The Pentagon is looking to plus up several initiatives to support that vision in the fiscal year 2018 budget request, although that funding request will be modified by the incoming Trump administration before it is submitted to Congress.

Michael Auslin, an analyst with the American Enterprise Institute and author of the upcoming book ” The End of the Asian Century,” agrees that a Pacific NATO equivalent is “unsuited” for the region.

“The US Government and Pacific Command have it right, in terms of building multilateral partnerships, and taking advantage of others, like ASEAN,” Auslin said. “Where we can do more, besides ensuring that we don’t get left behind in regional trade agreements, is first, in partnering more effectively with our allies, especially Japan, in their efforts to build communities of interests; and second, in better linking our efforts throughout the region, so that we don’t treat the East China Sea as separate from the South China Sea or Indian Ocean. It is all one interconnected strategic operating space, Asia’s ‘Mediterranean,’ so to speak.”

The complicated relationship between US allies in the Pacific and China was underlined earlier in at the forum event here, when Singaporean defense minister Ng Eng Hen offered his take on the region.

Ng warned that the US cannot simply focus on trying to contain China militarily, as it was “neither possible nor strategically necessary to contain China’s rise.” Instead, the minister said, the US needs to focus on growing relationships on the trade side – which is where the apparent death of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is so disappointing for Singapore.

The Obama administration, including Carter, has supported TPP as a vital tool for increasing US influence in Asia, but members of Congress – and president-elect Donald Trump – have opposed the agreement.

“The US presence in the Asia-Pacific region, based predominantly on security, is unidimensional and structurally brittle,” Ng said. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership would have been a concrete, tangible commitment, and to continue to be a dominant force the US needs a multifaceted relationship with countries in Asia. And China is pursuing that multifaceted relationship with many countries.”

The minister rattled off a series of statistics underlining that situation, noting that China is the largest or second largest trading partner with “nearly every country” in Asia, and highlighting the economic ties that exist between the US and China already.

“China is now an integral leader in the global systems of trade, finance and security,” Ng concluded.

Auslin, however, predicts that China’s economy will start to stagnate in coming years, which will create its own set of challenges.

“It is likely that America and its partners will face questions about how to handle a stagnating or weakening China, as much as we have been worried about a growing China,” he said. “So, worrying about a united response to China may not fit the strategic necessity of ensuring that China’s slowdown does not cause instability in the region.”

Updated 12/7/2016 at 3:43 PM Eastern with comment from Auslin

.

SIMI VALLEY, Calif. — Some Republican lawmakers are signaling they would like a speedy confirmation of President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, retired Marine Corps Gen. Jim Mattis. 

But the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee is saying not so fast.

Echoing concerns a required waiver for the retired four-star might erode civilian control of the military, Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., warned that Democrats — in spite of widespread admiration for Mattis — may fight his confirmation if the GOP skips a substantive debate.

Though the Senate, not the House, has the constitutional responsibility of confirming Cabinet nominees, the process for Mattis’ waiver should include his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and be backed up by stand-alone legislation, Smith said in a phone interview on Saturday.

“We need to have a conversation about why the civilian control of the military is so important, and both the House and the Senate need to do their due diligence, asking Gen. Mattis those questions — and have that debate, not just to rubber-stamp it,” Smith said.

For his part, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, both backs Mattis with high praise and has said the matter of the waiver would receive “a full discussion,” before Mattis can be granted a waiver and confirmed.

“We’re not going to try to ram it through, we’re going to fully talk to the experts, the legal scholars and others, and do it in due course,” Thornberry told Defense News on Saturday.

Civilian control of the military dates to the nation’s earliest days and reflects the balance of powers outlined in the Constitution. The National Security Act of 1947, amended in 2008, bars active-duty officials from serving in the Pentagon’s top job for seven years after leaving service. Mattis only retired as the four-star chief of US Central Command in 2013.

“Let’s have a serious hearing and a serious discussion about this,” Smith said. “I’m not saying I oppose Gen. Mattis, but I want it to get discussed, and I want Gen. Mattis to give assurances that he understands the difference between being a commanding general and the secretary of defense.”

Republicans and Democrats have praised Mattis as a warrior-scholar who could counterbalance Trump’s lack of experience in foreign affairs and national security.

Democratic aides privately concede that Mattis’ confirmation is practically a foregone conclusion, particularly as Republican majorities control both chambers. Still, they argue there is a foundational principle of democracy in play that deserves of careful handling—and that trampling it could severely taint Mattis as defense secretary.

“It would be poisonous to him,” one Democratic aide said.

Because Trump tapped Mattis for defense secretary, appointed retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as his national security adviser and is considering retired Gen. David Petraeus for secretary of state, one worry is Trump will miss out on non-military answers to his foreign policy challenges.

“Having dealt with Gen. Mattis, he has a more balanced understanding of the military, diplomacy, aid, partnerships and all that,” Smith said. “In terms of a policy outlook I’m much more in agreement with Gen. Mattis than any of the other people President-elect Trump has picked thus far.”

One scenario has GOP leaders in Congress starting the year with a confirmation process in parallel with moving legislation for the exception. On Inauguration Day, the president could be sworn in, nominate Mattis, the Senate could confirm Mattis, and Trump could receive and sign the exception, enabling the new secretary to begin his work.

Congress is teeing up confirmation hearings soon after Jan. 1 with a heavy schedule that includes working each weekday in January and votes scheduled on Inauguration Day Jan. 20, according to Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran.

Moran, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, told the Reagan National Security Forum here Saturday he expects the Senate to give Mattis a confirmation vote as early as Inauguration Day— complicated by the waiver legislation’s vulnerability to a filibuster, which would take 60 votes to override.

“It seems to me in a bipartisan way, there is an interest in accomplishing that,” Moran said. “Although the new Minority Leader [Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.] has indicated every nomination will be taken very seriously, and there is some expectation that no confirmation will go through easily.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., opposes the waiver for Mattis and plans to require the 60 vote supermajority to advance waiver legislation in the Senate. She would not grant an exception to such a fundamental principle of American democracy, she said, though she respects Mattis’ service.

Republicans control both chambers and could find a path to quickly confirm Mattis, so Smith said he sought and received assurances from Thornberry.

“I’ve had a good conversation with Mac Thornberry, who should be the guy Republicans listen to, and he has respect for the notion that this is something we should at least examine,” Smith said. “The details, that hasn’t been agreed to.”

Thornberry told Defense News on Saturday that before the Senate confirms Mattis for the position, both the House and the Senate would have to pass a law to allow him to serve. That gives the House “a role we don’t usually have, and I think the issues are serious. Civilian control of the military is a serious issue.”

Congress last passed a waiver in 1950, for Gen. George C. Marshall, who Thornberry compared with Mattis.

“I think Mattis is exceptional, I think we live in very perilous times, and I think it is appropriate to have a full discussion and to say Gen. Mattis can serve — without changing the underlying rule that says you have to be out seven years before you can serve as the secretary of defense.”

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair John McCain, R-Ariz., has expressed support for Mattis’ confirmation. His Democratic counterpart, Ranking Member Jack Reed, D-R.I., voiced support for a Congressional debate on the principle in play.

“It is clear that General Mattis is a respected Marine and strategic thinker who served with honor and distinction,” Reed said in a statement last month. “What is less clear is how Congress would go about changing the law to allow him or any recently retired senior officer to serve as the head of the Pentagon. That would require ‎a debate about our constitutional principle of civilian control of the military and passing a new bill.”

It’s as yet unclear whether House Democrats will rally to the cause, particularly those outside the HASC. Last week House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer hailed the Mattis nomination without qualification, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement that was silent on the waiver but jabbed Trump’s “impulsive, ill-informed and dangerous ideas on America’s military and national security strategy.”

Email:  jgould@defensenews.com

Twitter:  @reporterjoe

Speaking at the Reagan National Defense Forum here, the South Carolina Republican and influential member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Congress will have to deal with the intractable and politically charged problem of statutory budget caps—commonly called sequestration.

“To our friends, its easy to say we will increase defense spending, it’s going to be harder than it looks, but we will get there because failure is not an option,” Graham said.

Defense spending levels under the caps, Graham said, are “insane, even by Washington standards.” On the one hand, most Democrats insist on parity for defense and non-defense spending, and House fiscal hawks will insist it be paid for without deficit spending.

Ultimately, Graham predicted the answer is to cut a deal with Democrats that includes some non-defense spending because Republicans —who expect to have 52 seats in the Senate next year — will need a 60-vote supermajority to advance politically-charged spending legislation.

Graham expressed sympathy for both sides, particularly for the non-defense side of the budget, which includes national security spending for the FBI and CIA. Buying back sequestration, he said, would be, “a blood bath.”

“I think sequestration relief is at hand,” Graham told Defense News after the panel. “A fight within the Republican Party whether you pay for it and how you pay for it. A fight with the Democrats, will it be defense only.”

In the near term, Graham — as some other hawkish Republicans — expects a supplemental spending bill in the early days of the Trump administration. To get 60 votes, he said, it will require non-defense spending too.

Graham said he and Senate Armed Services Chair John McCain, R-Ariz., are “on the war path” for more defense  spending, “but there are some deals being make.” Democrats, he predicted, will budge on the parity principle to make a deal.

“It is their nation too. It is their military too,” Graham said. “I think we can find the sweet spot on non-defense spending and defense spending to get enough Democrats. The primary focus is to rebuild the military at a time we’re going to need it the most.”

Aaron Mehta in Simi Valley, California, contributed to this report. 

Email:   jgould@defensenews.com 

Twitter:   @reporterjoe