- Proposed US Military Strategy: Reduce presence in the Pacific, end alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines, and reposition forces to the second island chain.
- Objective: Lower the risk of conflict with China.
- Potential Risks: Increased uncertainty for US allies and potential emboldenment of China and North Korea.
The United States should stop treating the first island chain as its forward line of defence in the Pacific. That is the argument made by Defense Priorities, a US think tank that advocates a more restrained foreign policy, in a report calling on Washington to scale back its military commitments in Asia and reposition its forces further east.
The proposal by Jennifer Kavanagh, the think tank’s director of military analysis, goes well beyond adjusting America’s military footprint. Washington should end its mutual defence alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines, reduce its forces along the first island chain — stretching from Okinawa through Taiwan to the Philippines — and concentrate instead on the second, which includes Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and Palau.
The logic is one of retrenchment. A smaller forward presence would mean more defensible bases and, above all, a lower probability of the US being drawn into a conflict with China whose costs, Kavanagh argues, would far outweigh any benefits.
Taiwan is where the implications of this doctrine become clearest. The report proposes replacing America’s strategic ambiguity with an explicit policy of non-intervention in the event of a conflict over the island. But Taiwan also exposes the central paradox of the strategy: reducing America’s risk could mean increasing strategic uncertainty for its allies and partners.
The question, then, is not simply which territories Beijing might feel emboldened to put under greater pressure. It is how countries that have built their security around the US presence for decades would respond to its retreat.
One possible sequence is greater Chinese pressure on Taiwan, more room for North Korea to pressure Seoul, a surge in regional defence spending and, over time, renewed strains on nuclear non-proliferation. A US pullback could also reduce Washington’s ability to shape the rules and political balance of the region.
This is where the debate extends beyond a single think-tank report. The proposal touches on a question running through American foreign policy: what are alliances and forward deployments worth when maintaining them carries the risk of direct confrontation with another nuclear power?
Donald Trump has repeatedly taken a transactional approach towards allies, threatening troop withdrawals unless Washington receives greater contributions or concessions. There is no indication in the material available that the White House intends to adopt the Defense Priorities plan. But the report takes that logic to its strategic conclusion: determine which commitments are indispensable to American security and shed those that are not.
The second island chain may offer the United States a less exposed military position. The harder question is what happens in front of that line. Retreat can reduce the risk of being drawn into a war. It can also change the calculations of those deciding whether to start one.
