In October 2012 our shortened URL ( expired and was purchased by spammers before we were able to reclaim it. Part of their misuse includes redirecting this URL to an imposter site that has advertisements posted in the comment boxes. Stimson is working to take down that site and reclaim the domain name. In the interim, please update your bookmarks accordingly to Thank you all for your patience as we work through this issue.

Picture This



“Modest reforms to pay and compensation will improve readiness and modernization. It will help keep our all-volunteer force sustainable and strong. Keeping faith also means investing sufficient resources so that we can uphold our sacred obligations to defend the nation and to send our sons and daughters to war with only the best training, leadership and equipment. We can’t shrink from our obligations to one another. The stakes are too high.”

Gen. Martin E. Dempsey

« Grading Against an Unknown Future | Main | Nukes as Cost Savers »

Defining "presence"

If Tim Owens has the key to understanding what the US pivot to Asia means in terms of military presence, Philip Hammond seems to have it for the European world.

Secretary Panetta unveiled our new defense strategy last week and, anticipating Europe’s sensitivity that it would get short shrift, he emphasized that “we are committed to sustaining a presence [in Europe] that will meet our Article 5 commitments, deter aggression.” But, when asked to explain that presence, Panetta was studiously vague:

With regards to Europe, you know, we will maintain our commitments with Europe… And one of the things that we've made clear with them is not -- you know, not only are we going to continue our commitments there, but we are going to develop the kind of innovative presence that we think will make clear to Europe and to those that have been our strong allies over the past that we remain committed to protecting them.

What, then, is “innovative presence”?  Panetta helpfully defined “innovative methods to sustain U.S. presence” elsewhere in his remarks:

Maintaining key military- to-military relations and pursuing new security partnerships as needed. Wherever possible, we will develop low-cost and small- footprint approaches to achieving our security objectives, emphasizing rotational deployments, emphasizing exercises, military exercises with these nations and doing other innovative approaches to maintain a presence throughout the rest of the world.

Strip out the filler words and Panetta has used four to define “innovative presence”: relations, partnerships, rotations, and exercises.  Notable for their absence are three others that embody actual physical presence: bases, personnel, and hardware stationing.  It sounds a lot like someone trying to strike a balance between strategic reassurance and fiscal restraint, doesn’t it?

So now we cut back to Phillip Hammond, the U.K.’s Defense Secretary, who has a more pointed read on all of this.  “My understanding is that there will remain two [of four] brigades…but in addition to that, there will be some rotating presence,” he told Bloomberg.

Like Hammond, we look forward to seeing whether US “presence” in Europe is “sustained” while ground forces and bases in the region are trimmed in service of lower defense spending.