American war strategy and the need for independence

«Back to Home

American war strategy and the need for independence

Independent Australia
02 Apr 2026, 11:00 GMT+

America's increasingly flaky military strategy under successive regimes stresses the importance of Australia going its own way, suggestsWilliam Briggs.

IN LATE 2024, in the dying days of the Biden Presidency, a new military doctrine was developed. In the febrile atmosphere that envelops Washington, the then-President and all the Presidents men believed that the path to maintaining U.S. global hegemony lay in a scheme that was named theThree-Theatre Defence Strategy.

The idea first saw the light of day in Foreign Affairsmagazine. Its author,Thomas Mahnken, is President and CEOof powerful U.S. think tankCenter for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments(CSBA)and, at the time, a member of theCommission on the National Defence Strategyand a member of theU.S. Army Science Board.

We need to remember that this was in 2024 and before the coming of Trump.

Mahnken pulled no punches. He argued that the U.S. was currently involved in two wars; in Ukraine and in the Middle East, while preparing for a third in Asia. Washington is fortunate to have capable allies and friends in East Asia, Europe and the Middle East, he wrote. However, these allies and friends must do a better job of working together. This meantnot only acting in alliance with the USA on the battlefield, but alsoproducingweaponry and keeping the American military-industrial complex profitable.

The strategy relies on there being "enemies"ready at hand. American strategists and the propagandists of the Western media easily identify these enemies. The essay that drove the policy claimed that these "enemies"are "cooperating with one another: Iran sells oil to China, China sends money to North Koreaand North Korea sends weapons to Russia. Mahnken called these countries an authoritarian axis that spans the Eurasian landmass. The answer, for Mahnken, was for the U.S. to strike back.

Having identified this "axis", the theorist explains how to fight it. This meant leaning on "allies".

Mahnken reported that Washingtons allies have:

When Trump assumed power, this policy was seemingly replaced by a new "America First"National Defence Strategy. This "shift"in thinking demands a focus on "homeland security",which is an effective re-run of the old Monroe Doctrine. There was to be a reduction of U.S. forces abroadand specifically in the Middle East. This now lies in tatters as the U.S. fleet is in the region and thousands of Marines are being deployed.

The new policy is also based on pressuring "allies"to spend more on their military to defend their respective regions, or rather, be prepared to wage predatory wars when required.

There is an underlying idea that underpins the policy. That is to explicitly link economic and military power, and to use that military power to advance U.S. business interests.

Words and semantics sometimes cross-dress. While the strategic approach of waging total global war might appear to have shifted, the goal of maintaining global dominance has not.

The new U.S.National Defense Strategy is not necessarily unravelling but rather merging with that of Bidens. War is currently being fought on two fronts and China remains in the U.S. gun sights. What has happened, however, is that the insanity of a war on three fronts is proving intensely difficult to sustain.

According to the Biden doctrine, the U.S. and a phalanx of loyal allies would, if "necessary", wage simultaneous wars in the Middle East, Europe and Asia. China was to be confronted and its rise to preeminence was to be halted and reversed. Russia was to be weakened and would become little more than a quarry for U.S. interests. Iran was to be effectively destroyed and global oil would rest in "safe"hands.

This maniacal view of the world certainly looked like coming to its apocalyptic conclusion. Today, the Russian-Ukrainian War goes on. The War and its cost in human lives, resources and money appear endless. TheRussian economyis in such a parlous state, inflation is now more than 9per cent and massive labour shortages cripple life and productivity. Buteven so, the drain on materiel has revealed a flaw in the U.S. policy of "three fronts".

Iran has exposed another weakness. The hubris of empire assumed Iran would be forced to capitulate quickly. A month into that war, the U.S. isnow drawing military resources away from Asiato fill gaps. The goal of securing oil for U.S. interests is turning into a global nightmare.

Iran War has exposed Australias vulnerabilities and misplaced priorities

Successive Australian governments misplaced priority on military security against a fictitious threat has left Australians without adequate fuel, food and transportation security.

China, while dependent on a significant portion of its oil from Iran, has assiduously been transitioning to a moreself-reliant and sustainable energy use. Their rise continues, even as their strategic enemy and rival, the USA, continues to weaken.

The war in Iran was one move in a global offensive that was clearly aimed at weakening China. China has, either opportunisticallyor strategically, chosen to stick to what it describes as a "stay in your lane"approach and is being careful not to identify itself with the war, on any side.

If the USA does not succeed in bringing Iran to heel, then a global recession is inevitable and worldwide economic depression is likely. This would cripple the global economy and the power of the U.S.would further decline.

China, obviously, would suffer massive economic problems, but has the economic, military and political capacity to not simply stay the course, but to emerge even more dominant and with a growing list of ready global partners with whom to do business.

The 19th-CenturyBritish Prime Minister,Lord Palmerstone, famously declared:

This blunt but honest assessment of realpolitik has dominated state thinking ever since. It certainly drives the thoughts and practices of the USA, and its allies and perceived enemies. It certainly marks out how the struggle for global economic hegemony between the U.S. and China is progressing.

This same approach should find accord with smaller powers. Many of Australias near neighbours in the Pacific assert that they want to be afriend to all and an enemy to none. The clarity of such thinking needs to be adopted by Australia.

What is in Australias national interest? Surely the answer should be: peace, securityand economic progress. Being a perpetual "yes" man to U.S.imperialism and a perpetual partner in American wars cannot serve those national interests.

Greater engagement with the Asian region, peaceful, non-aligned policies that foster good relations and beneficial trade relationships with the dominant economies of the region do serve those interests. While Australia remains a capitalist nation-state, it makes sense to more closely engage with other capitalist states.

China is the most obvious capitalist state to engage closely with. This does not weaken Australia, but permits it to develop an independent foreign and economic policy that allows for peace, stability and economic progress.

Our future, if we are to have a secure future, demands this.

William Briggsis a political economist. His special areas of interest lie in political theory and international political economy. He has been, variously, a teacher, journalist and political activist.