
Are we about to see Trump pull the US Navy out of the western Pacific?
It didn't take Donald Trump and his cronies, including unelected billionaire Elon Musk, very long to begin dismantling US strategy and foreign policy that had endured for decades.
Within weeks of taking the oath of office, Trump ended lifesaving food and medical assistance in poor countries, cancelled asylum for Afghans who'd assisted US forces and proposed a 'peace plan' for Ukraine that amounts to unilateral surrender to Russian demands.
Equally absurdly, he threatened to invade and annex Canada and Panama.
In that chaotic, increasingly despotic context, it's tempting to read any proposal for US withdrawal from longstanding security arrangements as part of Trump's institutional destruction.
But one controversial take from Jonathan Panter, a Stanton nuclear security fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City and a 'conservatism and governing fellow' at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, actually makes cold hard sense. In an essay for War on the Rocks, Panter has forcefully argued for the US Navy to pull back from the western Pacific and reposition warships – currently forward-deployed to Japan and other friendly countries – closer to American shores.
'Naval forward presence – the practice of maintaining combat-credible naval forces worldwide to deter adversaries, reassure allies, respond to crises and perform constabulary functions for the global commons – has dominated US foreign policy since the 1990s,' Panter wrote.
But the decades of forward presence has taken a toll on the cash-strapped US fleet as fewer and fewer warships and their crews work harder and harder in more distant locales. 'If the United States wishes to deter China, Beijing must believe Washington can fight a sustained, brutal war – one in which the US Navy can take major losses and still fight on,' Panter wrote. 'Today, that is not the case, and the concept of 'naval forward presence' bears much of the blame.'
There are two basic approaches to naval deterrence. One: to keep ships on patrol in the likeliest conflict zones as a constant show of force. Two: to keep the same ships at home – and surge them into action only when it's time to fight.
For decades, it was the consensus in US navalist circles that forward patrols were more effective as deterrence. The sight of an American warship, looming on the horizon, would surely make some aggressor think twice before doing something rash, right?
Maybe, but forward presence comes at a cost. And while Panter's argument hinges on the material cost – the strain on hardworking ships and their crews at a time when the US Navy is struggling to grow its fleet – there's an equally compelling corollary. In short, forward-deployed
ships are vulnerable to sneak attacks by China's growing missile arsenal and fast-improving submarine fleet.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC proved this vulnerability in its seminal 2023 war game simulating a Chinese invasion of Taiwan – and a US and allied intervention on Taiwan's behalf.
'Military doctrine calls for forward deployments to enhance deterrence during a crisis, but these forces make tempting targets,' CSIS warned. In most iterations of the war game, even the ones in which the Chinese invasion failed and Taiwan remained free, Chinese missiles – streaking down without warning in the first hours of the war – ultimately sank all of the roughly 50 major warships the US Navy sails from Japan.
It would be safer for the Americans' Japan-based aircraft carrier and amphibious ships and their cruiser and destroyer escorts to return home to the US West Coast, wait out in the initial waves of Chinese attacks and then steam toward Taiwan to relieve the island nation's beleaguered defenders, CSIS concluded. American losses in ships and sailors were lightest when the US Navy 'did not push its fleet forward as a deterrent signal prior to the start of conflict.'
The calculus favouring a US-based fleet that responds to crises over a forward fleet that attempts to deter them assumes the United States is actually interested in fighting for its allies. There's a dark third alternative: a withdrawn US fleet that escapes the attention of Chinese missiles during the opening barrages of an attack on Taiwan and then does … nothing.
Last year, Trump famously threatened to let Russians do 'whatever the Hell they want in Europe.' And with his current push to end the Russia-Ukraine war on Russia's terms, he's actually making good on that threat.
Given what we now know, do we believe Trump would mobilise the US military to fight for Taiwan? If not, the end of forward presence wouldn't represent some smart strategy for winning a war in the western Pacific. It would represent surrender in advance to whatever China aims to do in the region.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ukraine brings home new group of POWs, Zelenskiy says
KYIV, June 10 (Reuters) - Ukraine on Tuesday returned a new group of prisoners of war as part of an earlier agreement with Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said. "Today marks the first stage of the return of our seriously wounded and injured soldiers from Russian captivity. All of them require immediate medical attention. This is an important humanitarian act," Zelenskiy said on the Telegram messenger.


Reuters
15 minutes ago
- Reuters
Denmark picks French, German and Norwegian air defence suppliers
COPENHAGEN, June 10 (Reuters) - Denmark will acquire short-range air defence systems from MBDA France, Germany's Diehl Defence and Kongsberg Gruppen ( opens new tab of Norway, the Nordic country's defence ministry said in a statement on Tuesday. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in February ordered the military to go on a buying spree to beef up the country's defences in preparation for potential future Russian aggression in Europe. Denmark will spend over six billion Danish crowns ($919 million) on the artillery acquisition, with the first deliveries expected in 2026, the defence ministry said. Denmark received 10 offers, including from suppliers in Turkey, Israel and Italy, and decided in the end to buy systems from French and German suppliers and to lease one from Norway's Kongsberg, it added. ($1 = 6.5304 Danish crowns)

Rhyl Journal
19 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
US marines deployed to LA have not yet responded to immigration protests
The 700 marines and another 2,000 US National Guard troops were sent to LA on Monday, escalating a military presence that local officials and governor Gavin Newsom do not want and that the police chief says makes it harder to handle the protests safely. Marine Corps Gen Eric Smith told a budget hearing on Capitol Hill that the battalion has not yet been sent to any protests. The marines were trained for crowd control but have no arrest authority and are there to protect government property and personnel, he said. Mr Trump doubled the number of Guard troops being deployed soon after the first wave of 2,000 began arriving on Sunday following days of protests driven by anger over the President's enforcement of immigration laws that critics say are breaking apart migrant families. The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward… — Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 9, 2025 The demonstrations continued on Monday but were far less raucous, with thousands of people peacefully attending a rally at City Hall and hundreds more protesting outside a federal complex that includes a detention centre where some immigrants are being held following workplace raids across the city. The protests in Los Angeles, a city of four million people, have largely been centred in several blocks of downtown and a few other spots. At daybreak on Tuesday, guard troops were stationed outside the detention centre, but there was no sign of US marines. Obscene slogans were directed at Mr Trump and federal law enforcement remained scrawled across several buildings. At the Walt Disney Concert Hall, workers were busy washing away graffiti on Tuesday morning. In nearby Santa Ana, armoured vehicles blocked a road leading to federal immigration and government offices. Workers swept up plastic bottles and broken glass near buildings sprayed with graffiti. Mr Trump has described Los Angeles in dire terms that Mayor Karen Bass and Mr Newsom say are nowhere close to the truth. They say he is putting public safety at risk by adding military personnel even though police say they do not need the help. Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell said in a statement that he was confident in the police department's ability to handle large-scale demonstrations and that the Marines' arrival without coordinating with the police department would present a 'significant logistical and operational challenge'. Mr Newsom called the deployments reckless and 'disrespectful to our troops' in a post on the social platform X. 'This isn't about public safety,' the governor said. 'It's about stroking a dangerous President's ego.' The protests began on Friday after federal immigration authorities arrested more than 40 people across Los Angeles and continued over the weekend as crowds blocked a major road and set self-driving cars on fire. Police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades. Demonstrations spread on Monday to other cities nationwide, including San Francisco and Santa Ana, California, as well as Dallas and Austin, Texas. Authorities in Austin appeared to use chemical irritants to disperse a crowd that gathered near the state Capitol. The Trump Administration's escalation and provocation in California inflames tensions and incites violence. Now, the President of the United States said he would arrest a sitting American governor just for disagreeing with these actions. This is a hallmark of authoritarianism… — Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 9, 2025 Texas governor Greg Abbott posted on social media that more than a dozen protesters were arrested. The Pentagon said deploying the National Guard and Marines costs 134 million dollars (£98.8 million). That figure emerged just after US defence secretary Pete Hegseth engaged in a into a testy back-and-forth about the costs during a congressional hearing. Mr Hegseth said the department has a budget increase and the money to cover the costs, and he defended Mr Trump's decision to send the troops, saying they are needed to protect federal agents doing their jobs. Meanwhile, Democratic members of California's congressional delegation on Tuesday accused the President of creating a 'manufactured crisis' with his orders to send in troops. Nancy Pelosi contrasted Trump's actions with his handling of the January 6 2021 insurrection at the US Capitol when law enforcement officers were beaten. 'We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' Ms Pelosi said. California's attorney general Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit over the use of National Guard troops following the first deployment, telling reporters that Mr Trump had 'trampled' the state's sovereignty. He sought a court order declaring Mr Trump's use of the Guard unlawful and asking for a restraining order to halt the deployment. The President said the city would have been 'completely obliterated' if he had not deployed the Guard. US officials said the marines were needed to protect federal buildings and personnel, including immigration agents. A convoy of buses with blacked-out windows and escorted by sheriff's vehicles arrived overnight at a Navy facility just south of LA. Despite their presence, there has been limited engagement so far between the Guard and protesters while local law enforcement implements crowd control.