Yet critics are calling the review too one-sided.
The 100-page report is non-binding and not legally binding. It calls for more uniformed troops for Central Command, Africa Command and the area of Responsibility in the US military’s vital Middle East regions. It also offers analysis of possible military options in response to the Yemen civil war, a dispute with Saudi Arabia over Yemen’s emergency oil reserves, and border security.
The document calls for “a fresh start” in relations with several countries in the Middle East, including Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Since 1962, a two-phase review of American military strategy has taken place every six years or so. The National Security Strategy, also known as the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review, is written by senior officials and involves top brass and the leadership of the armed forces.
This review is expected to follow the new strategies of US President Donald Trump, who has espoused a more muscular stance against Iran, traditional US allies like NATO, and North Korea.
The release of the report came after the annual gathering of military and defense experts in the Middle East, where Trump’s nomination of new Defense Secretary James Mattis and his decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal signed with Iran were topics of discussion.
Nevertheless, given the capabilities that the US military has acquired over decades and its unparalleled access to the Persian Gulf, some experts believe the review released by the Pentagon does not go far enough.
“The Pentagon report is apparently not going to solve our military problems. The base for such a statement is your steady military buildup over the last decade,” said Peter Mansoor, a former US Marine Corps commander and professor at the US Naval War College.
“It does not achieve anything. And so what I think we need is a step back and an honest review of our strategic priorities,” he added.
‘One layer at a time’
To be fair, the review does at least do away with a long-standing policy of not changing US regional military deployments. The policy has been that these regions are decided in concert with each government, and adjustments would be based on economic, geostrategic and strategic considerations.
In this context, the new review finds it “essential” to take advantage of existing capacities and to increase use of diplomacy, development, information campaigns and other enhanced measures to strengthen the capacity of the Yemeni armed forces to undertake the job the US military is scheduled to leave in 2017.
Some critics of this policy say there are no cases to support its thinking.
“If we’re really going to have one layer at a time at the end of the policy review process, there’s no way we can build the capabilities to do what we’re talking about and get out of there in six years’ time,” Peter Singer, an expert on American and coalition politics and nuclear policy, told Al Jazeera.
Marine Corps Gen. Robert Neller, who was retired from the US Marine Corps and now commands US troops in Europe, South Korea and the Pacific, has made similar observations.
“The business of sequencing these things is the way I think about it. That was my expectation all along that we would get these opportunities and things would happen. We just haven’t. And that’s true in every facet of our life,” Neller told an audience at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, DC, on 8 January.
What has changed?
While most analysts are disappointed with the decision, the question is why have the policies changed at all?
Thomas Ricks, a veteran analyst with the US military and US Central Command, said that while the review addresses questions about the role of American armed forces and potentially suggests shifting troop level, what is still missing is a clear plan of action.
The Pentagon conducted the review after officials were put on watch for reasons of foreign affairs. The last time the review was conducted was in 2011. Neller said that while the defense leadership should take personal pride in the review, it really did not include any changes.
However, the president himself has, before joining the military, expressed a desire to have a draft document that was filled with real goals and parameters. Before that draft, the consequences of any troop deployment to a conflict were debated, not actually decided.
These are important questions as the US military still commands the most dominant position in the Gulf region and in many of the capitals of the region.