Colby and his men at the Pentagon – consequences for US military presence in Europe

On 8 April, the U.S. legislature approved Elbridge Colby's appointment as Under Secretary of defence for Policy, making him the chief advisor to the defence Secretary for National safety Policy and the 3rd most crucial individual in the Department of Defence. During Donald Trump's first term, Colby held the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence for the strategy and improvement of the Armed Forces (Deputy Assistant Secretary of defence for strategy and Force Development) and played a leading function in creating National Defence Strategy 2018 He is known for his view that the United States should focus on deterrence and deter China and reduce its presence in another theatres (European and mediate East). For this reason, his candidacy raised opposition from any Republican senators, especially those peculiarly afraid about Iran's atomic program. The phrase was a month-long interruption between Colby’s proceeding before the legislature committee and voting on his appointment. Eventually, only 1 senator spoke out against her.

Already on the day of president Trump's inauguration, January 20, a group of fresh elder officials were sworn in at the Defence Department, whose appointment did not require the Senate's approval and who would co-create the US defence strategy. peculiar attention is paid to Austin Dahmer (Deputy Assistant Secretary of defence for Strategy) and Alexander Velez-Green (Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of defence for Policy). The erstwhile had previously been a national safety advisor to Senator Josh Hawley (also a supporter of the precedence threat from China). The latter, in the past, besides advised Hawley on safety issues, and late engaged in defence at The Heritage Foundation.

Colby and Dahmer and Velez-Green will have a key impact on the form of the fresh National Defence Strategy and the presence of US Armed Forces worldwide. Currently, this presence (Global Force Posture Review) is being reviewed at the Pentagon, and its results may become a starting point for possible changes. Both Colby and his co-workers have for years advocated a simplification in American forces in Europe, or even cuts in the United States Land Forces to strengthen the Navy in a confrontation with the People's Republic of China. All 3 are authors of papers and reports in which they present detailed solutions they would like to implement in the US Armed Forces.

Comment

• Colby will play a peculiar function in building a defence strategy Because of the limited experience of Secretary of defence Pete Hegseth. So far, Colby has suggested focusing on the top challenges: stopping Chinese dominance on Indo-Pacific and protecting their own territory. He advocated limiting US engagement in another regions of the world, although he did not talk about withdrawing from them, alternatively about shifting greater work to allies and partners in cooperation with Washington. During the proceeding before the legislature Armed Forces Commission, he pointed out that the United States is incapable to lead parallel armed conflicts at various theatres, and Beijing is present a major threat to Washington. He stressed that the overriding goal of the US should be to halt China's hegemony on Indo-Pacific.

• There are signs that the Department of defence is considering limiting American military presence in Europe. In late March, The Washington Post reported on temporary guidelines for National Defence Strategy (Interim National defence strategical Guidance), which Hegseth would send. The press study shows that they talk about focusing the US Armed Forces on threats in the Indo-Pacific region and national safety while accepting greater risks in another theatres (including European ones). During the proceeding before the home of Representatives committee, defence Department typical Katherine Thompson refused to confirm that the Pentagon supported the continued presence of the armed forces on the Old Continent, blocking the ongoing Global Force Posture Review – a review of the U.S. military presence in the world, which could form the basis for the decision to relocate US troops active outside the country. In early April, NBC station reported plans to reduce US presence on the east NATO flank by as many as 10,000 soldiers.

• Key to the decision on U.S. military engagement abroad will be how large the defence Department budget will be to pass a fresh administration. If it proves to be much higher than the 1 adopted for the presidency of Joe Biden, and thus these measures meet the expectations of the anti-Chinese hawks for the financing of deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region, it will be possible to hold at least part of the rotational presence in Europe. The budget prospectus in force until the end of this fiscal year somewhat (by $6 billion) increases expenditure compared to last year. However, there may besides be a crucial increase in defence spending in the ongoing budgetary recovery process. According to Trump's fresh announcement, full expenditure for this intent could be over $1 trillion (in 2024 – 886 billion). Additional funds are to be utilized primarily for the modernisation of the Navy and the Air Force. This would coincide with the requests made by Dahmer and Velez-Green (see Annex).

Annex. Impact of Chinese threat precedence on Pentagon budget according to Dahmer and Velez-Green reports

Austin Dahmer (Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense) in the study Resourcing the strategy of Denial: Optimizing the defence Budget in 3 alternate Futures, published in 2023 in the Marathon Initiative (think tank co-founded by Colby), analyses 3 possible scenarios for changes in the US defence budget.

1. Maintaining the current level of Pentagon funding

Without a 10% increase in the Pentagon budget per year in this decade, it will be impossible to keep American military engagement in Europe, the mediate East and the Indo-Pacific. Dahmer recommends:

• reducing expenditure on the Land Army by about $70 billion a year and shifting these funds, along with another savings, to the Navy and the Air Force, which would have gained an additional $40 billion;

• to reduce the presence of the US Armed Forces by about 20,000 soldiers in Europe and to reduce civilian personnel by 5% by abandoning the European Deterrence Initiative (European Deterrence Initiative) completely, i.e. forces rotationally deployed to the east NATO flank after 2017 (division command, 2 ABCT brigade armored teams, the IBCT brigade infantry squad and the CAB ground military brigade);

• the simplification of the U.S. Land Forces by the equivalent of 3 divisions (including 2 National Guards) by the elimination of the 4 Brigade Combat Forces Stryker SBCT (including 2 National Guards), six Brigade Combat Infantry Teams IBCT (including 5 National Guards) and 2 CAB Air Brigades of the National Guard;
• halting many programs of modernization and acquisition of land vehicles, including M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks, AMPV armoured transporters, AH-64 Apache helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk;
• withdrawal from the Air Force of all A-10C assault aircraft (currently there are about 200 of them there);

• the allocation of the budget thus saved for the acquisition of more ships for the Navy (two frigates, 3 atomic submarines, more than 30 years of U.S. Navy improvement plan), the accelerated improvement of strategical B-21 Raider bombers and the increase in the number of F-35 aircraft ordered and produced annually.

2. Reduction in Pentagon funding

A simplification in the Pentagon budget of about 10% would primarily hit the Land Forces, although cuts would affect all types of armed forces:

• The Land Forces would lose the equivalent of 7 divisions, or 9 brigade conflict teams Stryker (including 2 National Guards), 10 brigade combat teams of the IBCT infantry (including 8 National Guards), 2 brigade armored teams of the ABCT (including 1 National Guard) and 5 CABs (including 2 National Guards). In return, it is proposed to make air defence structures, including Patriot systems;

• The Navy would retreat prematurely from service the 2 oldest Nimitz aircraft and the 2 oldest landing ships with a continuous aircraft deck (light aircraft equivalent) of the Wasp type, and would be disbanded by 1 (of nine) wings of CVW aircraft. Released funds would be utilized to invest in extending the service of the 3 oldest Ohio-type submarines (carriers of Tomahawk maneuvering missiles), to acquisition 3 additional Virginia-type fighter submarines and 2 additional rocket frigates, and to accelerate the improvement of marine unmanned aircraft;

• The Air Force and Marine Corps would reduce the number of their air squadrons by an unspecified value.

3. Increasing Pentagon funding

• In the event of an increase in the Pentagon budget of 10% per year, Dahmer calls for the improvement of the Land Army to be equivalent to 4 divisions (4 ABCT, 2 SBCT, 5 IBCT, 2 CAB), but reserves that any investment in the U.S. The Army should be delayed until the investments and additional Navy and Air Force funds are drained;

• The Navy would extend the service of 17 old Ticonderoga cruisers and 3 oldest submarines of the kind Ohio and acquisition 3 additional Virginia-type fighter submarines and 2 additional rocket frigates, as well as accelerate the improvement of marine unmanned and marine aviation;

• The Air Force would velocity up work on the next generation strategical bomber B-21 and the next generation NGAD fighter and importantly increase the number of transport aircraft ordered and the flying tankers;

• Additional measures would let the Marine Corps to make an additional 5 infantry battalions and increase the planned number of F-35 B/C aircraft squadrons.

Alexander Velez-Green (Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary of defence for Policy) in 2024 prepared a akin study for The Heritage Foundation – A Conservative defence Budget for Fiscal Year 2025. It highlights the deficiency of adequate budget for the simultaneous military engagement of the US in Europe, the mediate East and the Pacific. Considers that:

• The United States must focus on Indo-Pacific and will gotta transfer funds, equipment and personnel from Europe to this region while maintaining a importantly reduced presence on the Old Continent;

• European allies request to spend more on defence, reaching at least 2% of GDP spending on it and aiming at 3% of GDP;

• European allies must lead in military assistance to Ukraine and take on the primary work for Europe's security, allowing the US to focus on Indo-Pacific.