The United States is still powerful enough to shape an agenda for international activity but too weak to implement it globally as it faces uncertain prospects in Iraq, an escalating confrontation over Iran’s nuclear ambitions and a robust challenge to its military hegemony from an increasingly assertive China, argues a new report by a leading United Kingdom think tank.
An annual survey of the international military scene produces a picture of a messy ”nonpolar” world rather than the ”unipolar” or ”multipolar” world often described as having emerged since the late 1980s, said John Chipman, director general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
Others, whether rival states or key ”non-state actors”, such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, are now ”strong enough to resist an American agenda but too weak to shape an internationally attractive alternative or to implement an enduring local agenda free of outside influence”, he suggested.
Traditional military thinking needs to adjust further to the ”complex battlefield” of the 21st century. Neither in Iraq nor Afghanistan had there been adequate planning for post-conflict problems or nation-building after the ”highly successful” combat phase, the IISS report says. In both cases there had been over-reliance on technology at the expense of vital human intelligence. Lawrence of Arabia is quoted to underline the need for psychological warfare operations to defeat insurgents.
Iraq
The biggest ongoing test of US power is in Iraq, where President George Bush is trying his last-ditch ”surge” strategy. ”Simply flooding one area … in this case Baghdad, with troops, neglects the subtler aspects of counter-insurgency doctrine,” Chipman warns of the ”clear, hold and build” approach.
For a surge of troops to be sustainable it needs a follow-up process of reconstituting security, building an administrative capacity and establishing the rule of law. ”The Americans are good at clearing but the problem has been in holding, and then allowing through holding to build,” said the IISS director of studies, Patrick Cronin, rating the chances of US success in Iraq at just 40%.
Iraq’s Shia Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, would have to remove large numbers of ineffective Cabinet ministers to strengthen his own position. But he lacks the political power for such a bold move, Chipman says. The institutions of the state, especially the Iraqi army, are not strong enough.
Iran
The IISS estimates that Iran is still two to three years away from being able to produce 25kg of highly enriched uranium, enough for one nuclear weapon. But if it overcomes technical hurdles the military options will increase, though sanctions do appear to be having an impact on Tehran.
”As Iran nears the point at which it masters enrichment and production capability there will be increasing pressure to prevent it from reaching a weapons capability,” says the IISS proliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick. ”I don’t think Washington is giving up on diplomacy but as the year goes on that pressure will increase.” Israel has also warned that it will not accept a nuclear-armed Iran.
”Iran’s sense of its own power has been steadily heightened as US influence in the Middle East is challenged and in response to disunity in the international community on how to deal with Tehran’s pursuit of its nuclear ambitions,” the report says.
Afghanistan
Nato member states face a ”stamina” problem in Afghanistan, the IISS says, though there are grounds for optimism despite a resurgent Taliban and difficulties with Pakistan. ”Nato will have to stay for a long time to allow stability, which then allows reconstruction,” says Colonel Christopher Langton, editor of the 450-page report.
Afghan security problems are complicated by a weak police force and the issue of the eradication of the poppy crop. ”The removal of farmers’ livelihoods, with no significant incentive or replacement livelihood programme runs counter to efforts to win ‘hearts and minds’ in many areas,” the report adds. ”The Taliban capitalise on this contradiction by championing the case of the farmers … protecting those who profit from the opium and heroin trade.”
North Korea
Movement on North Korea’s nuclear programme could come as a result of new flexibility in US negotiating tactics, Chipman predicts. Pyongyang has floated the prospect of halting its production and reprocessing of uranium, of which it now has enough for up to 10 weapons, and though it is unlikely to surrender them, ”there is fresher life to the negotiating pace than might have been anticipated”. Any North Korean nuclear cooperation with Iran — as distinct from the supply of ballistic missile technology — would be a ”red line” for the US.
China
Beijing’s declared 14,7% increase in military spending in 2006 brought a US complaint that it was concealing the true dimensions of its modernisation and buildup. President Hu Jintao spoke of preparing for ”military struggle”. Last month’s destruction by China of one of its own satellites was cited as evidence of intent. ”Confidence still seems too low and suspicions too high to allow for meaningful engagement on these or broader military matters between China and the US,” warns Chipman.
Africa
Conflict persisted in Darfur, with much talk about peacekeeping. But the African novelty of the year was the opening up of a possible third front for international jihadists in Somalia (after Afghanistan and Iraq), with al-Qaeda urging the ”lions of Islam” to resist the United Nations-backed transitional government in Mogadishu. The IISS sees the danger of a new Islamist insurgency fuelled by US attacks on suspected terrorist targets.
Middle East
Israel, unable to stop Hezbollah missile attacks during its war in Lebanon, requested acceleration of an order for ”bunker buster” bombs from the US, ostensibly to be used against underground targets. The war is said to have reversed plans for defence spending cuts. Saudi Arabia announced plans for a 880km security fence along its border with Iraq.
Fighting insurgents
The IISS urges the US and allies to pay more attention to psychological warfare and ”influence operations” on the basis of their Afghan and Iraqi experiences. ”Insurgents and jihadists have proved adept at conducting successful information campaigns that reach a global audience and foment violence elsewhere,” it says. Western armies have not kept up. Announcements by Nato forces of how many fighters they had killed could be counter-productive because, for the Taliban, ”death is a form of victory”.
Taking on novel military challenges doesn’t come cheap. ”New equipment requires finance outside the normal budgetary cycle,” the IISS report says. ”Part of the capacity to react quickly is contingency funding on a level not previously envisaged by those countries that sought to cut defence spending following the end of the cold war.”
United States
Active personnel 1 506 757
Reserves 973 675
Defence budget 2007 $582-billion
Nuclear capable? Yes
Army 595 946
Main battle tanks 7 620+
Navy 376 750
Submarines 68
Main combat ships 106
Air power (total) 347 400
Combat aircraft – naval 1 659
Combat aircraft – USAF 2 658
US marines 186 661
Tanks 403
Combat aircraft 344
Iraq
Security forces (estimate) 227 000 including 82 000 police
Defence budget 2007 Not determined
Nuclear capable No
Army 105 700 includes National Guard
Navy (estimate) 800
Air power (estimate) 500Squadrons based in Baghdad, Basra, Taji
United Kingdom
Active personnel 191 030
Reserves 199 280
Defence budget 2007 $29,9-billion
Nuclear capable? Yes
Army 100 620
Main battle tanks 386
Royal Navy 40 120
Submarines 15
Main combat ships 28
Air power (total) 45 210
Combat aircraft – naval 31
Combat aircraft – RAF 278
Royal marines 7 000
Afghanistan
Active personnel 50 000
Reserves 973 675
Defence budget 2005 $396-million
Nuclear capable? No
Army (at present) 27 000
Air power n/a Currently has eight aircraft, 10 helicopters
Iran
Active personnel 545 000
Revolutionary Guard 125 000
Defence budget 2006 $6 6-billionn
Nuclear capable? Close
Army 350 000
Main battle tanks 1 613
Navy 18 000
Submarines
Main combat ships
Air power (total) 52 000
Combat aircraft 286
Marines 2 600
North Korea
Active personnel 1 106 000
Reserves 4 700 000 paramilitary 189 000
Defence budget 2006 $2,3-billion
Nuclear capable? Unknown
Army (estimate) 950 000
Main battle tanks 3 500+
Navy (estimate) 46 000
Submarines 63
Main combat ships
Air power (total) 110 000
Combat aircraft 590
China
Active personnel 2 255 000
Reserves 800 000
Defence budget 2006 $35,3-billion
Nuclear capable? Yes
Army 1 600 000
Main battle tanks 7 580+
Navy 255 000
Submarines 58
Main combat ships 76
Air power (total) 400 000
Combat aircraft – main 2 643
Combat aircraft – naval 792
Marines (estimate) 10 000
Tanks 403
Combat aircraft 344 – Guardian Unlimited Â