Indian Response To The Us Rebalancing Strategy

At the start of the new millennium, China became rapidly known as the fastest growing economy sparking the greatest shift of relative power in history. Coincidence, or not, Afghanistan’s narrow border with China made it a perfect strategic target to presume military presence within the Asian region. Arguably, the invasion of Afghanistan lays largely on a tactical plan designed by the US to resist

As Kelly Anderson’s Foreign Policy Analyst, the following memo will address three areas of the United States’ foreign policy. The U.S. has gone through may transition when it comes to its foreign policy. The United States has been an isolationist, neutralist, and internationalist country from the year it was founded to now. The executive branch and the president apply their power to influence and change the nation’s foreign policy. There are specific departments within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) created to assist the president in his or her process. Political context and historical events have occurred to prove why intervening with another country’s issues does not benefit the national interest and why isolationism is a better system for this country. Hopefully, the memo will accomplish informing what the foreign policy is, was, and should be.

Security is based on military strength. The chief purposes of the nation’s foreign policy are protection of America’s security in an often hostile world. Today, American security policy is worried not only with the procedures of the other nations such as Nazi Germany 1940, soviet Russia 1980; but also with activities of terrorist groups and other hostile non-state actors. To defend the nation and to achieve this goal, united state has built a huge military

(Mearsheimer and Walt 2016).” Offshore Balancing is where Washington would forgo their ambitious efforts to remake other societies and concentrate on what really matters, preserving U.S. dominance in the Western Hemisphere and countering potential hegemons in Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Persian Gulf. Instead of policing the world, the U.S. would encourage other countries to take the lead in checking rising powers, intervening itself only when necessary (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016).” By doing all of this, it does, in no way, mean that the United States is abandoning its role as the world’s superpower, but rather by conserving U.S. strength, Offshore Balancing would preserve U.S. primacy far into the future and safeguard liberty at home (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). The principle concern with Offshore Balancing is to keep America as powerful as possible (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). However, another part of Offshore balancing is that “there are other regions outside of the Western Hemisphere that are worth expending American blood and treasure to defend (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016).” Those three areas are Europe, Northeast Asia, and the Persian Gulf; the first two are key centers of industrial power and home to the world’s other great powers, and the third produces roughly 30 percent of the world’s oil (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). Offshore balancing embodies many things, but promoting democracy it not one of them (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). Offshore Balancing takes on the Jeffersonian idea that the U.S. should not commit their forces for democracy promoting purposes alone, and that in the event of a war that breaks out should turn to regional forces as the first line defense (Mearsheimer and Walt 2016). Washington should supply assistance to allies and pledge support to them if they were in serious danger of being conquered, it should refrain from

The United States has lead the way in transforming technology and changing the conduct of war over the past sixty-five years; working to create a safer, more stable and prosperous world for America, our allies, and partners abroad. However, “modern warfare is evolving rapidly, leading to increasingly contested battlespace in the air, sea, and space domains – as well as cyberspace – in which our forces enjoyed dominance in our most recent conflicts.” Changes in warfare and the world’s political climate forced the United States to change their strategic focus and redefine their outlook for the future; “based on new technologies, new centers of power, and a world that is growing more volatile, more unpredictable, and in some instances more threatening to the United States.”

With the election of Donald J. Trump, the United States has met a strong change of position in the international playing field. The Obama years, characterized by periods of soft power playing and reliance on international frameworks with intermittent reliance on military intervention, have been all but cast aside by a President often associated with ideals of isolationism. Foreign policy can change throughout administrations, but the scale at which these two administrations differ in how they see the world is unparalleled. Whether it be the willingness to work with Russia, a state condemned by the previous administration, in the pursuit of defeating ISIS, the hardline approach which Trump and his Defense Secretary General Mattis approach

The United States military is the strongest military that the world has ever seen. However if it is to continue to remain a dominant power it must remain in key positions throughout the world. The United States military is used for more than just fighting the nations wars, it is also used as a diplomatic tool, a deterrent, and to assist in stabilizing the world economy. The effects of reducing U.S. troop presence around the world will have repercussions in more aspects than simply military strength.

Because of these build downs, The United States military has reduced its strength by about a third of what it was in 1985.  Despite this reduction in military strength,  U.S. military deployment has gone up a third (Kaminski 1).  This does not make good sense.  Just because the Soviet Union has crumbled does not mean that all of America's worries have faded away.  There are new threats that have replace the terror of Russia.  These include regional aggressors such as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran (Federation of American Scientists 1).  Regional conflicts among these lesser powers have grown in importance because of the invention nuclear weapons of mass destruction.  Since the breakup of the Soviet union, the market has been flooded with inexpensive military arms.  Some of these arms have found their way into regional conflicts (Sandler 2).  The possibility of another World War can not be dismissed from the possibilities as well. The world still contains potential dangers for the U.S., and a strong military must be in place for any of these threats.

The National Military Strategy of the United States articulates several specific challenges to U.S. National Security interests that will confront JF-2025. Russian aggression toward its neighbors and defiance of international standards of behavior threatens stability in Europe. Iranian nuclear ambitions and support of terror menaces the Middle East. North Korea is a threat to U.S. Asian allies Japan and the Republic of Korea. The emerging power of China offers both opportunity in the form of greater economic cooperation but also challenges as they expand their military capabilities, threaten Taiwan and make unreasonable claims on the South China Sea. Finally, violent extremist organizations (VEOs) such as ISIS and al-Qaida continue to degrade regional stability and threaten U.S. interests.

President Barak Obama announced to the Australian parliament in November 2011 that the United States had commenced a review to establish key strategic interests in order to guide budgetary and defense priorities. The US ‘Pivot to the Pacific’ strategy commenced with President Obama declaring he had “directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia-Pacific a top priority.” A forecast reduction in military commitments in the Middle East would allow resources reallocation to the Pacific region to strengthen relationships with partner nations and counter a rise in Chinese strength. Therefore, this begs the question—why has the US postured to the Pacific?

This essay attempts to shed some light on the question: "To what extent can the Cold War be looked upon as the main event in shaping the political, economic and military schemes in India and Pakistan 1991?" It starts off by explaining the Cold War, its far reaching implications and the effect it had on two bitter neighbours, India and Pakistan. The focus of the essay then moves onto explaining the nature of the Cold War and its effect upon

“The rise of China and India has, in turn, started the process of the emergence of a new regional architecture in the Asia-Pacific. Therefore, of particular importance is the imperative for Indonesia and the US to work together in shaping a regional architecture that can accommodate everyone.” (Sukma, 2010) As the regional architecture changes it is highly likely that America’s ability to protect its interest in the region will increasingly depend on Indonesia’s cooperation and support. An example of this is the Malacca, Sunda, and Lombok straits, which are some of the world’s most important strategic sea-lanes. Close to half of the total global merchant fleet capacity transits the straits around Indonesia. (Masters, 2003) The United States has economic and military interest in keeping access to these straits open. Indonesia’s significance to the United States hinges on how close the bilateral cooperation between the two nations continues to be into the future.

Homo sapien sapiens are a breed unlike any other. These beings create complex tools, produce diverse languages, and develop the ability to laugh and smile in the womb (What Makes Us Human? 208). Although they lack the scaly defenses of reptiles and the sheer size of the dinosaurs which came before them, humans have survived for over two hundred thousand years (Howell 1). The reason they were able to survive stems largely from their evolved forms of communication and tools which elevated them to the top of the food chain. The only predator to the human became other humans. This became increasingly apparent after World War II and arguably the largest crime against humanity, the Holocaust. Humans created a set of rules to

In the 21st century, it is inevitable for states to make a diplomatic and strategic decision without being influenced by defence capabilities of their enemies and friends. Post World War II the approach adopted by India, the Philippines and Switzerland are defensive in nature. The Swiss National Redoubt and Indian Sundarji were developed within these states, while the Philippines strategy was based on foreign military dependency. For all these three countries their approach is greatly influenced by geography, economy, their history of existence (culture) and aggressive neighbours. Since the art of war is changing significantly, these states are finding themselves in a vulnerable

Narendra Modi – a patriot, a true leader with a vision of reshaping Indian economy and accelerating the process of nation building.He showed the trailer of “ache din aane wale hai” to Indians grappling with issues like corruption, unemployment, inflation etc.and they saw a maseeha in him. Not only Indians, the entire world has its eyes set on the way Mr. Narendra Modi leads and governs India. But has he been able to live up to his trailer’s expectations? Let’s take a walk through his trailer – “the election campaign” andjudge for ourselves, “ache din aaengey ya nhi”.