Asian Allies React with Alarm to US Think Tank Proposal for Military Pullback

A recent study by a US foreign policy think tank has triggered unease among America’s long-standing Indo-Pacific partners by advocating a significant reduction of American military presence in the western Pacific. The report, authored by Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at the Defense Priorities Foundation, recommends that Washington terminate mutual defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines.

Kavanagh argues that the United States should prioritize the defense of its own homeland and protect critical trade routes rather than maintaining a broad security footprint. Under the proposed strategy, US forces would retreat from the “first island chain,” which extends from southern Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines, and relocate to the “second island chain” encompassing areas such as Guam and Palau. The foundation contends that this收缩 would make positions easier to defend and lower the probability of a catastrophic war with China.

The proposal carries particular weight given the Defense Priorities Foundation’s reputation for isolationism and its alleged connections to senior White House officials. William Yang, a security analyst with the International Crisis Group based in Taiwan, told DW that while no official comments have been made, the recommendations would likely be met with shock. He noted that President Donald Trump has previously threatened to withdraw troops from allied nations if concessions are not met, suggesting the plan aligns with an administration focused on transactional diplomacy.

Taiwan remains a central point of contention. Kavanagh’s report asserts that the US lacks a formal obligation to defend the island and warns that any conflict with Beijing would come at a cost far exceeding potential benefits. Consequently, she advocates shifting from a policy of strategic ambiguity to one of clear non-intervention in the event of a military confrontation over Taiwan.

However, regional experts have been swift to criticize the logic. Garren Mulloy, a professor at Daito Bunka University, described the report as a coherent articulation of arguments Trump has made inconsistently, focusing solely on cost savings while ignoring strategic value. Mulloy questioned whether the financial savings were worth the loss of US influence on global norms and laws, humorously noting the contrast with Trump’s promise of $5,000 dividends to voters.

Dan Pinkston, an international relations professor at Troy University Seoul, labeled the plan “flawed and unrealistic,” arguing that it fundamentally misunderstands modern cooperative security. He warned that a US withdrawal would create a power vacuum likely filled by China and Russia, jeopardizing trade relationships and the US ability to address complex transnational issues such as cybercrime, climate change, and piracy.

Kavanagh’s report dismisses these anxieties, claiming that China’s path to regional dominance would be difficult and that threats to US economic interests are unlikely. Despite this, many analysts predict that such a pullback could accelerate Chinese aggression toward Taiwan and embolden nuclear-armed North Korea, potentially triggering a regional arms race and undermining non-proliferation efforts.