HomeJIPAArticle Display

Volume 01 Issue 1 - Fall 2018

  • US Navy and Australian forces

    Opening the Aperture

    Advancing US Strategic Priorities in the Indo-Pacific Region 
    Gen Herbert J. “Hawk” Carlisle, USAF, Retired
    Public discourse on US defense strategy in Asia is outdated, reflecting a fixation on legacy threats, disputes, and commitments of the last century rather than the emerging threats and opportunities of this century. The renaming of US Pacific Command (USPACOM) to US Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) provides the United States with an opportunity to expand the aperture of US grand strategy and to engage the region clear-eyed. While the regional security map of the twentieth century prioritized Northeast Asia, the map of the twenty-first century demands strategic attention spotlight a wider landscape characterized by People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) hegemonic aspirations and a larger set of competing national interests.
  • Pacific Partnership

    A Short History of US Involvement in the Indo-Pacific

    Christopher L. Kolakowski
    In recent years, US strategy focuses more on Asia—first with the Obama administration’s “pivot” to the region and now with the Trump administration focusing on the Indo-Pacific. These initiatives continue a legacy of engagement dating back to the War of Independence, through the Civil War, World War I, World War Two, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, to the Post Cold War era. The United States has always been involved in the Indo-Pacific, and it will continue to be well into the future.
  • USAF and Indian Air Force

    Realignment and Indian Air Power Doctrine

    Challenges in an Evolving Strategic Context 
    Dr. Christina Goulter
    Prof. Harsh Pant

    With a shift in the balance of power in the Far East, as well as multiple challenges in the wider international security environment, several nations in the Indo-Pacific region have undergone significant changes in their defense postures. This is particularly the case with India, which has gone from a regional, largely Pakistan-focused, perspective to one involving global influence and power projection. This has presented ramifications for all the Indian armed services, but especially the Indian Air Force (IAF). Over the last decade, the IAF has been transforming itself from a principally army-support instrument to a broad spectrum air force, and this prompted a radical revision of Indian air power doctrine in 2012. It is akin to Western airpower thought, but much of the latest doctrine is indigenous and demonstrates some unique conceptual work, not least in the way maritime airpower is used to protect Indian territories in the Indian Ocean and safeguard sea lines of communication. Because of this, it is starting to have traction in Anglo-American defense circles. The current Indian emphases on strategic reach and conventional deterrence have been prompted by other events as well, not least the 1999 Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan, which demonstrated that India lacked a balanced defense apparatus. This article examines the evolving doctrinal thinking of the IAF and argues that the service is transformational in the way it situates the use of airpower in addressing India’s security environment.
  • Okinawan governor with USMC Gen

    US Military Liberty Restrictions in Okinawa—Falling on Deaf Ears?

    Maj John C. Wright, USAF
    The United States will continue working to minimize and forestall US personnel transgressions and crimes in Okinawa, as it always has. Japanese central government must bypass the Okinawan prefectural government and address the people directly. Okinawa really is important, and the people there really are critical to the US–Japan relationship. They have simply been disenfranchised by the central government and disappointed by US military mistakes to the point that they believe the closer they can get to “independence,” the better off they will be. Nothing is further from the truth. The more fragmented Okinawa is, the more danger Japan—and the US military forces stationed there—are in, which is bad for all three parties.
  • Indian Navy and US Navy train together

    Evolving Dynamics in the Indo-Pacific

    Deliberating India’s Position 
    Pooja Bhatt
    The current literature on the Indo-Pacific concept is still under deliberation regarding the actualization of its structure, organization, and purpose. The term is not just a hyphenation of two oceans but a construct connecting the economies across these oceans. The Indian Ocean is the backyard of various developing economies in contrast to the developed Pacific economies. India, being one of the largest regional countries, is seen as an important fulcrum and stakeholder in the operationalization of the Indo-Pacific from an academic concept to an institutional framework. Therefore, India stands in the epicenter of the region according to its geopolitical position as well as the alliances and threat perceptions existent in the region. This paper, hence, is divided into four parts, tracing the conceptual understanding of Indo-Pacific in official documents beginning with the appearance of the term in the white papers of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States since 2013 and then simultaneously in 2017. The second part discusses the economic and strategic issues contributing to the shaping of this new geographical construct and how it differs from the earlier established Asia-Pacific paradigm. The current developments that are shaping India’s approach toward the Indo-Pacific form the third part of the article. It attempts to draw the larger picture of India’s current position on the Indo-Pacific both as a socio-economic-political platform and at the strategic level better known as the “Quad.” The fourth part of the paper argues that though there are commonalities of interests among the countries on the former, the latter faces potential problems arising from two issues—one, finding a common ground for collective security, and two, the current understanding excludes the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) as potential stakeholders in the Quad.
  • Coca Codo Sinclair

    Ecuador’s Leveraging of China to Pursue an Alternative Political and Development Pathy

    R. Evan Ellis, PhD
    This paper examines Ecuador’s use of financing, commerce with, and investment from the People’s Republic China (PRC) in its pursuit of a path independent of the United States and traditional Western institutions. The work details significant Chinese engagement with the country in the political, economic, and military arenas. It finds important differences in the dynamics and progress of Chinese companies in different sectors, as well as numerous challenges for Chinese companies, including both legal challenges to past contracts, as well as political mobilization against construction and extractive sector projects. Ecuador’s engagement with the PRC is compared to and contrasted with patterns of engagement between the PRC and two other ALBA countries: Venezuela and Bolivia. In all cases, populist elites changed the political system and accountability mechanisms, and isolated their country from traditional commercial partners in ways that helped Chinese investors to reach deals that personally benefitted the populist elites and the PRC-based companies at the expense of the country. The work concludes by examining the prospects for the evolution of the relationship under the country’s new leadership.


USAF Comments Policy
If you wish to comment, use the text box below. AF reserves the right to modify this policy at any time.

This is a moderated forum. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, we expect that participants will treat each other, as well as our agency and our employees, with respect. We will not post comments that contain abusive or vulgar language, spam, hate speech, personal attacks, violate EEO policy, are offensive to other or similar content. We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly "off topic", promote services or products, infringe copyright protected material, or contain any links that don't contribute to the discussion. Comments that make unsupported accusations will also not be posted. The AF and the AF alone will make a determination as to which comments will be posted. Any references to commercial entities, products, services, or other non-governmental organizations or individuals that remain on the site are provided solely for the information of individuals using this page. These references are not intended to reflect the opinion of the AF, DoD, the United States, or its officers or employees concerning the significance, priority, or importance to be given the referenced entity, product, service, or organization. Such references are not an official or personal endorsement of any product, person, or service, and may not be quoted or reproduced for the purpose of stating or implying AF endorsement or approval of any product, person, or service.

Any comments that report criminal activity including: suicidal behaviour or sexual assault will be reported to appropriate authorities including OSI. This forum is not:

  • This forum is not to be used to report criminal activity. If you have information for law enforcement, please contact OSI or your local police agency.
  • Do not submit unsolicited proposals, or other business ideas or inquiries to this forum. This site is not to be used for contracting or commercial business.
  • This forum may not be used for the submission of any claim, demand, informal or formal complaint, or any other form of legal and/or administrative notice or process, or for the exhaustion of any legal and/or administrative remedy.

AF does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by individuals on this forum is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. AF may not be able to verify, does not warrant or guarantee, and assumes no liability for anything posted on this website by any other person. AF does not endorse, support or otherwise promote any private or commercial entity or the information, products or services contained on those websites that may be reached through links on our website.

Members of the media are asked to send questions to the public affairs through their normal channels and to refrain from submitting questions here as comments. Reporter questions will not be posted. We recognize that the Web is a 24/7 medium, and your comments are welcome at any time. However, given the need to manage federal resources, moderating and posting of comments will occur during regular business hours Monday through Friday. Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible; in most cases, this means the next business day.

For the benefit of robust discussion, we ask that comments remain "on-topic." This means that comments will be posted only as it relates to the topic that is being discussed within the blog post. The views expressed on the site by non-federal commentators do not necessarily reflect the official views of the AF or the Federal Government.

To protect your own privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include personally identifiable information, such as name, Social Security number, DoD ID number, OSI Case number, phone numbers or email addresses in the body of your comment. If you do voluntarily include personally identifiable information in your comment, such as your name, that comment may or may not be posted on the page. If your comment is posted, your name will not be redacted or removed. In no circumstances will comments be posted that contain Social Security numbers, DoD ID numbers, OSI case numbers, addresses, email address or phone numbers. The default for the posting of comments is "anonymous", but if you opt not to, any information, including your login name, may be displayed on our site.

Thank you for taking the time to read this comment policy. We encourage your participation in our discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.


The views and opinions expressed or implied in JIPA are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government or their international equivalents.