises into combat operations.
form a PLA Long-Range Strike Force, capable on very short notice of conducting intercontinental attacks, employing conventional or nuclear weapons or operating in cyberspace.
No doubt the defense minister would caution other nations not to view this program as posing any threat, the People’s Republic being sincerely committed to living in harmony with others. The minister might even argue that China, both a venerable civilization and a vigorous, rising nation-state, has an inherent responsibility to contribute to global stability. Few observers in the United States (or elsewhere for that matter) would take comfort in such assurances. In Washington, Tokyo, Moscow, and other capitals, China’s true intentions might be subject to debate, but no responsible official would accept the assertion that such a huge investment in military power reflected China’s desire to advance the cause of peace. The rhetorical camouflage would fool no one.
The imaginary Chinese program described above pales in comparison to the existing military posture of the United States. Some highlights of that posture include the following:
With current Pentagon outlays running at something like $700 billion annually, the United States spends as much or more money on its military than the entire rest of the world combined.4
The United States currently has approximately 300,000 troops stationed abroad, again more than the rest of the world combined (a total that does not even include another 90,000 sailors and marines who are at sea);5 as of 2008, according to the Department of Defense, these troops occupied or used some 761 “sites” in 39 foreign countries, although this tally neglected to include many dozens of U.S. bases in Iraq or Afghanistan;6 no other country comes even remotely close to replicating this “empire of bases”—or to matching the access that the Pentagon has negotiated to airfields and seaports around the world.7
The Pentagon has divvied up the planet (and universe) into “unified commands,” each headed by a four-star general or admiral. Pacific Command, “committed to preserving the security, stability, and freedom” of the Asia-Pacific region, polices a region comprising 50 percent of the earth’s surface, and more than half of its population;8 Central Command, spanning the Greater Middle East, currently presides over wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan as it seeks “to promote security, stability, and prosperity”;9 European Command, established in Germany at the end of World War II, remains committed to the proposition that a need exists “for continuing and expanded U.S. engagement throughout the command’s area of focus”;10 Africa Command, created in 2007, conducts “military-to-military programs, military-sponsored activities, and other military operations” in fifty-three nations in order “to promote a stable and secure African environment”;11 Southern Command, encompassing Central and South America and the Caribbean, strives to “ensure stability,” “enhance security,” and “enable partnerships”;12 Northern Command, established in the wake of 9/11, tends to North America; and, by no means least of all, Space Command, responsible for the biggest region of all, conducts “joint space operations,” including “Space Force Support, Space Force Enhancement, Space Force Application, and Space Force Control.”13
Each of the six regional commands manages its own frenetic schedule of war games, command post exercises, workshops, conferences, seminars, training missions, and disaster relief operations, all conducted under the rubric of “engagement”; Pacific Command’s program of recurring exercises, for example, includes Talisman Saber, Tandem Thrust, Kingfisher,