Strategic Landpower and the Arabian Gulf

Abstract

Abstract: recent years, a variety of threats have become more ominous for Gulf nations, and these countries have sought to strengthen ties to the United States in ways do not appear to compromise their sovereignty. The US Army has responded through a robust series of military exercises and through the development of regionally aligned forces. Consequently, the Army has played a vital role in meeting a variety of training challenges including preparation for conventional war, counterinsurgency, and missile defense. It has also asserted an important landpower presence in ways reassure local allies and deter potential regional aggressors. ********** The Middle Eastern strategic environment has been especially dynamic in the last decade due to factors such as the 2003-11 X US combat operations in Iraq, the Arab uprisings, and the continuing rise in sectarian tensions and violence throughout a number of regional countries. the midst of these developments, the stability of the region remains of central importance to the United States according to numerous presidents who have enumerated the American in the region. (1) Most recently, President Barack Obama stated US core interests in the Middle East include: (1) safeguarding energy supplies exported to the world, (2) counterterrorism, (3) countering the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and (4) the defense of Israel and advancement of the Arab-Israeli peace process. (2) Other US leaders have elaborated on the president's views by noting the Middle East will remain vital to the United States even if Washington moves closer to energy independence. (3) this regard, America garners tremendous global influence by using its military forces to guarantee freedom of navigation for the transportation of Persian/Arabian Gulf energy supplies. (4) If the United States relinquished this position, other powers, such as China, could become interested in this role and the global clout it provides. The next decade will be a particularly important era for defining how Washington can best protect its in the Middle East and especially the Gulf region. The legacy of the Iraq war will contribute to this debate since conflict generated significant US public and policymaker concerns about the future use of military force to fight major ground wars and then engage in long occupations, nation-building efforts, and counterinsurgencies. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates represented this view in a particularly straightforward way when he stated, In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the President to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined, as General MacArthur so delicately put it. (5) President Obama underscored Gates's comment by indicating he will seek to avoid using massive conventional military force except in cases involving US national survival interest. (6) This reluctance reflects the current political values of American society and is motivated by the administration's concern about developing open-ended military commitments to support secondary or peripheral in ways that we can no longer afford. (7) Additionally, according to a variety of polls, the general public is extremely wary of getting involved in new Middle Eastern wars in places such as Syria and Iran. (8) Likewise, Arab public opinion remains deeply concerned about future American military action in the region, although US favorability ratings improved beginning in 2011 as the United States implemented its withdrawal from Iraq. (9) Nevertheless, understanding the dangers of military interventions does not allow one to reach the conclusion conventional war and counterinsurgency actions will never again be required. Some challenges to US may not be viewed as immediate threats to national survival, but the long-term consequences such challenges could affect both US global leadership and economic future. …