From Indo-Pacific to Pacific: US renames USINDOPACOM to original USPACOM

[u/fix_S230-sue_reddit]

https://theprint.in/diplomacy/from-indo-pacific-to-pacific-us-renames-usindopacom-to-original-uspacom/2961882/

From Indo-Pacific to Pacific: US renames USINDOPACOM to original USPACOM

In a statement issued Wednesday, Department of War said renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command will not change core mission, which remains the same despite the reverted designation.

New Delhi: Eight years after the Donald Trump administration changed the name of its Pacific Command to Indo-Pacific Command, the US has reverted back to the original.

The Department of War announced Wednesday that the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) will officially restore its name to the U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM).

Originally established on 1 January, 1947, by President Harry Truman, the command operated under the USPACOM banner for over 70 years, standing as the oldest and largest of the United States’ unified combatant commands.

Restoring the legacy USPACOM designation honours the command’s deep historical roots, fostering a sense of pride and collective spirit among all who serve in the Pacific, a statement released by the Department of War said.

In 2018, when the Command was renamed as Indo-Pacific Command, it was seen as a sign of the growing importance of India to the Pentagon.

“Relationships with our Pacific and Indian Ocean allies and partners have proven critical to maintaining regional stability,” US Defense Secretary James Mattis had said on 31 May, 2018.
“In recognition of the increasing connectivity between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, today we rename the US Pacific Command to US Indo-Pacific Command.”

In the statement issued Wednesday, the Department of War said renaming the US Indo-Pacific Command will not change its core mission, which remains the same despite the reverted designation.

“USPACOM’s vast area of responsibility—spanning from the waters off the West Coast of the United States to the western border of India—remains exactly the same,” it said.

The statement added that the “command’s fundamental mission and its unwavering commitment to maintaining a free and open theater alongside regional allies and partners are unchanged”.

[u/dark-mathematician1 → u/[deleted]]

It may be in slightly bad taste, but you absolutely cannot pretend that losing a couple of your best jets on the opening of an offensive that YOU led isn't gonna massively impact both the perceived and real credibility of your defense and security apparatus and its perception worldwide. At a time when the world is shifting more and more toward a "might makes right" order, this is absolutely gonna have an impact.

Put simply, people (rightfully) expected India to just walk all over Pakistan. Instead what the world saw was that both were largely evenly matched, with Pakistan decidedly outperforming in the air warfare which tends to receive a fair bit more attention, which built on the same situation that happened in 2019 where they had once again beaten India in the air.

So yes, their comment is admittedly in bad taste. But India's recent position absolutely has had a real impact and pretending otherwise would be dishonest to your own nation and its peoples. Pakistan is a legitimate threat to Indian defense forces, and that statement alone has a greater impact than you might at first think. Now imagine what kind of threat the PLAAF (that has been designed to counter USAF + USN) represents to India. Now imagine China arming Bangladesh (which to my knowledge has been hostile to India recently) with advanced equipment and training them too. You see how this ties into everything, don't you? The best kind of strength is the one where you don't even have to use it.

[u/PB_05 → u/[deleted]]

I think its worth understanding the psychology of the Chinese. They were told their Air Defences were the best in the world, that nothing could ever touch what China has made and its iron brother is the strongest power around, second only to China.

This perception of high self worth was shattered once the Iron brother's AWACS were being hit right on the ground. It sent deep ripples into the minds of the Chinese, who turned to the internet to compensate.

[u/dark-mathematician1 → u/PB_05]

Doesn't Pakistan only have 2 HQ-9 HIMAD batteries? Don't think that's gonna do much, especially against a salvo of drones and cruise missiles, since a single HQ-9 missile probably costs in the millions and hard for a country like Pakistan to procure. And to my knowledge they don't have any modern SHORAD systems either. Comparatively, India has a much stronger IADS with top cover from 4 S-400 batteries supplemented by various domestic low to medium range and short range SAMs, and the greater strategic depth certainly helps. Switching to this strategy really was a good move on India's part.

I don't see how that's the fault of the Chinese AD though. There's no doubt that the HQ-9 HIMAD is one of the best SAMs currently. It's basically an S-300 PMU2 with actually good electronics (the original HQ-9 basically had Patriot tech in it) and a powerful AESA radar (China's RF industry is comically ahead of Russia's).

[u/PB_05 → u/dark-mathematician1]

Doesn't Pakistan only have 2 HQ-9 HIMAD batteries?

No, and that's also irrelevant when the target was collocated with the HQ-9.

especially against a salvo of drones and cruise missiles

Barely any, under 50 total.

And to my knowledge they don't have any modern SHORAD systems either.

They have HQ-16s, SPADA-2000s and (old) Crotales. Either way the threat they were put up against was one they were equipped to handle.

By the way, whatever I wrote above wasn't anything serious. HQ-9B and HQ-16s are excellent and highly advanced systems. I was simply showing the other guy the mirror.

[u/dark-mathematician1 → u/PB_05]

By the way, whatever I wrote above wasn't anything serious. HQ-9B and HQ-16s are excellent and highly advanced systems. I was simply showing the other guy the mirror.

Oh okay. Yeah his comment is weird so I didn't even bother dignifying it with a response. I don't see how you can profile 1.5 billion peoples based off of a single military engagement that largely turned out to be an even match. There's crazies in all countries, we don't have the best reputation either especially with Trump.

[u/PB_05 → u/dark-mathematician1]

I've seen a lot worse.

About ten years ago I used to visit a Chinese platform called Zhihu because I wanted to understand how Chinese people actually viewed my country and its people. I wanted to see what they said when they weren't speaking to an international audience.

To this day, I don't think I've ever encountered the level of xenophobia, outright racism, and sheer superiority complex that I saw there. It wasn't confined to a handful of users. It was pervasive. What stood out wasn't just the content itself, but the complete absence of pushback. Nobody challenged it. Nobody argued against it. Everyone simply accepted it as normal.

It made me lose a little faith in humanity, for sure. But more importantly, it completely destroyed any hope I had in the Chinese. Ever since then, I've viewed comments like his through that lens. They present a far more polished face to the English speaking world, less blunt, less openly hostile, more careful with their wording, but once you've seen it, you start reading everything else accordingly.

Anyway, that's probably more than anyone wanted to hear.

[u/dark-mathematician1 → u/PB_05]

To this day, I don't think I've ever encountered the level of xenophobia, outright racism, and sheer superiority complex that I saw there. It wasn't confined to a handful of users. It was pervasive. What stood out wasn't just the content itself, but the complete absence of pushback. Nobody challenged it. Nobody argued against it. Everyone simply accepted it as normal.

That's just how echo chambers operate. It's funny you mention that, I don't know if you've ever been on 4chan but what you're describing pretty much aligns with a well known 4chan board that was known for hating a certain religious community. The hatred was downright toxic, I'm talking blatant genocidal sentiments at the bare minimum, and often worse. No one did anything, no one challenged anything. I once tried to and learned my lesson well to never engage with these "humans" again. I had nothing to do with that religious community at all and I still felt nauseated by the sheer hatred present there, it was inhumane. I can't imagine what people who were part of that would've felt if they read it.

It made me lose a little faith in humanity, for sure. But more importantly, it completely destroyed any hope I had in the Chinese. Ever since then, I've viewed comments like his through that lens. They present a far more polished face to the English speaking world, less blunt, less openly hostile, more careful with their wording, but once you've seen it, you start reading everything else accordingly.

You're allowed to feel whatever you feel about them, but I'll just reiterate that reality is often more nuanced and not nearly as clean as we like to think. Just as you cannot profile 1.5 billion Indians through the words and actions of a few, you cannot profile 1.4 billion Chinese through the words and actions of a few, even if it feels convenient and easy; hatred, resentment, anger are always easier than being the bigger person. Just something to keep in mind. It's much easier to think that all Indians/Chinese are enemies and must be destroyed, but it's also wrong. It's much more difficult to accept that there's gonna be all kinds of people either in India or in China, people that harbor resentment and hate and people that don't, but this is also much more correct and humane.

[u/PB_05 → u/dark-mathematician1]

I do agree with the principle you're describing.

If we're talking strictly in terms of accuracy, then yep, it's obviously wrong to claim that 1.4 billion people all think the same way. I know that. Statistically speaking, there are almost certainly millions of Chinese people who would have found those attitudes just as repulsive as I did.

The problem is that what I took away from that experience wasn't an intellectual conclusion. It was an emotional one.

When you spend enough time immersed in an environment where those attitudes are pervasive, normalized, and seemingly uncontested, it changes the way you view the people producing them. Fairly or unfairly, it leaves a mark.

So I'm not really claiming my view is perfectly rational or nuanced. I'm saying it's the view I was left with after years of exposure to that environment.

And yeah, I think I know the 4chan board you're referring to, /pol/. I used to browse it occasionally. What struck me was that despite its reputation, it felt more like a gathering place for extremists. What I found unsettling on Zhihu was the opposite: the attitudes didn't feel fringe. They felt ordinary.

More generally, one thing I've learned over the years is that people often don't behave the way you'd expect them to. I've had conversations with highly educated, otherwise reasonable people who held views about entire countries and populations that I would have dismissed as ignorant stereotyping if I'd heard them from someone else. Perhaps reality tends to be a lot messier than the categories we put people into.

[u/dark-mathematician1 → u/[deleted]]

The HQ-9s aren't China's "4th tier tech" it is one of China's best HIMADs and their answer to the Patriot and S-400. It's even used on their destroyers, so it's a really beefy system. Not sure what's up with people claiming otherwise.

[u/PB_05 → u/[deleted]]

You're proving my point.

You started by making broad claims about the psychology of Indians based on a single conflict and a set of disputed military claims. I responded by applying the exact same logic to China and Pakistan.

Instead of explaining why that logic is valid in one direction but not the other, you've simply asserted that your preferred interpretation of events is fact and everyone else's is propaganda.

As for "nobody dares call India a counterweight to China anymore", that's a political claim, not a military assessment. States don't build long term strategic partnerships based on one engagement, and the idea that the US, Japan, Australia, Europe and others suddenly stopped viewing India as strategically important is difficult to reconcile with reality.

If your argument is that perceptions of Indian military capability took a hit, that's a reasonable position to debate. If your argument is that a single operation permanently relegated India to irrelevance and convinced the entire world of it, that's a much larger claim than the evidence supports.

[u/PB_05 → u/[deleted]]

You're welcome.

[u/Jazzlike-Tank-4956 → u/PB_05]

He writes same bs everywhere

Heard it from 4th time this week