Arising axis comprising China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea threatens American interests across the Eurasian continent � from East Asia to Europe to the Middle East. It would be a mistake to overly compartmentalize the regions. A crisis in one theater could quickly spiral into a conflict elsewhere. For example, if China can pin down the United States in the Taiwan Strait, Russia and Iran may seize the moment to attack their neighbors. Such opportunistic aggression has occurred regularly throughout history, such as when America focused heavily on deterring a Soviet invasion of Europe but was then surprised and unprepared when the communist regime in North Korea attacked U.S.-supported South Korea.
The United States should be careful as it adapts its military posture at a time in which allies are actively preparing to contribute more of the responsibility for conventional deterrence within NATO. Relocating some U.S. forces from one theater to another may be a prudent policy, but withdrawing too many or too quickly or focusing exclusively on deterring China in a single scenario risks disaster. Testimony from two recent congressional hearings should remind Americans of this point.
, Roger Wicker (R., Miss.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, cited reports that “mid-level officials in the Pentagon� are considering withdrawing some U.S. forces from South Korea, and he asked how this would affect the missions that U.S. forces conduct from there. General Xavier Brunson, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, responded, “To reduce the force becomes problematic. I won’t speak to policy, but what we do provide [in the Korean Peninsula] . . . is the potential to impose costs in the East Sea to Russia, the potential to impose costs in the West Sea to China, and to continue to deter North Korea.� Put another way, U.S. forces in Korea not only defend South Korea from a “non-China� threat but also protect the American homeland by deterring aggression in multiple theaters.
Admiral Samuel Paparo, commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, agreed. Removing U.S. forces, he said, “would reduce our ability to prevail in conflict,� and “there’s a higher probability� that North Korea would invade South Korea.
Perhaps some might be willing to risk a new war in Korea, but if the Chinese client state in North Korea were to invade South Korea, it would be detrimental to U.S. interests, to put it mildly. South Korea is a necessary American ally whose advantages in geography, technology, logistics, and manpower benefit the United States. The Trump administration, in apparent recognition of the need to capitalize on the advantages bestowed by our alliances, is looking into striking a shipbuilding deal with Seoul to rapidly grow the U.S. fleet, which will be necessary for deterring China.
The following week in a , Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, praised Europe’s new commitments to rearm and shoulder more of the collective hard-power responsibility of the NATO alliance. But in light of rumors that some inside the Pentagon are recommending a withdrawal of as many as 90,000 U.S. troops from Europe, he cautioned, “Europe’s rearmament will take time. Pulling back prematurely would risk inviting further Russian aggression � potentially even against NATO. That’s why I strongly support maintaining the current U.S. force posture in Europe at this time.�
In that same hearing, Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Christopher Cavoli stated that he and the U.S. forces under his command were in Europe “exclusively to pursue U.S. interests and to defend U.S. interests.� He further highlighted U.S. European Command’s important role in defending American interests beyond Europe, such as by protecting U.S. commercial shipping in the Red Sea. These missions are possible as “a result of the infrastructure, the bases, the forces we have located [in Europe], and very importantly the government-to-government agreements we have that permit us to use non-U.S. territory to stage our operations.�
Both hearings elevated an important concept in American strategy: U.S. forward-deployed military forces conduct multiple missions against multiple adversaries in multiple theaters simultaneously.
These deployed forces protect the U.S. homeland by imposing costs on adversaries who behave aggressively, and by keeping acts of violence at the lowest levels possible and as far from America’s shores as possible. American troops in Europe and South Korea are not being diverted from protecting the homeland. Protecting the homeland is their raison d’être.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said during his recent trip to the Philippines that “we need to reestablish strength and deterrence in multiple places around the globe.� To fulfill this goal and contend with threats emerging from a China–Russia–Iran–North Korea axis, the United States will need a force posture that can respond to crises across various regions.
The Pentagon, in close coordination with allies, will therefore need a carefully designed plan that will allow the U.S. to deter both a Chinese invasion of Taiwan and other adversaries� potential opportunistic aggression. U.S. forces deployed abroad � whether on the western edge of Eurasia in Europe or on the eastern edge in Korea � help provide Washington with this force.