‘The Indo-Pacific is the defining strategic theatre’: How committed is US to this region?

WASHINGTON – The Indo-Pacific remains the US military’s most consequential foreign theatre, the region’s top commander told members of Congress, dispelling concern that the movement of Asia-based munitions to the Middle East has undermined deterrence against China.

“The Indo-Pacific is the defining strategic theatre of the 21st Century,” Admiral Samuel Paparo, head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said in a hearing of the Senate Committee on Armed Services on April 21.

Adm Paparo was testifying amid criticism that the US’ dwindling weapon stockpile and shift in focus to the Middle East would weaken it in relation to the threat posed by China.

He assured lawmakers that the military’s magazine was being “employed judiciously”, but said the way forward would be to “supercharge” the defence industrial base by engaging with both the traditional and non-traditional contractors that supply the US military.

He also stressed that maintaining military alliances with Asian partners was indispensable in deterring Chinese and North Korean threats. Two weeks earlier, US President Donald Trump had criticised allies in Japan, South Korea and Australia for not helping him reopen the Strait of Hormuz amid the war in Iran.

While not specifically referencing Mr Trump’s comments, Mr Roger Wicker, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned against disparaging the nation’s allies, even as its adversaries strengthen their own connections.

“These alliances continued to pay dividends for the United States. People need to stop saying otherwise. It is not helpful when American leaders speak of our alliances with derision,” Senator Wicker said.

The Mississippi Republican added that military operations in Iran should not take focus away from the Pacific theatre, with China still the biggest potential threat.

“Amid those wars, we must remember this – China is the leader of the Axis of Aggressors. The People’s Republic of China intends to and is capable of preventing an American-led 21st century,” he said, referring to China by its official name.

Some Republicans at the hearings stressed the need for “burden sharing” and higher defence spending by allies.

In an opening statement, Representative Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, commended countries such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia for upping military spending.

At the House committee hearing on April 22, Adm Paparo declined to publicly comment on how long it would take for the command to “regain the force posture” it had before the movement of munitions to Iran, stating only that it maintained a combat-ready reserve in the region.

He also expressed support for the operations in Iran, saying they would send a message to China about the US’ resolve.

“There’s no substitute for prevailing on the battlefield,” he said. “What I want the PRC to see is that the United States employs capability and will in response to aggression. That supports deterrence.”

The US did not move parts of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system to the Middle East for the Iran war from South Korea, the commander of US Forces in South Korea, General Xavier Brunson, said at the hearing on April 21.

Gen Brunson was asked about objections from the South Korean government that moving the interceptors from THAAD would weaken its deterrence against North Korea.

“We have not moved any THAAD systems, so THAAD still remains on the peninsula currently, but we are sending munitions forward, and those are sitting right now waiting to move,” Gen Brunson said.

Tripling or quadrupling the production rate of munitions and finding low-cost, “non-traditional” substitutes would be the way forward to counter Chinese influence, Adm Paparo said, in addition to accelerating decision-making with artificial intelligence.

He revealed that the 2026 defence budget submission included “orders in the hundred, if not thousands” of more experimental systems, including a “low cost, hypersonic weapon” system, fired off US aircraft.

Despite assurances from military leaders, several members of Congress raised concerns about the impact of the Iran war on military readiness in the Pacific region.

“We’re going through our arms in the war in Iran, and that’s having an impact on our readiness and posture in the Indo-Pacific, our largest area of responsibility,” Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii told The Straits Times after the hearing on April 21.

Representative Adam Smith, the top Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee, said on April 22: “We are expending a lot of munitions and a lot of capability there, and the pie is the pie. If you’re expending it somewhere, that undermines your ability to have it elsewhere.”

Some experts said, however, that redeploying the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit based in Okinawa – a rapid-response force of 2,200 crew members – and other assets from Asian bases to the Middle East would provide service personnel important combat experience that would benefit readiness in the Indo-Pacific in the long run.

“We have to deal with contingencies around the world, and it takes the entire military to do that,” said retired colonel David Maxwell, vice-president at the Center for Asia Pacific Strategy.

US allies in Asia had doubted the nation’s military commitment to the region under Mr Trump even before Operation Epic Fury began in Iran on Feb 28.

But some experts stressed that wars in Europe and the Middle East have not distracted Washington from the threat posed by China.

The “robust American presence” in the region would not change any time soon, said Mr Alex Gray, chief executive of the American Global Strategies consultancy.

He pointed to Mr Trump’s record-setting US$1.5 trillion (S$1.9 trillion) defence budget request for fiscal year 2027 as concrete reassurance of long-term US commitments to growing weapons capacity in the region, regardless of the present state of the weapon stockpile.

“Budgets transcend presidencies, and they transcend moments in time,” Mr Gray told ST on April 23. “We’re looking at those budgets as an indicator of where the US will be 10, 20 years from now,” he added.

“The US industrial base has atrophied significantly. We need to revitalise it,” said Mr Maxwell, an army veteran who worked in Asia for more than 30 years. He commended, in an interview on April 21, Adm Paparo and Gen Brunson’s emphasis on developing the US industrial base and improving the efficiency of foreign military sales.

At the House hearing, Mr John Noh, Assistant Secretary of War for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, responded to questioning on why Mr Trump had been non-committal on stating intentions to defend Taiwan.

“I think strategic ambiguity is a policy that has worked for decades. It preserves the president’s decision space,” Mr Noh said. “I don’t know how helpful it is to publicly state our intentions of what would happen in the event of a Chinese invasion.”

Adm Paparo, meanwhile, emphasised that nothing had changed in Washington’s policy towards Taipei, but noted the importance of Taiwan passing its stalled defence budget.

“We can’t want Taiwan’s defence more than they wanted it itself. And it’s not a chicken and the egg because you’re not gonna get chicken or eggs if you starve the chicken – so it’s very important for them to fund their own defence,” he told the Senate hearing.

Beijing views the self-governing territory as a renegade province to be brought into its fold by force, if necessary. Washington is obliged under US law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself.

Mr Trump values the perception by foreign leaders that he is unpredictable, said Mr Gray, who had previously worked at the White House’s National Security Council under the first Trump administration. “That plays to his strengths and the idea that they don’t know what he might do. It puts (Chinese President) Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party in a very difficult position, and it complicates their calculations,” he added.

Mr Trump is expected to meet Mr Xi in Beijing in mid-May

The Chinese “aggression” often brought up in congressional hearings may also be a reaction to Mr Trump’s posturing that “he can do whatever he wants”, said Dr Hugh Tuckfield, founder of the Indo-Pacific Studies Center.

Dr Tuckfield said this posture was exemplified in his attacks on Venezuela and Iran.

He added that Mr Trump was signalling that he would not forgo deterrence for dialogue.

“It’s dual messaging – not one of pure confrontation, nor one of making concessions. Trump wants to preserve military readiness, alliance cohesion and support for partners in the region,” he said.