American war strategy and the need for independence

William Briggs argues that America’s increasingly unstable military strategy under successive regimes highlights the importance of Australia going its own way.

In late 2024, in the final days of the Biden Presidency, a new military doctrine was developed. In the heated atmosphere that surrounded Washington, the then President and all of the President’s men believed that the way to maintain US global hegemony was through a plan called Tri-Regional Defense Strategy.

This idea first came to light Foreign affairs magazine. Author, Thomas MahnkenPresident and CEO of the powerful US think tank Strategic and Budgetary Assessment Center (CSBA) and at that time National Defense Strategy Commission and a member US Army Science Board.

We need to remember that this is in 2024 and before Trump arrives.

Mahnken didn’t throw any punches. He argued that the United States was currently involved in two wars; It is preparing for the third one in Ukraine and the Middle East, and in Asia. “Washington is fortunate to have capable allies and friends in East Asia, Europe and the Middle East.”he wrote. But these allies and friends “We should do a better job by working together.”. This meant not only acting in alliance with the United States on the battlefield, but also producing weapons and keeping the American military-industrial complex profitable.

The strategy is based on the readiness of the “enemies”. American strategists and Western media propagandists can easily identify these enemies. The article guiding the policy is that these “enemies” “They cooperate with each other: Iran sells oil to China, China sends money to North Korea, and North Korea sends weapons to Russia.”. Mahnken called these countries “an authoritarian axis” HE “Covers the Eurasian continentThe answer, according to Mahnken, was for the United States to respond.

Having identified this “axis”, the theorist explains how to combat it. This meant leaning on “allies”.

Mahnken reported that Washington’s allies:

“…power to help limit the authoritarian axis. But to succeed, they must do a better job of working together… The West, in particular, must create and share more ammunition, weapons and military bases.”

When Trump came to power, this policy was seemingly replaced by a new “America First” policy. National Defense Strategy. This “shift” in thinking requires a focus on “homeland security,” effectively a reimplementation of the old Monroe Doctrine. US forces abroad, especially in the Middle East, had to be reduced. That situation is now in tatters, with the US fleet in the area and thousands of Marines deployed.

The new policy is also based on pressuring the “allies” to spend more on their militaries to defend their territories, or rather to be prepared to launch predatory wars when necessary.

There is an idea underlying the policy. This is explicitly linking economic and military power and using that military power to advance U.S. commercial interests.

Words and semantics are sometimes cross-dressed. Although the strategic approach to waging all-out global war appears to have changed, the goal of maintaining global dominance has not.

The new US National Defense Strategy does not necessarily unravel, but rather merges with Biden’s. The war is currently being fought on two fronts, and China remains the US’s weapons focus. But what happened was that it turned out to be extremely difficult to sustain the madness of a war on three fronts.

According to the Biden doctrine, the United States and a group of its loyal allies can wage simultaneous wars in the Middle East, Europe and Asia “if necessary.” China would be confronted and its rise halted and reversed. Russia would weaken and become nothing more than prey for US interests. Iran would be effectively destroyed and global oil would be left in “safe” hands.

This maniacal worldview seemed to have a decidedly apocalyptic conclusion. Today, the Russia-Ukraine War continues. The cost of war in human lives, resources and money seems endless. Russian economy The country is in such a dire situation that inflation is now over 9 percent and major labor shortages are disrupting life and productivity. However, material consumption nevertheless revealed a flaw in the US “three front” policy.

Iran has revealed another weakness. The arrogance of the empire assumed that Persia would be quickly forced to surrender. One month before this war, the USA now diverting military resources away from Asia to fill in the gaps. The goal of securing oil for US interests is turning into a global nightmare.

China is moving diligently towards further transformation, despite being dependent on Iran for a significant portion of its oil. self-sufficient and sustainable energy use. Even though its strategic enemy and rival, the USA, continues to weaken, its rise continues.

The war in Iran was clearly one move in the global offensive aimed at weakening China. Whether opportunistically or strategically, China has “chose to stick with what it describes as“stay in your own lane” is approaching and is careful not to identify itself with the war on any side.

If the US fails to rein in Iran, a global recession will be inevitable and a worldwide economic depression is likely. This would cripple the global economy and further diminish the power of the United States.

It is clear that China will face major economic challenges, but it has the economic, military and political capacity not only to stay the course but to become even more dominant and emerge with a growing list of ready-made global partners to do business with.

19th century British Prime Minister, Lord Palmerstonehe famously declared:

“… we have no eternal allies and we have no permanent enemies. Our interests are eternal and permanent, and it is our duty to pursue these interests.”

This frank but honest assessment of real politics has dominated state thinking ever since. It certainly drives the thinking and practices of the United States, its allies, and its perceived enemies. This certainly shows how the struggle for global economic hegemony between the US and China is progressing.

The same approach should also be compatible with smaller powers. Many of Australia’s immediate Pacific neighbors claim they want to join one Friend of all and enemy of none. This kind of clarity of thinking needs to be embraced by Australia.

What is Australia’s national interest? The answer, of course, must be: Peace, security and economic progress. Being the man who constantly says “yes” to US imperialism and being a permanent partner in American wars cannot serve these national interests.

Greater interaction with the Asian region, peaceful, non-aligned policies that promote good relations and beneficial trade relations with the region’s dominant economies serve these interests. Although Australia remains a capitalist nation-state, it makes sense to establish closer relations with other capitalist states.

China is the most obvious capitalist state that deserves close attention. This does not weaken Australia, but allows it to develop an independent foreign and economic policy conducive to peace, stability and economic progress.

Our future requires this if we want to have a safe future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20797

William Briggs is a political economist. His particular interests are political theory and international political economy. He has variously been a teacher, journalist and political activist.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.