It's not yet clear the Obama administration is going to put its money where its mouth is on the pivot to Asia. One example of that fear may be found in the outcome of the debate on basing in Asia that is now being waged inside the Pentagon. As the military rebalances its personnel, assets and resources to the East, it's focused on "resilience" and what it will cost to achieve it. But for all the talk of the pivot, it's not clear the resources are there to back it up.
Even among those who do advocate for hardening bases, there is recognition that hardening will help only so much.
"The fact of the matter is, against an enemy with good, long-range capabilities, we can't harden our bases enough," says Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "We just can't do it, and it would cost a lot of money."
Dispersing and diversifying, has the added benefit of expanding American partnerships and creating a stronger alliance across the region, he says.
In the end, Pentagon planners -- and budgeters -- will have to achieve a balanced approach between basing and dispersal, he says. "Precision targeting relies on precision intelligence," he told Situation Report. "If you can blind your adversary so they can't form an accurate picture of the battle space, then you have a significant advantage."
A "diversified base posture" allows the U.S. to play a "shell game" with its forces, creating confusion among the Chinese about whether those forces are in hard targets or dispersed among many softer ones.