In January, the United States and Japan agreed to keep the U.S. 3rd Marine Division in Okinawa (instead of Guam) and to replace it with the new 12th Marine Littoral Regiment in 2025. The two countries also agreed to share ammunition storage at Kadena Air Base.

In February, the United States and the Philippines agreed to designate four new sites as part of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, or EDCA, which provides access for U.S. forces.

In March, the United States agreed as part of the AUKUS security partnership to increased U.S. submarine port visits to Australia and to rotate up to four Virginia-class submarines by as early as 2027.

Also in March, the Pentagon’s budget request included $2.3 billion for military construction west of the international date line — a $400 million increase from the prior year.

So far so good. But overcoming a decade-long “say-do” gap on Indo-Pacific posture and keeping pace with a rapidly evolving Chinese military threat will require sustained urgency matched by robust investment.

Building on recent political momentum is critical. With Japan, we need ambitious defense diplomacy to secure new access for U.S. forces and to make shared use of bases, ports, airfields and other facilities the rule, not the exception. And after years of legal and political challenges, the U.S. and the Philippines need to make up for lost time and maximize the potential of EDCA sites through accelerated investment and expanded combined training and operations.

More posture dollars should be focused directly on achieving a more distributed and resilient posture. Most investment in the Indo-Pacific is dedicated to maintaining existing facilities or executing legacy posture initiatives, some of questionable relevance to the current or future threat. That investment is also geographically concentrated. West of the international date line, the Pentagon plans to spend 75% of fiscal 2024 military construction funds in Japan and Guam — up from 66% the previous year. Going forward, more investment is needed in the second island chain, Oceania and Southeast Asia.

Beyond politics and budgets, achieving a “transformative” effect on Indo-Pacific posture requires actually moving forces. The Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” was matched with two additional destroyers and fifth-generation fighters in Japan; an additional submarine and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense battery in Guam; and rotational littoral combat ships in Singapore, among other moves. The Biden administration needs to demonstrate similar follow-through, and there’s plenty of options to do so.

The Air Force has operated fifth-generation aircraft for nearly two decades, but it has no plan to permanently station its most advanced fighters in the Indo-Pacific. The Air Force has promised to maintain a continuous fighter presence at Kadena Air Base in Japan, including fifth-generation aircraft, as it withdraws and retires F-15C/D aircraft. Beyond that, it has offered no specifics. Basing F-35As at Misawa Air Base in Japan would be a strong next step.

The Multi-Domain Task Force is central to the Army’s contribution toward joint operations in the Indo-Pacific. But while it has based MDTFs in Washington state and Hawaii, the Army does not yet plan to station an MDTF west of the international date line. The Army chief of staff recently hinted this may change. The Biden administration should ensure it does, including by prioritizing access for an MDTF in defense diplomacy with Japan.

The Navy has long pledged to send its most advanced ships and aircraft to the Indo-Pacific. However, of the Navy’s 20 commissioned Virginia-class submarines — critical to the U.S. military’s advantage over China — the Navy has sent 14 to Atlantic ports and just six to Pacific ports. And none of the Navy’s most advanced attack boats are homeported west of the international date line. While keeping pace with Russia’s submarine threat is critical, the Biden administration should rebalance that laydown by stationing Virginia-class submarines in Guam and San Diego, California.

The Biden administration should also accelerate investment in the logistics network that is essential for credible deterrence and effective warfighting. Fuel storage and distribution is critical, especially with the planned closure of Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility. But the Pentagon is kicking the fuel can down the road. The Defense Logistics Agency plans to spend at least $360 million over the five-year Future Years Defense Program in projects for fuel facilities and storage west of the international date line. But it has requested no funding for those projects in next two fiscal years, and punted most projects to FY27 and FY28. Working with Congress, the Biden administration should accelerate these projects as able.

The weaknesses of U.S. force posture in the Indo-Pacific have contributed to the erosion of credible deterrence. But with sustained diplomatic urgency, robust investment and more advanced capabilities, a transformation of U.S. force posture can help restore and preserve credible deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.

Dustin Walker is a nonresident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think tank. He was previously a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and an adviser to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Votel, who recently retired, was clearly disheartened by the Oct. 5 announcement that the White House was pulling U.S. troops out of northeast Syria, making way for an impending Turkish invasion that threatens to slaughter America’s Kurdish allies.

The news left Votel, in his understated Minnesota way, “disappointed” and worried about how President Donald Trump’s abrupt move, in the wake of a phone call with the Turkish president, might play out in the future for a U.S. military that has relied on on-the-ground partners since Operation Desert Storm nearly three decades ago.

“I, like others I imagine, am disappointed in this policy decision,” he recently told Military Times. “There was a lot of work undertaken to avoid a decision like this. The SDF have been exceptional partners and we would have not been successful against ISIS in Syria without them.”

In the fight to eradicate ISIS, the Kurdish-led SDF “absorbed nearly 11,000 casualties,” Votel said. “I am concerned what this might mean for future partnerships.”

The concern is that this U.S. decision to abandon the allies who fought and died alongside U.S. troops will discourage future allies from doing the same.

After sharing is concerns directly with Military Times, Votel also published his concerns on Tuesday in The Atlantic, saying the “abrupt” decision to withdraw was “made without consulting U.S. allies or senior U.S. military leadership and threatens to affect future partnerships at precisely the time we need them most.”

Votel is far from alone in his concerns. Even members of Trump’s own party have chastised him for abandoning a key ally at a desperate moment.

Trump explained that his decision was an effort to end forever wars and fulfill a campaign promise by bringing home America’s sons and daughters so they no longer have to die for another nation’s fight. Furthermore, some of his supporters have argued there is no need for U.S. troops to be in Syria because it is just a short flight from Iraq and the U.S. could easily insert troops in an emergency.

We at Military Times can be counted among those disappointed by Trump’s rash move for several reasons.

On the more micro level, ISIS has been defeated as a maneuver army and nation state. But it has morphed into a virulent global insurgency. The Kurdish-led SDF has a very tentative hold on tens of thousands of captured ISIS fighters and, should they be attacked by the Turks, will struggle to keep a lid on those prisoners. The last thing the world needs is several divisions worth of newly released jihadis hell bent on revenge.

Looking at Votel’s larger point — concern for future partnerships — remember that current U.S. military doctrine is to operate by, with and through partner forces. Turning our backs on partners facing slaughter sends a terrible signal. Will this nation’s strategic objectives be met if those partners no longer trust us?

In many ways, the U.S. saw remarkable success in its strategy of fighting ISIS via local partners on the ground instead of large deployments of U.S. troops. The Kurds have been our most reliable allies in a fraught region filled with tremendous influence from our adversaries in Moscow, Tehran and Damascus.

Losing the future trust of potential partner forces on the ground is likely to result in more wars, more deployments and more bloodshed.

Trump’s decision to abandon the Kurds in Syria is short sighted and dangerous.

The Russian attacks are increasing in frequency and destruction. Ukrainian casualties are mounting.

Ukraine has asked the U.S. to provide military supplies to support their fight against the Russians, but the White House has delayed it.

For the Ukrainian military, and ultimately for the U.S. and other allies who are dealing with Russian aggression, the bottom line is this: Any delay in arms sales has a deleterious effect on Ukraine’s fight.

That’s bad news for U.S. forces who may one day encounter the Russian military and will rely in part on lessons learned from Ukraine’s fight.

Since the 2014 Russian seizure of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine’s east, the “full spectrum” of Russian military doctrine has been on display. That doctrine — often referred to as “hybrid warfare” — includes the use of conventional forces like mechanized infantry backed by armor and artillery, as well as special operations forces, assassinations and bombings, electronic warfare, cyber attacks and the weaponization of information.

Ukraine needs U.S. arms to counter these threats.

In 2015, for instance, Ukraine received 20 AN/TPQ-53 radar systems that track incoming mortar and short-range artillery fire.

The casualty rate for units equipped with those systems dropped from 47 percent to about 18 percent, Col. Andrii Ordynovych, Ukraine’s military attache in Washington tells Military Times.

Similarly, after Ukraine’s military began using U.S.-provided Javelin anti-tank weapons, Russian tanks and armored personnel carriers that once operated with devastating impunity have backed off, Ordynovych said. “That was a strategic deterrence,” he said.

That’s the goal of the $250 million U.S. aid package held up by Trump, which includes sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, counter-artillery radars, electronic warfare detection and secure communications, night vision and military medical treatment.

In July, George P. Kent, deputy assistant secretary in the European and Eurasian Bureau at the U.S. Department of State, told Military Times that the U.S. military is paying close attention to how Ukraine fights the Russians, and the equipment and tactics and techniques the Russians are employing.

“I think there is a great opportunity, even as we are helping the Ukrainian military build its own resilience against Russian aggression, for us to learn from the modern way of Russia doing war in Ukraine,” he said in an interview.

Things have changed since Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, said Kent, and what the Russians are learning in Ukraine has been applied to places like Syria.

The delay in the arms shipment “is being assessed by Russian intelligence,” said Ukraine’s military attache.

Given what’s at stake for U.S. national security interests, every day the Trump administration delays is a good day for Russia.

And by extension, a bad day for us.

In September, we heard about two separate incidents, one in the Army and one in the Marine Corps.

In the Army’s storied 82nd Airborne Division, a company first sergeant was disciplined for having an affair with a private first class who had just arrived at the unit. She was among the first enlisted female soldiers to graduate from the Army’s infantry basic training.

Both soldiers were disciplined. The Army did not disclose specifics, but neither lost their rank, and it appears both remain in the Army.

In the Marine Corps, however, one of the first women to enter the infantry is now facing separation because she was fraternizing with a lower-ranking Marine in her unit. Initially a sergeant, she was busted down to a corporal, and now the commanding general of the 2nd Marine Division is deciding whether to force her out with an other-than-honorable discharge.

It’s worth noting that the Marine, now-Cpl. Remedios Cruz, eventually married the Marine with whom she was carrying on this improper relationship.

It looks like the Army and Marine Corps have handled similar situations very differently.

Cruz’s attorney lauded her as “a courageous pioneer for women in the military and she has earned a place in Marine Corps history.”

But Cruz’s career is over. And it looks like the Corps is going to send the 26-year-old New Yorker away with a DD-214 that will be a red flag for the rest of her life.

The Corps’ handling of the matter raises questions about fairness.

Would Cruz be facing an other-than-honorable discharge if she were not among the “courageous pioneers” for women in the infantry? Is there political motivation underlying the decision to highlight this incident with distinctly heavy-handed punishment?

The Marine Corps as an institution has made no secret of its reluctance to integrate combat units in accordance with the Pentagon’s 2016 policy.

In all the services, fraternization happens all the time.

When it fosters the appearance of favoritism, it can erode morale and unit-cohesion, which is, arguably, especially important in the combat arms.

But the military’s prohibition on fraternization should be enforced fairly, regardless of gender. There’s no reason to think women should face any more or less punishment for fraternizing.

In some cases, it’s perfectly appropriate for a commander to dole out a harsh punishment in an effort to “send a message” to the unit.

But if the Corps was trying to send a message with its handling of this case involving Cpl. Cruz, that’s an ugly message.

“More U.S. military service members have died in aircraft mishaps over the past year than have died while serving in Afghanistan,” the Ohio Republican said.

Sadly, he’s right.

The death of any military service member is a tragic loss. But there is something especially troubling about deaths that occur at home during training.

A recent Military Times investigation highlighted some of those fatalities, finding that at least 133 service members died in aviation mishaps during the five-year period from 2013 through 2017.

The vast majority of those deaths occurred during training flights.

If an overseas operation targeting Islamic extremists had taken the lives of 133 troops over five years, it would be the central focus for the Pentagon’s leaders and the American people they serve.

But the problems in military aviation have emerged slowly over time and have commanded far less attention.

It’s easy to blame Congress for failing to properly fund the military.

And Capitol Hill’s year-after-year habit of playing politics with military budgets set in motion the aviation crisis back in 2013 with the defense spending caps.

But there’s plenty of blame to spread around the Pentagon, too.

In the week since the investigation was published, military personnel have told Military Times another factor behind the mishaps is the inability of the military to say no to additional missions — and the idea that the military is the solution for every global problem.

A close look at the data charting the rise in aviation mishaps over the past five years also reveals a critical fact:

The problem is far worse in the Navy and Marine Corps than it is in the Air Force and Army.

The rise in aviation mishaps also reveals one of the Defense Department’s historic weaknesses: managing its people.

The services failed to properly track their mid- to senior-level aviation maintainers, and they failed to notice when they left the force in droves a few years ago. At least one service has been able to tie the loss of senior maintainers to a rise in accidents.

Now, with a critical skills gap among the senior enlisted force, the services face the daunting task of rebuilding that institutional knowledge.

It’s hard to imagine a commercial aviation company failing to notice for years as it hemorrhaged the skilled workforce needed to maintain a fleet of aircraft.

Concerns about aviation readiness were compounded recently by a report that revealed the stunning shortage of fighter pilots in today’s force.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have 25 percent fewer pilots than they actually need.

In other words, roughly one in four fighter pilot billets is empty.

Measuring military readiness is a complex and imprecise mission. There is no single metric that captures the nation’s ability to defend itself.

But a rise in aviation mishaps is a pretty good canary in the coal mine.

Leaders in Congress and at the Pentagon should take note.

That’s why it was so disturbing to read the recent Military Times investigation from reporter Karen Jowers, which revealed how the Army and the Air Force have been handling — or mishandling — the health records of military children.

For years, the Army and the Air Force have been quietly merging the ­childhood medical records of former military ­dependents with the medical records of new military recruits.

This looks like a deep violation of trust between the Defense Department and military families. Arguably, it’s a violation of federal health care privacy laws — or, at least, an ethical violation.

To illustrate the problem that likely ­affects hundreds, if not thousands, of ­former military children, the story focused on one Army family, the De La Rosas.

Years ago, as their daughters struggled with the routine angst of adolescence as well as the stress of their father’s repeated deployments to Afghanistan and their frequent moves, the parents encouraged their daughters to seek counseling for better coping skills, which they did.

In 2016, when daughter Juliet De La Rosa was in basic training at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, she was called in for a medical review. Air Force health providers saw mental health notations in her dependent medical record, and they promptly forced her out.

“Never once were we or Juliet told that she was being diagnosed with disorders. Never once was Juliet medicated,” her father, Army Maj. Rudy De La Rosa said.

And despite multiple clean bills of health from DoD and civilian mental health providers, both girls have been denied waivers to join the military.

What’s wrong with this policy?

Federal law protects most Americans’ medical information under a 1996 health care privacy law known as HIPAA.

The military medical system doesn’t provide parents with any disclaimers about how behavioral health visits could affect their child’s future military service.

This policy unfairly penalizes military children because children raised in the civilian health care system would never — ever — find that their records were automatically shared with DoD.

Most importantly, this is the definition of stigmatization. This policy will discourage military children from seeking help, which is exactly the opposite of what military leaders for years have encouraged.

The Navy told Military Times that it does not merge electronic records for military children who join the Navy and Marine Corps. But we’ve heard first-hand from people who say that’s not true.

The Navy has since clarified that it’s a matter of semantics — while those records aren’t merged, they’re available for Navy health care providers who have access to the electronic records.

The Pentagon should change this policy. Service members like Army Maj. Rudy De La Rosa should be allowed to deploy knowing the Defense Department is ­providing good, reliable — and confidential — health care for the children they leave at home.

Right now, that’s not happening.

“The president wants to do something that highlights the service and sacrifice of the military and have a unifying moment for the country,” an administration official told The Washington Post.

So far, so good.

But reports that the president wants to see tanks and other military hardware rolling down Pennsylvania Avenue, emulating a French Bastille Day parade he saw last summer, are somewhat disturbing, if true.

This form of saber-rattling would do nothing to unify the country at this moment in history. And the cost of such a display would provide bad optics at a time when the military is begging the American people for more money.

More, with at least half the country worried about the authoritarian bent of this administration, the idea of President Trump atop a reviewing stand, a la North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, as instruments of America’s might roll by would likely engender as much protest as applause.

But here’s an idea the entire country could rally behind: How about a grand parade that honors combat veterans who have served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria since Sept. 11, 2001?

That would put the focus of such a parade exactly where it belongs: On the men and women who have rushed to the defense of our country. It could also include the so-called Dreamers — the undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children — who have served on the battlefield for their adopted nation.

There are some who see this grand parade as an opportunity to show adversaries, by way of tanks and planes and missiles, that America remains strong, even if readiness and military shortfalls dominate news cycles at home.

Our adversaries need no such reminders.

Instead, let’s honor our veterans, the real strength behind American principles and American resolve.

This is no longer just a Navy issue.

It’s a move that will have a potentially far-reaching impact on all services and service members up and down the chain of command. It raises unsettling questions about the scope — and limitations — of a commander’s responsibility.

And it sets the stage for one of the most consequential Uniform Code of Military Justice proceedings in generations.

Seventeen sailors died in those mishaps involving the destroyers Fitzgerald and John S. McCain, and the need for accountability is an urgent one. Based on public reports on the Navy investigation, both men deserve punishment.

But in choosing such a severe criminal charge, the Navy is stepping onto a slippery slope.

To be sure, there is sound logic to dropping the hammer on these two officers.

Especially in the Navy’s culture, a skipper’s responsibility for his or her ship is absolute, and aggressive criminal prosecution will reinforce that. And the families who continue to mourn the loss of the 17 sailors deserve some redress.

More broadly, it sends a message to officers that professional failures and poor judgment that senior leaders might implicitly tolerate with a nod or a shrug is nevertheless unacceptable.

There are consequences beyond your next eval report.

But the Navy is now in unchartered waters.

There is no obvious historical precedent for a negligent homicide prosecution for an officer discharging his official duties, however negligently.

The captain of a U.S. Navy destroyer was court-martialed for a 1989 collision that killed one sailor and injured 17. But his charge was dereliction of duty. (He was ultimately not convicted.)

The Navy is taking a big risk here.

Will these criminal charges discourage future leaders from seeking command?

Will this make commanders more risk-averse when making the split-second, life-or-death decisions that they might face?

Will this hurt morale if sailors view this as a politically motivated decision by admirals seeking to appease their critics?

Sadly, today’s Navy suffers from deep, systemic problems, which were outlined in painstaking detail by the recent strategic review from the Navy secretary’s office.

The skippers of the destroyers are not responsible for years of financial mismanagement, an unrealistic operational tempo and bad decisions about how to train sailors and manage their careers.

The defense attorneys for these two officers will have a lot to work with.

Culturally, today’s naval officers suffer from an inability to say no or report real problems up the chain of command.

It would be heartening to think that one outcome from all this would be mid-level Navy leaders who are more willing to tell their boss: “No sir, we can’t do that. The risk is too great.”

But heavy-handed prosecution also threatens good order and discipline if subordinates second-guess their own commanders, claiming a fear of prosecution. A court-martial could get ugly.

“If this is the road the Navy wants to do down, I think these officers should say, ‘Fine, bring it on,’” retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, a former skipper of the destroyer Cole told Navy Times. “And be prepared for the witnesses I’m going to call, including the [chief of naval operations], to explain why they allowed the Navy to be inadequately manned, trained and equipped, as he is required by law to do.”

The Navy’s leadership has a long road ahead as it confronts these challenges.

We wish the Navy, as an institution, safe passage as it travels through these stormy waters.

So, as Congress is now trying to rewrite the federal tax law for the first time in more than a decade, here’s an idea: A dedicated military tax.

Lawmakers could set a military tax to a specific rate. It would be clearly labeled on everyone’s pay stub. And the money would go directly to the Defense Department.

It’s not that bizarre of an idea. Your pay stub today has a line labeled “FICA” that is a dedicated tax earmarked by law to fund the Social Security trust fund that pays retirement checks to elderly citizens. And many states have dedicated taxes earmarked for schools and other specific government operations.

Why can’t Congress write a tax code that is clear and transparent about what the military gets? One that ensures the military gets a reliable funding stream? One that would be naturally adjusted for inflation every year?

That’s not the way it works right now.

Ultimately, about a quarter of all federal tax dollars goes to the Defense Department. But that money must first be collected through a general income tax, then put into some theoretical pool of all federal tax dollars so Congress can argue about it every year.

It becomes an endless cycle of robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Defense Department gets whatever comes out of that annual, unpredictable circus.

At the crux of the disaster known as “sequestration” was lawmakers’ inability to agree on precisely how much money would go to the Defense Department and how much would go to everything else.

Lawmakers should just declare a military tax, and set it as a percentage of income. Rich people would pay more, as they always have. So, for example, instead of having millions of Americans in a 25 percent tax bracket and requiring them to pay a general purpose 25 percent tax, the tax law could instead have those same Americans pay 15 percent in general purpose, non-military taxes and 10 percent in military taxes. By law, that money would go straight to the Defense Department. No debate about it.

If Congress or the military thought the budget was insufficient, they could ask for more and seek to raise that tax. If voters didn’t like that, they could oppose it. The process of funding the military would be transparent and obvious to all.

Some people could advocate for raising military spending more than general “domestic spending.” Or vice versa.

Both are legitimate political viewpoints.

Right now, that age-old argument of “defense spending” vs. “domestic spending” is hammered out behind closed doors by the “congressional leadership.”

It’s a zero sum game. Spending money on one requires money taken from the other.

A dedicated military tax would foster a much healthier public debate. It would directly fund the military and bypass Washington’s ridiculous budget process. It would give military planners the “stability” they crave.

It would encourage more discipline on the military’s own spending by eliminating the all-too-common logic of spending money before the end of the fiscal year because it might somehow disappear.

In short, there would be far fewer games played with military spending. And the military would be better for it.

Moreover, a military tax could even open up new ways to encourage and reward military service. For example, maybe all veterans who serve a single term get a 10-year break from paying any military tax — the logic being that offering up individual service is a form of payment. Maybe retirees would get a lifelong exemption from the military tax.

Realistically, a tax break like that would amount to thousands of dollars a year.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told ­Congress this summer that, “No enemy in the field has done more to harm the combat readiness of our military than sequestration.” Sequestration is just another word for a total failure of the government’s budgetary process.

Many people might balk at the idea of a military tax. But it’s hard to make the case that the current system is working.

OK, so that propaganda film was 80-plus years ago. It turns out, marijuana is not a “scourge.” In fact, it might be a key to helping our veterans’ service-related ailments.

So why is the Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Justice still treating cannabis like it’s dangerous reefer? Even the American Legion is pushing for further study into the benefits of marijuana, touting it as a safer alternative to opioid therapy, often used to treat chronic pain.

A recent study, released by the American Legion, found that more than 90 percent of veterans support expanding research into medical marijuana. In addition, more than 80 percent back allowing federal doctors to prescribe it to veterans.

Those findings are eye-opening for sure, and Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin should see them as marching orders.

Democrats on the House Veterans Affairs Committee have already petitioned Shulkin to use his department’s Office of Research and Development to explore cannabis medication. Thus far, these requests have gone nowhere. However, the American Legion’s study shows that this is not a partisan issue.

American Legion leaders stress this is not a call to legalize recreational use of marijuana. But we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members who risked life and limb for our country. Today, they suffer with deteriorating bodies, chronic pain and post-traumatic stress.

We as a country must do everything in our power to find the safest and most effective treatments for them.

If that means studying cannabis, what is the downside? Uncontrollable laughter? That sounds pretty good.