At present, the U.S. has about 200,000
troops stationed across hundreds of bases abroad. Incoming
administrations typically launch a "global posture review" to assess how
the deployment of American forces around the world aligns with U.S.
foreign policy interests. In advance of the Trump administration's
review, DEFP Director of Military Analysis Jennifer Kavanagh and former
Pentagon senior advisor Dan Caldwell have provided their own assessment and recommendations for the United States' global force posture.
Aligning military posture with U.S. interests
Kavanagh and Caldwell focus on four priorities: defending the homeland,
preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon in key areas, burden
shifting to allies and partners, and protecting U.S. economic security.
On net, they conclude that U.S. forces are overextended globally and are
not postured in line with these priorities. They recommend that:
- U.S. troop levels in Europe should be reduced to approximately
where they were before Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine, including the
withdrawal of some ground combat units, multiple fighter squadrons, and
several destroyers.
- The U.S. presence in the Middle East is also too large given
limited U.S. interests and the region's lack of an existential military
threat to the U.S. homeland. Air and naval assets deployed after the
2023 attacks on Israel should be removed, post-9/11 legacy deployments
in Iraq and Syria should be ended, and troops in Kuwait and Qatar should
be fully withdrawn.
- The U.S. military posture in East Asia should be realigned to focus
on balancing Chinese power and protecting U.S. interests. Recommended
changes include removing most ground forces and two fighter squadrons
from South Korea, moving U.S. forces away from the Chinese coast, and
shifting more frontline defense responsibilities to allies like Japan
and the Philippines.
Read the full explainer here.
|
|
"[Putin]
assesses, rightly in my view, that Russia has the battlefield advantage
and that there is not much that the United States or Europe can do to
pressure him or impose meaningful costs . . . More aid to Ukraine is
unlikely to shift the military balance in a major way, and Putin is
prepared to weather the costs of additional sanctions."
— DEFP Senior Fellow and Director of Military Analysis Jennifer
Kavanagh, as quoted in "Behind Trump's tough Russia talk, doubts and
missing details" [NYT / Michael Crowley, Eric Schmitt, and Julian E. Barnes]
|
|
"Militarily, I see yesterday's announcement
as a lot more show than substance," says DEFP Director of Military
Analysis Jennifer Kavanagh on PBS Newshour, debating Trump's decision to
send a new weapons package to Ukraine with Kimberly Kagan, president of
the Institute for the Study of War. Kavanagh continued:
U.S. and European stockpiles are very low right now . .
. The aid that can arrive quickly is very limited in quantity and types
of weapons. So, the bottom line is that the military balance isn't going
to change that much. There's also been a lot of focus here on defensive
weapons: Patriots, interceptor missiles. Those are great for defending
Ukrainian cities, they're not going to change things for frontline
soldiers. So, in my view, this announcement may seem like a big step
forward—it certainly is a politically significant move for President
Trump—but militarily, it makes very little difference for the Ukrainians
and won't change the trajectory of the war. | | |