U.S. Army capable of countering China's plans to keep it at bay, top general says
'The army can now hold planes and ships at risk in places that potential adversaries didn't account for,' Lt. Gen. Joel Vowell, the U.S. Army Pacific's (USARPAC) deputy commanding general, told The Japan Times in a recent interview when asked about the service's role in a regional conflict — including a possible Chinese attack on Taiwan.
For nearly two decades, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been systematically planning, training and building the forces it believes are required to invade self-ruled Taiwan, which Beijing views as a breakaway province.
China has been increasing the PLA's budget to modernize and expand its cyber, missile, aerial, naval and amphibious assault capabilities in recent years. All of these would play key roles in not only attacking Taiwan but also in trying to keep the U.S. and allied forces at bay, a concept known in military parlance as 'anti-access/area denial,' or A2/AD.
But Vowell said the U.S. is looking to exploit a weak point in Beijing's strategy.
'An A2/AD network is built to deter and defeat ships, planes and platforms, but it does not account for distributed land forces in the region,' he said.
This, he added, is the type of threat the U.S. Army, as well as the land forces of partners and allies, will pose to any adversary force. 'We will have a deterrent effect that's hard to detect, hard to track, hard to find and that's getting increasingly harder to kill.'
Crucial to success, Vowell noted, will be the ability to deploy cutting-edge weapons across all domains in a way that's dispersed, easily camouflaged and that allows U.S. forces to be on the move, so that they cannot be targeted at any one time and place.
'Gaining positional advantage matters,' he said.
Lt. Gen. Joel Vowell, deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Pacific, is seen during the Salaknib 2025 exercises at Fort Magsaysay in the Philippines in April. |
U.S. ARMY
'If Army soldiers have these capabilities forward or in closer proximity to any potential adversary, then we can hold them at risk in their command and control, in their fires, their air defense, sustainment, movements and platforms in ways that they had not accounted for,' Vowell added.
To achieve this, and to maintain a robust logistics network, Washington's regional alliances will remain crucial, the deputy commander said, adding that many of the U.S. equipment deployments have come at the request of allies and partners.
'When we develop capabilities to help solve problems for and with our partners, we usually get an invitation to try to train, test and innovate some of this stuff, be it South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Australia and other places,' he noted.
This includes mid-and long-range missile systems, including for air defense.
'If we are asked by a (partner or allied) country ... to practice our long-range fires architecture, then sure we'll work to bring those in,' Vowell said.
'That's what we did with the Philippines,' he added. 'It was so good they asked us to stay around a bit and do more training with their missile and artillery battery personnel and some others.'
If Japan and South Korea were to make similar requests, 'we would definitely consider that,' he said.
Some of these deployments have already made international headlines, particularly as the Pentagon appears to be using exercises to de facto deploy key weapons to the Indo-Pacific amid growing tensions with China.
This includes last year's dispatch of the Typhon Mid-Range Capability missile system to the Philippines for training exercises. The weapon, which can fire both Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles and SM-6 air defense missiles, has remained in the country since, prompting repeated demands by Beijing that it be removed.
Lt. Gen. Joel Vowell, deputy commanding general for U.S. Army Pacific, speaks to guests and multinational partners during an event near Fort Greely, Alaska, in January. |
U.S. ARMY
The Pentagon has also kept the U.S. Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS), an advanced mobile anti-ship missile platform, in the country following joint drills this year.
At the same time, the army has been resorting to disruptive and emerging technologies to gain an asymmetric advantage in the region.
For instance, it is experimenting with artificial intelligence as a force multiplier by using tools that can enhance decision-making, optimize joint force operations and enable autonomous operations, provided there is always a human in the loop when it comes to offensive power.
The army has also tested microwave-based directed energy weapon systems designed to counter drone swarms while fielding units that can 3D-print equipment parts as well as entire weapons such as drones directly on site.
These and other systems have all been deployed and tested in the region by elements of the U.S. Army's new Multi-Domain Task Forces (MDTFs).
The service has been setting up MDTFs that can operate across all warfighting domains — land, air, sea, space and cyberspace. Three such formations have already been established in strategically significant locations worldwide, with the army planning two more over the next two to three years.
For several years now some MDTF elements have been invited to Japan to work with the Ground Self-Defense Force on testing, and in some cases experimenting, with capabilities the latter may not yet field.
Plans about whether to station an MDTF in Japan have also long been rumored.
Vowell, who headed U.S. Army Japan from 2021 to 2023, said that while such ideas are currently under consideration, Tokyo has yet to grant approval.
'It's definitely up to the government of Japan if they want to host the stationing of a Multi-Domain Task Force,' he said.
'If we have long-range missiles that are inside the potential A2/AD bubble of Russia, North Korea or China, they would be there to help defend Japan,' he said.
The aim, however, is not to move a lot of the U.S. Army forward, Vowell said. 'This isn't 1968 when we had ... about four times as many soldiers in Korea and Japan as we do today. We are not looking to do that.'
'What we need is to have presence, and we need to have access and influence with our partners and allies to help them defend their sovereignty,' he said, adding that the goal is to have 'stronger and more resilient partnerships.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
On economic policy, the White House is its own worst enemy
The path of U.S. politics over the past 10 years is scarcely believable — and keeps getting weirder. A miraculously successful amateur politician, now half a year into his second term in the White House, isn't content to take his wins and count his achievements. Instead, he seems eager to bring the ceiling down on his own head. Meantime, his career-politician opponents aren't just failing to hold him to account, they are doing what they can to shield him from falling debris. Forgive the median voter for being disgusted, bewildered or both. If systemic political failure is possible, this must surely be what it looks like. Consider a recent poll in the Wall Street Journal. On issue after issue they care most about, voters say they trust Republicans more than Democrats — yet, at the same time, they disapprove of the way the administration is managing them. Voters prefer Republicans to Democrats on the economy, inflation, immigration, tariffs, foreign policy and Ukraine. Yet on each of those topics, there's net disapproval of the president's initiatives. In particular, "51% say the change he is bringing is a form of chaos and dysfunction that will hurt the country. By contrast, 45% agree with the alternative statement that he is making needed and helpful changes.' The implication for both political parties might seem clear. The White House needs to calm down and choose consolidation, not further controversy and "chaos.' And the Democratic Party needs to dump (not just downplay) its plainly unpopular positions and concentrate on projecting competence and moderation. They're both doing just the opposite. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could suspect each party of planting agents in the other, secretly dedicated to guiding the enemy to defeat. I'd be deeply impressed by the skill of these covert operatives, instead of stunned by the parade of willful political dysfunction. To be fair, in wrenching itself in a new direction, the Democratic Party has structural problems: zero leadership and activists who'd rather lose than compromise. That's challenging. The Republicans' dysfunction is more puzzling. They have a leader, to put it mildly, and he delights in winning above all. Yet Trump is willing to put his record of seemingly impossible political wins at risk for little or no return. On immigration, clear majorities agree that the border should be secure, there's a difference between legal and illegal immigration, and some of the millions of people who came to the U.S. illegally (especially those guilty of other offenses) should be sent home. Merely by committing itself to this, the administration defeated the Democrats. But clear majorities don't support rounding up any and all such violators regardless of their circumstances — without regard for due process — and using a hurriedly expanded force of masked enforcement officers and opaque network of makeshift, ostentatiously punitive detention centers. Resorting to such methods seems a good way for the administration to lose an argument that it had won. The same goes for economic policy. As it intended, the White House has successfully dismantled the postwar trading system and moved the U.S. into a new regime of discriminatory tariffs and managed trade. The recent Big Beautiful tax-and-spending bill abandoned all pretense of fiscal prudence and accelerated the trajectory of unsustainable public debt. Yet despite warnings of inevitable disaster, the S&P 500 continues to set records, seeming to validate Trump's thinking. So far, at least, another big political win. The political threat to this new economic regime isn't its long-term consequences — which in any case are uncertain. Large forces are in contention. Will the push to growth and productivity from AI-driven innovation, less regulation and generous tax relief for investment overpower the pull of tariff-driven stagflation, ill-conceived industrial policy and the crowding out of investment due to excessive government borrowing? Hard to say. But the debate about those questions will last well beyond the current administration. The politically salient threat to Trump's economic policies is short-term disruption in financial markets — the risk that Wall Street will stop applauding Trump, turn against him and drive the economy into a recession. As with immigration, the conduct of economic policy might have been calculated to sabotage the whole enterprise. Name three things capable of provoking a financial-market veto while delivering no offsetting benefit. How about stoking endless uncertainty over future tariffs, kneecapping the Federal Reserve's operational independence and undermining trust in official statistics? Done, done and done. Trump has escalated his unwarranted attacks on Fed Chair Jerome Powell (whom he appointed back in 2018), going as far as to drum up accusations of impropriety over the central bank's renovation of its headquarters. Just recently, he appointed Stephen Miran, a key thinker behind Trumpist heterodoxy, to a temporary position on the Fed's board, while the search for a suitably compliant successor to Powell proceeds. Doesn't it serve Trump's purposes to install a servant at the Fed? No, it doesn't. For a start, the idea that the Fed is scheming to defeat Trump's broader policy agenda is preposterous. Even if an obedient Fed were to deliver the much lower policy-rate that the president thinks appropriate, this wouldn't necessarily lower the interest rates he cares about — mortgage rates, cost of credit and long-term borrowing. It's much more likely that ending the Fed's perceived independence (to say nothing of a big cut in the policy rate with inflation still above target) would push market-driven rates higher. Politically, attacking the Fed is all risk and no return. Installing a follower at the Fed looks almost reasonable compared to firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics on patently specious grounds. The president accused Erika McEntarfer of rigging the July jobs figures released on Aug. 1, because they included unusually big downward revisions for May and June. It's hard to see how McEntarfer could have rigged the numbers even if she'd wanted to. Revisions happen and they're apt to be bigger when sectoral demands for labor are shifting a lot (as they are now, thanks to tariffs and the crackdown on illegal workers) and when the agency is short of the resources it needs to gather data (as it is, thanks to the drive to cut government workers). For sure, the agency needs to improve its methods and keep the revisions as small as possible — goals made harder by the administration's dismantling of the panel of unpaid technical experts responsible for doing so. To repeat, I'm fairly sure a Democrat saboteur hasn't tunneled into the White House — but the true explanation evades me. As with attacking the Fed, firing the head of the BLS to install a follower whose independence will be questioned is all risk and no return. Planting the suspicion that employment and inflation numbers might be manipulated would add a further premium to long-term interest rates. And as such doubts accumulate, so does the risk of a "Trump moment' for financial markets — with no short-term political benefit, beyond dominating the headlines, in exchange. On immigration, trade, the Fed and the integrity of official data, the White House seems determined to cast aside its successes and take risks that serve no purpose. To be sure, for as long as financial markets allow, the president will probably keep on winning — you know, because the Democrats. How such a great country wound up with such politicians, I cannot fathom. Look on their works, median voters, and despair. Clive Crook is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and member of the editorial board covering economics.
Japan Times
an hour ago
- Japan Times
Texas lawmaker prepares for second night of redistricting protest in state Capitol
Democratic state Rep. Nicole Collier hunkered down for a second night in the Texas Capitol building rather than accept a mandatory police escort in a redistricting battle as U.S. President Donald Trump seeks to keep Republican control of Congress. This time she expects to have a bit more company. Collier was one of more than 50 Democrats from the Texas House of Representatives who left the state in a two-week walkout to deny Republicans the legislative quorum needed to approve new congressional district maps drawn at Trump's behest. After the Democrats returned on Monday, they faced new rules by the Republican leadership, requiring each to stay put in the Capitol, unless they agreed to be placed in custody of a state police officer to monitor their movements. Republicans said the signed permission slips were designed to ensure the Democrats' presence when Republican leaders gavel in a second special session on Wednesday to pursue the unfinished business of redistricting. Democrats called the crackdown unjustified. Collier, in her seventh two-year term representing Fort Worth, refused to agree to a police monitor, remaining in the Capitol building in protest. "What matters to me is making sure that I resist and fight back against and push back," Collier said from the Capitol in an interview on Monday. CBS News reported that Collier's lawyers filed a court petition against the Republicans' crackdown, saying the threat of civil arrest for leaving the Capitol amounted to "illegal confinement." Collier posted a picture of herself on X on Tuesday sleeping on a chair with a blanket and the caption, "This was my night, bonnet and all, in the #txlege." CNN said Texas State Representatives Gene Wu and Vince Perez, also Democrats, joined her in solidarity overnight, bringing snacks of dried fruit, ramen and popcorn. On Tuesday, Collier said several more of her Democratic colleagues had torn up their permission slips and would join her for a second overnight protest in the Capitol. About two dozen supporters staged a boisterous but peaceful protest in the Capitol, chanting and carrying signs outside the House chamber where Collier remained sequestered. The proposed redrawing of Texas congressional districts aims to help Republicans pick up five seats from Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the November 2026 midterm elections. Republicans now hold a slim 219-212 majority in the U.S. House, with the balance between the two parties expected to be closely fought. The Texas Democrats said their walkout, while merely delaying the action they sought to thwart, gave their party time to organize a counter-measure, led by California Governor Gavin Newsom, to advance its own redistricting plan. Newsom has called California's effort, designed to pick up five new Democratic seats in the U.S. House, the "Election Rigging Response Act.' Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows, a Republican, accused Collier and other Democrats of shirking their duty as lawmakers, delaying other important business besides redistricting. After Monday's session, Collier stood alone in the center of the chamber in Austin, the state capital, making telephone calls and doing interviews amid a sea of empty seats. Wu, the Democratic leader of the Texas House, has said the current congressional districts already dilute the voting power of the state's racial minorities, and the new redistricting plan represented "turbocharged racism." On Fox News, Abbott called Wu's accusation "bogus," saying redistricting would create more Hispanic-majority districts. He said it was also necessary to give Trump voters in Democrat-majority districts the ability to elect Republicans. In a statement on Monday, Collier, a former chair of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus, said, "My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation."
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Currency dominance in the digital age
For more than 80 years, the U.S. dollar has enjoyed unrivaled supremacy in world trade and finance, thanks to America's unique combination of economic scale, credible institutions, deep and liquid financial markets and geopolitical might, as well as, crucially, network effects. But a new variable is poised to reshape the global monetary order: data integrity. As digital technologies increasingly act as the rails upon which money moves — through stablecoins, tokenized assets and central bank digital currencies — the resilience and credibility of currency networks increasingly hinge not only on macroeconomic fundamentals, but also on the technological strength and security of the relevant infrastructure. Of course, macroeconomic fundamentals still matter and digital currencies raise some conventional macro challenges. In particular, by privatizing seigniorage and facilitating tax evasion, stablecoins could shrink countries' fiscal revenues. Moreover, if a stablecoin breaks its peg — say, because its liquidity buffers prove insufficient — its credibility could collapse, triggering a run. If the stablecoin's interconnections with other assets is sufficiently dense, this may have systemic consequences. A disorderly run on U.S. dollar stablecoins — privately issued digital tokens that are backed significantly by U.S. Treasuries and can theoretically be exchanged one-for-one with dollars — could prove particularly disruptive. Opacity in reporting, auditing and insufficient regulations in some jurisdictions compound the risks. But such 'classic' credibility issues are just the beginning. The world could also face a new kind of 'cyber' run, triggered by weaknesses in the technological infrastructure underpinning digital assets. Mitigating this risk will not be easy: as the National Institute of Standards and Technology of the U.S. Department of Commerce warned in 2016, quantum computers may soon be able to break many of the public-key cryptosystems currently in use. In other words, infrastructure that appears robust today may turn out to be flimsy tomorrow. The implications for the global monetary order are far-reaching. As the issuer of the dominant international currency, the United States has long enjoyed an 'exorbitant privilege,' which includes the ability to borrow at low interest rates even in times of economic stress and run persistently large trade deficits. President Donald Trump's administration seems to be betting that the U.S. will be able to retain this privilege, as the dollar's existing global status translates into demand for U.S. dollar stablecoins and, in turn, U.S. Treasuries, thereby lowering the U.S. Treasury's financing costs. Ultimately, America's exorbitant privilege is based on trust in its institutions, legal frameworks and fiscal capacity. In a world where money circulates on programmable platforms, however, the credibility and integrity of the code, the quality of cryptographic standards and the resistance of systems to hacking are as important as any of these factors. This fundamentally changes the logic of monetary competition: if the technological gap is large enough, the currency that is best protected from cyberthreats — not necessarily the one backed by the most powerful economy or the most credible central bank — becomes the most attractive. As stablecoins are being used for a growing share of cross-border payments, and as an on- and off-ramp for speculative crypto investments, much about their security and governance remains unknown. Regulators and citizens should thus be asking questions. Who is responsible for governing the ledger? To what extent is the system protected from malicious actors? What happens if a currency's cryptographic backbone is compromised by developments in quantum computing? Answering these questions satisfactorily is a matter of national and international monetary stability. If policymakers fail to act accordingly, we might find ourselves with the kind of volatile and fragmented monetary system that characterized the 19 century, when the unfettered issuance of private money opened the way for panics, runs, manipulation and collapse. In any case, we may be headed toward a multipolar monetary system, in which some currencies — and their associated digital ecosystems — command an 'integrity premium,' based on their ability to minimize their 'attack surface' and maximize data verifiability. The most successful currencies will offer a very robust financial architecture, which covers every step, from the validation of transactions to the protection of user identities and transaction histories. So, a currency backed by a government with weak cyberdefenses or opaque technological standards could lose ground and a technologically sophisticated currency zone with high integrity standards could punch above its weight. This new technological landscape could have significant geopolitical consequences. Just as naval supremacy once translated into trade dominance, control over payments infrastructure could increasingly determine economic sovereignty. The strategic value of payments data — not only for monetary policy, but also for surveillance, enforcement and sanctions — means that digital currencies are not neutral technologies; they are contested spaces of power. The currencies that dominate tomorrow's international system will be those whose digital ecosystems inspire the deepest trust — both in their institutions and in their code. Preserving international monetary stability in such a landscape will require more than technological innovation. Global coordination on standards for tokenization, cryptographic interoperability, data privacy and post-quantum resilience will be essential. The alternative — the proliferation of balkanized networks governed by conflicting rules and exposed to systemic shocks — is a recipe for instability. Helene Rey is professor of economics at the London Business School. © Project Syndicate, 2025.
