The U.S. Military and Undercurrents in Asia-Pacific Security

2015-03-23T17:25:17-04:00

Pentagon officials and military leaders are more comfortable focusing on traditional conflict scenarios. War is much easier to comprehend when your enemy is wearing a uniform and battle-lines are clearly defined. Transnational crime, food insecurity, and threats posed by communicable disease are increasingly defining the changing face of security. These challenges must be accounted for when U.S. military leaders in the Pacific think about the region.

The topic of narcotrafficking demonstrates how a non-traditional security issue can dramatically impact prospects for stability in the region. A 2013 report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime highlighted that Southeast Asia produced an estimated 48 tons of heroin in 2011. The vast majority of this cultivation – roughly twice that of Afghanistan, which arguably receives much greater attention – has occurred in the fragile state of Myanmar. The UN report estimated that the revenue generated from this trade to be worth $16.3 billion during the same period. For perspective, an annual report from the International Institution for Strategic Studies estimated that Myanmar’s defense budget for fiscal year 2012 totaled just $2.23 billion. From 2002-2006, Myanmar demonstrated the ability to reduce poppy cultivation. Since then, however, increasing cultivation has been the trend. As Joshua Kurlantzick of the Council on Foreign Relations notes, armed groups are reaping considerable benefits from this increasing illicit trade.

Read the rest here:
http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/the-u-s-military-and-undercurrents-in-asia-pacific-security/

Transnational crime is just one of the new challenges the U.S. military must consider in the rebalance to Asia.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2015 7:51 PM

2015-03-23T19:51:30-04:00

I think we, as Americans, have a problem with this sort of unconventional threat, SSG Norman Lihou. For one, unless the problem affects us directly, we usually don't care. So, when it comes to hunger, drugs, deadly diseases, we Americans are not un-sympathetic. It's just that we don't exactly relate. And while senior leaders certainly understand those "threats," they are also almost certainly much more comfortable with traditional threats.

It kind of goes back to the supply vs. demand argument. Some argue that the suppliers (Afghanistan or Myanmar) are the "guilty party." Others claim that without demand the threat goes away. Who's right? That's up for debate, but I kind of come down on the side of the demand being the culprit. If the demand for drugs were not there, then all the supply in the world would not mean much. And this is not a question or a threat the U.S. military is used to dealing with.