Panetta: New US focus on Asia Pacific is no threat to China.

Contrary to what he said the focus on Asia is to counter the threat by China.

SINGAPORE — Speaking near China’s backyard Saturday, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta rejected suggestions that America’s new focus on the Asia-Pacific will fuel conflict in the region or that the emerging strategy is meant as a threat to Beijing.Instead, he appeared to offer an olive branch to the communist giant, with a broad message that the two often-feuding world powers must learn to work better together for the benefit of the entire region.

Click to expand...

Specifically, he said that by 2020, about 60 percent of the fleet will be assigned there as part of a new strategy to increase U.S. presence in Asia. Currently, the Navy has about 285 ships, with roughly half assigned to each coast, but that total may decline a bit as some ships are retired in the coming years and may not be replaced.
The current fleet includes 11 aircraft carriers, with six assigned to the Pacific. The West Coast total is expected to go down to five, but Panetta Saturday said he will maintain 6 carriers in the Pacific, over the long term.

Click to expand...

Panetta: New US focus on Asia Pacific is no threat to China; nations must work together - The Washington Post

Insolvency would seem to be a restraint on American military ambitions in the Western Pacific and East Asia.

DOD spending isn't really driving that, though - its' our explosion in social welfare spending. However, you are correct - a fiscal calamity will require dramatic cuts in the US military, which would have unfortunate secondary and tertiary effects, creating an economic downward spiral as we lose access to regions, resources, and trade.

cpwill said:

DOD spending isn't really driving that, though - its' our explosion in social welfare spending. However, you are correct - a fiscal calamity will require dramatic cuts in the US military, which would have unfortunate secondary and tertiary effects, creating an economic downward spiral as we lose access to regions, resources, and trade.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why I believe the U.S. should develop a coherent foreign policy strategy. It should be abundantly clear as to its interests and allies, and foreign policy should make those interests and allies a priority. Wasting resources on peripheral ventures e.g., Libya, that have little or no impact on either U.S. interests or allies only makes it more difficult in the long-term for the U.S. to fulfill its commitments. The Pacific and U.S. allies there are critically important.

Domestically, structural reforms will be necessary. Absent those reforms, it will become more difficult for the U.S. to sustain beneficial domestic and foreign policy initiatives. In such a context, waning U.S. power almost certainly would be exploited, even if not head-on. U.S. allies and interests would be harmed.

Clearly, it is not a threat to China but could be easily construed as a threat to China's regional ambition. We have no lack of allies in this regard.