The Pentagon last week announced that it will change the name of its Indo-Pacific Command — a military empire covering almost all of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the 36 countries of the region, and half the world’s population — reverting to its historical appellation of simply Pacific Command.
The “Indo” in the name had been added by then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis in 2018 to emphasize the importance of India, especially as part of the strategic “Quad” of security partners, along with Australia, Japan and the US. Currently led by Admiral Samuel Paparo, the command employs more than 380,000 military and civilian personnel.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has not provided any clear rationale for reverting to the old name, and allies in the region — especially India — were caught off-guard. They were right to be puzzled: Why change the name back? And what difference will it make?
To answer those questions, some background helps. The document that drives the Pentagon’s names, missions, operational responsibilities and geographic areas of responsibility is called the Unified Command Plan (UCP). It is something like a “constitution” for the US armed forces, because — like the US Constitution — it establishes the basic norms of operational behavior, sets up boundaries on specific actors, creates a separation of powers, and is difficult to change.
In the case of the UCP, the president must make any changes, on the recommendation of the secretary of defense. And like changing the US Constitution, you should move carefully, recognizing that there may be unintended consequences.
I first encountered the UCP in 1996, when I was assigned to the Joint Staff in Washington — the body of roughly 2,000 service members and civilians that assists the chairman of the Joint Chiefs — as a young commander, just following command of a destroyer at sea. I was grumpy about giving up the captain’s chair on the bridge of a warship to become a paper-pusher in the Pentagon.
But I quickly discovered that as the action officer for staffing and coordinating all proposed changes, I was in a fascinating seat to observe intense bureaucratic battles unfold.
I watched two four-star generals, one a Marine in charge of the Atlantic and the other an Army officer commanding Latin America, battle over who should be in charge of the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. This went on for months, and had to be settled by President Bill Clinton. (The Latin American command won.)
Years later, as a three-star vice admiral and top military assistant to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, I was back in the Pentagon and in the middle of the UCP wars. The four-star command officers were angry about Rumsfeld’s decision to take away their beloved titles of “commander-in-chief” for their regions, e.g. commander-in-chief Pacific and commander-in-chief Atlantic. The secretary believed there could only be one person with the status of commander in chief: the president.
That was hardly the only change. Rumsfeld created a new combatant command, US Northern Command, responsible for defending the homeland. US Joint Forces Command lost all its geographic territory. There were huge changes to the areas of responsibility of the two biggest combatant commands, in the Pacific and Europe. He also laid the groundwork to form another new regional body, US Africa Command.
All of this was hugely controversial, and I tried to reshape some of the initiatives in ways that would be more palatable to the top four-stars — to little avail. Before I could really mount a campaign to soften his changes, the Republicans lost the 2006 midterm elections and Rumsfeld resigned. I achieved escape velocity out of the Pentagon, ironically becoming a combatant commander myself at US Southern Command.
So, when I see the seemingly simple name change from Indo-Pacific Command back to Pacific Command, I think there will be significant unintended consequences that will ultimately be damaging to US security.
First, the change feels like a direct shot at India. The switch to “Indo-Pacific” in 2018 was done with great fanfare and touted as a new chapter in US-Indian relations. It underlined the critical importance of the Quad, and helped pull the world’s most populous nation toward the West and away from Russia and China. The Indian military is sensitive to names and titles — this change will not sit well in New Delhi.
Second, this will be unpopular with the other members of the Quad. Japan and Australia were both enthusiastic about the 2018 name change and believed it would further the kind of cooperation we see annually in Exercise Malabar, a vast naval drill by the four nations. These partners may see the name change as devaluing the entire concept.
Third, Hegseth made remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last month that showed a distinct softening of tone on relations with China and decreased support for Taiwan, which also worried the Australians and Japanese. The name change may also be read in Beijing as the US leaning back from the Quad in general and India in particular.
Finally, this decision should be seen in the context of other actions coming out of the Pentagon with little justification or explanation. These have included suddenly pulling people off the promotion lists for their first star; firing highest-ranking officers including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the chief of naval operations and the Army chief of staff; and abruptly announcing troop withdrawals from Europe and reductions in support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
There may be valid reasons for some of this, but the Pentagon appears to be frequently acting on sudden whim. That decreases the desire of other nations to partner with the US, and therefore reduces Americans’ security. In terms of “Indo-Pacific,” it may be easy to say, “Oh, not a big deal, what’s in a name?” In this case, quite a bit — and none of it good.
More From Bloomberg Opinion:
Trump’s Troop Drawdown in Germany Is a Warning Shot: James StavridisWhat’s in a Name? A Lot If You Care About the Indo-Pacific: Mihir SharmaAsia’s Answer to the Thucydides Trap: Karishma VaswaniWant more Bloomberg Opinion? OPIN <GO>. Or subscribe to our daily newsletter.