South Korea could not stop the withdrawal of missile defense systems. Now Manila is trying to figure out if it is really a strategic partner or just another supply warehouse.
The US has begun to withdraw missile defense systems from South Korea to support its war against Iran, which has raised new question marks in the Philippines about Washington's military commitments to Asia-Pacific.
Reports that the transfer of Patriot batteries from the Korean peninsula and parts of a THAAD missile defense system were also transported did not directly affect the US military presence in the Philippines. However, this incident raised question marks about the US defense assurance in Manila.
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung confirmed on Tuesday that the Seoul administration was officially protesting the transfer but could not stop it.
"We have expressed that we are against US forces redeploying some of the air defense batteries here for their own military needs," he said.
Accepting the limits of Seoul's bargaining power, Lee said it was an "clear reality" that South Korea's objections could only be effective to some extent if Washington decided to carry its own military assets. However, he tried to reassure the public that the withdrawal did not create a weakness in the South's defense against North Korea.
If South Korea, which hosts tens of thousands of permanently stationed US troops along the world's most fortified border, cannot prevent Washington from acting according to its own needs, this could also make the US guarantee of alliance controversial for the Philippines.
South Korea is the kind of place the Pentagon first contacts when it needs high-mobility systems quickly. It is home to a large amount of permanently deployed US military equipment, including Patriot batteries that are clearly designed to be transported. The Korean peninsula, in a sense, is a well-stocked strategic warehouse for the US.
Meanwhile, the Philippines is not home to a heavy, permanent concentration of power of the kind that would make it an easy resource for redeployment in case of emergency.
Under the Bilaterally Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement, Washington is deploying alternate troops and pre-deploying equipment in designated areas across the archipelago, a form of stance built around access and operational flexibility.
“If Washington needed missile defense assets quickly, South Korea would be a more reasonable source,” commented Sylwia Monika Gorska, an international relations expert at the University of Central Lancashire, who works on defense policy.
Speaking to the South China Morning Post, Gorska added, "The United States has Patriot batteries there as part of the layered missile defense system against North Korean ballistic missiles, and these systems are designed to be mobile."
Analysts say the Philippines has become so important for US strategy.
Washington has spent years building a military presence across the archipelago, which now forms the basis of plans for the Luzon Strait, the South China Sea, and any Taiwan scenario.
“The Philippines has recently gained no less importance, but more importance in U.S. deterrence planning,” said Arnaud Leveau, a security analyst professor of international relations at the University of Paris Dauphine.
However, according to experts, this flexibility is "a double-edged sword": "Abilities that are difficult to target are abilities that are inherently difficult to fix somewhere".
“What the Philippines provides is an additional operational layer; instead of replacing the main power centers in Northeast Asia, it allows for scattered deployments that complicate the planning of an enemy,” Gorska said.
The military power of the USA in Asia is concentrated in Japan and South Korea. The Philippines is creating a strategic outer arc, but this arc is designed to stretch.
Under severe pressure, Leveau said Washington will likely go a selective rebalancing path rather than a wholesale retreat, shifting the most portable assets while protecting the strategic core intact.
"The posture probably becomes leaner in the corner on the shore, but it remains firm in essence," he said.
On the other hand, analysts say that American missile stocks are decreasing, with conflicts in other areas of operation depleting stocks faster than defense contractors can replenish stocks.
Taiwan-based security analyst Sasha Chhabra said that as the war in Iran continues, pressure on US ammunition stocks will increase and Washington's deterrence capacity in Asia will decrease.
“In the long term, we need to consider the logic of using $4 million missiles to bring down $50,000 unmanned aerial vehicles,” Chhabra said, urging Asian allies to accelerate the joint production of critical ammunition.
“After all, it is an ally whose defense is tied to U.S. prevention missiles, but it is as safe as the supply chain behind it, and this supply chain is now under serious pressure,” he said.
Chris Gardiner, security expert and CEO of the regional security institute think tank, provided a concrete example.
Australia, a close US ally that invested heavily in missile supply, has already seen its deliveries delayed as American stocks have been prioritized for Iranian operations.
"The US, which is in conflict with Iran, has to defeat Iran and therefore it is a priority to direct ammunition and material for this purpose," Gardiner said.
According to experts, the Philippines, which is rapidly expanding its own US missile system supply, should expect a similar event.
Washington may see the redeployment in Korea as a logistical decision, but analysts say Beijing will treat it as a political decision.
According to analysts, this is precisely the essence of the problem for the Philippines: any apparent changes in the U.S. military presence, no matter how limited, are becoming ammunition in the broader battle of information about whether America's commitments to Asia can really be trusted.
Leveau said that the redeployment could be read either as a story of US over-expansion or as a story of unrivalled American power, with an army large and mobile enough to fight in the Middle East and simultaneously hold the line in Asia.
In both cases, he stated that the political message for the region is "clear": "Asian allies cannot assume that U.S. resources are available forever."