King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia salutes Malaysian guards of honor in Kuala Lumpur on Feb. 26. (Ahmad Yusni/AP) A pivot to Asia? While much of the world's attention is currently focused on the United States and Europe, the king of Saudi Arabia is heading out on a month-long tour of Asia this week. King Salman arrived in Malaysia on Sunday, and he will continue on to Indonesia, Brunei, Japan, China, and the Maldives before visiting Saudi Arabia's neighbor Jordan on the way back. So far, the most notable headline from the trip is about the lavish style in which King Salman is traveling: Reports suggest the Saudi royal is bringing along an entourage of 1,500 people and more than 500 tons of luggage, including two Mercedes-Benz S600 limousines. But this is no holiday for King Salman. In fact, the trip could have major geopolitical implications – and Washington should be watching closely. For one thing, Saudi Arabia is attempting to strengthen its ties with key Muslim-majority nations in Asia. King Salman will be the first Saudi leader in 46 years to visit Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world. Both Indonesia and Malaysia are said to be members of the Saudi-led Islamic Military Alliance that was formed in late 2015. Economics will also play a big role in the tour. China and Japan are two of the most important markets for Saudi Arabian oil and gas, and King Salman will be looking to make sure both countries keep buying from Riyadh. But he is also leading an ambitious plan to diversify Saudi Arabia’s economy as oil prices remain low, and Asian nations may feature heavily in Saudi attempts to find new investment opportunities. For example, Reuters reports that the kingdom will be putting $45 billion into a new technology fund with Japan's SoftBank. For now, there’s little sign that Asians rivals will replace the United States in Saudi hearts anytime soon. Riyadh has long been one of Washington’s closest allies, and Saudi Arabia seems pleased with the new U.S. administration's criticism of Iran, its fiercest regional rival. But King Salman's big trip to Asia also sends a clear message to Washington as the Trump White House develops its foreign policy: Don't forget, we have other options too. — Adam Taylor A U.S. Navy F/A-18E fighter aircraft lands aboard the USS George H.W. Bush in the Persian Gulf in 2014. (Hasan Jamali/AP) The big question President Trump repeatedly promised during last year's election campaign that he would beef up the military, and he looks set to follow through on that pledge. News broke on Sunday that Trump's first budget proposal would give the Pentagon a 10 percent funding boost while slashing budgets at other agencies, including a massive 30 percent cut at the State Department. So we asked Post national security reporter Thomas Gibbons-Neff: Does the U.S. military really need an additional $54 billion in funds? "In some ways, yes. The U.S. spent $584 billion on defense in the 2016 fiscal year, by far the most in the world. But the Pentagon budget has declined steadily since 2011 thanks to smaller troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as spending restrictions negotiated between Congress and former president Barack Obama. "So the military is hurting for funds in key areas. According to Paul Scharre, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, the Pentagon 'needs immediate funding' to address shortfalls in readiness, training and maintenance. "That's especially true as the bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria continues at a furious pace. The heads of each of the military's branches have repeatedly testified that budget restrictions have harmed flying hours for pilots and prevented regular maintenance on aircraft that are being abused by frequent missions. "But simply throwing more cash at new planes and other big-ticket items isn’t likely the best course of action. 'We need to make sure were not just investing in more of things, but that were investing in capabilities,' Scharre says. With a 10 percent increase, he thinks thinks that the Pentagon can do both. "But he’s cautious about any type of increase if that means funds are going to be diverted from places such as the State Department. 'If that’s the case, it’s shortsighted,' said Scharre. 'When diplomacy fails it’ll be the grunts cleaning up the mess and getting hurt, that’s the way it goes.' "One man who agrees with that is Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who has pledged to work closely with Foggy Bottom. He starkly laid out the military case for diplomatic spending at an event several years ago. 'If you don’t fund the State Department fully,' he told a group of foreign policy wonks in 2013, 'then I need to buy more ammunition.'" |