| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| U.S. planning historic shift abroad |
| 2003-06-02 |
| This one's long, but I thought it was worth posting... In the most sweeping realignment of American military power since World War II, the United States is planning to shift most of its forces from Germany, South Korea and the Japanese island of Okinawa, U.S. and foreign military officials say. The plans, still the focus of intense negotiations and debate among Americaâs allies and inside the Bush administration, would reorient Americaâs presence in Europe eastward to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, and shift U.S. power in the Far East toward southeast Asia, with options for new bases in northern Australia, the Philippines and even Vietnam being explored. In other words, "Old Europe can bite it!" BESIDES CLOSING military facilities that, in some cases, date to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1945, these officials say the moves being contemplated would have far reaching implications for Americaâs relationship with leading powers in Europe and Asia. There currently are some 70,000 American troops based in Germany, 38,000 in South Korea and 47,000 in Japan, about 30,000 of which are crammed onto the tiny island of Okinawa. To varying degrees, and for varying reasons, the presence of so many American troops in each place has become increasingly controversial. âWhatâs going on is partly a long-overdue adjustment, and partly a reaction to what is perceived as a very ungrateful attitude toward us in some quarters,â says a senior U.S. military officer, requesting anonymity. âNone of these places are ideal for American purposes anymore, and I think the time is just right to do it.â I second that. Let our men and women either come home, or go to countries that would like their help and welcome their dollars. The combination of new threats, the friction U.S. troops are causing domestically in these countries and a desire on the part of the Pentagon to rethink the structure of the military in general, and in particular the U.S. Army, has convinced the Bush administration that a thorough reconfiguration of Americaâs overseas presence is in order. While some units could be pulled back to the continental United States, officials say most currently are earmarked for redeployment abroad. Together with the recently announced decision to pullout from Saudi Arabia, the scope of the changes being contemplated are unprecedented. Unprecedented and damn long overdue. NEGOTIATIONS AND DEBATES American officials publicly have denied any concrete plans to move specific units or bases from one country to another. But on Friday, Paul Wolfowitz, the influential deputy defense secretary, confirmed that a complete rethink is underway. âWe are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture worldwide, including in the United States,â Wolfowitz told reporters during a visit to Singapore. âWeâre facing a very different threat than any one weâve faced historically.â Some of that threat is coming from our supposed "allies". *cough*France*cough* Turning American military strategy away from South Korea, Germany and Japanâs island of Okinawa, three places where American troops fought and died over territory, raises enormous questions. Among the most important, where to put the nearly 150,000 troops currently based in those countries. How about along our own borders? God knows Canada and Mexico aren't going to look out for our best interests. How about port duty? Lots of containers coming through that need to be checked. EUROPE: TO THE EAST, MARCH Currently, according to a senior military officer involved in planning these moves, plans call for shifting most of the forces currently based in Germany into three newly democratic nations: Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. The fact that all three stood by the United States in the run up to the recent war in Iraq certainly doesnât hurt, the officer says. But other officials, some of whom admitted that they favored the moves to send a message to long-time allies, also confirmed that the gist of the planned draw down in Germany dates back as far as the Clinton administration. The European moves would likely be in phases, according to these sources, with ground forces and some air units moving first, followed by hospital, support and armored forces â all harder to move â at some later date. One officer suggested that several complex American facilities, such as the Ramstein Air Force Base, might continue to operate, perhaps under NATO auspices. All three potential host countries already have indicated their willingness to accommodate American forces. In April, the Pentagon announced the sale of F-16 warplanes to Poland at knock down prices, ostensibly as thanks for the work Polish special forces troops did in Iraq, but officials say this is part of an ongoing effort to cement U.S.-Polish ties generally. Damn straight. It seems that the former Eastern Bloc countries have good memory retention in regards to what living under the boot of the USSR was like. They haven't forgotten who took the risks and footed the bill for most of the Cold War. U.S. aircraft already are using air fields in both Bulgaria and Romania to keep units in Iraq and Afghanistan supplied, and the governments of both nations â eager to win NATO membership next year â have invited the U.S. to establish permanent bases. ASIA: REDUCING EXPOSURE In Asia, the situation is somewhat different. Recent elections in South Korea exposed a deep strain of anti-Americanism that rankled the Bush administration. In Okinawa, the Japanese island that was site of one of World War IIâs bloodiest battles, similar feelings have developed over the past decade toward the 30,000 American Marines and soldiers there. Having led the intervention on behalf of South Korea in 1950, Washington has kept some 38,000 troops in place since the truce that ended combat in 1953. The troops are regarded as a âtrip wireâ force â in effect, a force large enough to slow but not win a war against the North. With political support for the U.S. presence faltering in the south, many in Washington are wondering about the long term benefits of such an exposed position. âMy reading is that the U.S. forces in Korea need to be redeployed,â says Dr. Melvin Ott, a professor of national security studies at the National War College in Washington. âItâs two things, really: the internal political sensitivities in South Korea, and secondly, a rethinking of how vulnerable you want to be.â Initially, officials say, the idea was to address South Korean complaints and the vulnerability of forward deployed U.S. forces to North Korean artillery by redeploying them further south down the peninsula. But estimates of the costs involved, officials say, have led many to push for a much larger draw down from Korea, combined with a shift of American forces out of Okinawa, all aimed at creating a larger presence in southeast Asia and along the periphery of China. I guess it's okay for us to die for the Koreans as long as we don't ask anything in return. Of cours, when we propose moving our troops from the potential front of a NK attack, they cry "foul"! Ingrates. âThe thinking is that, if youâre saying softly that China and Islamic terrorism are the issues in the long run, then concentrating your forces in Northeast Asia doesnât make a whole lot of sense,â says Ott. Basing options in Asia are more limited, however. Northern Australia, a mere 200 miles from the southern islands of Indonesia, is considered the most likely site, though officials confirm that talks for various types of air, sea and ground basing rights are underway with the Philippines and Malaysia, as well. Both, however, seem unlikely hosts to American ground troops. Too many leftists in Australia to allow a basing of US troops there. Even Vietnam is being approached, according to Russian reports. Moscowâs own Pacific Fleet is pulling out of the big port of Can Rahm Bay on July some 25 years after Hanoi invited the Soviet Navy into what was formerly a U.S. Navy base. Now, according to the Novye Izvestia newspaper, Vietnam is in talks with the U.S. to grant landing and port rights on a fee-paying basis. CULTURAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS Uprooting decades of military infrastructure from South Korea, Germany and Okinawa will not be simple, however, either from a physical standpoint or a psychological one. Generations of American soldiers have cycled through such outposts as the sprawling Warner Barracks in Bamberg, Germany, the huge Yonsang Army Garrison in Seoul or the Marinesâ Camp Courtney in Okinawa. These facilities and the âLittle Americasâ that grew up around them to house family members play an underrated role in the relationship between the U.S. and the host nations. Most American men over 40 know someone â a brother, an uncle, a friend â who has spoken kindly of the Germans, Koreans or Japanese they met while serving there. More seriously, adjusting the posture of the worldâs dominant military power invariably will be seen as a threat by those suddenly confronted with the hyperpower on their doorstep. Russia repeatedly has warned that it takes a dim view of the idea of American bases in Eastern Europe, though since 9/11, when Moscow acceded to the establishment of U.S. bases in former Soviet Central Asia, some of those concerns may have diminished. Interestingly, the issue appeared absent completely from Bushâs discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin over the weekend. And we take a dim view of Russia selling arms to Iran, and Saddam's Iraq. Asian powers traditionally are a bit more jittery about such things. Already candidates in the Indonesian presidential election next year are citing the potential U.S. presence in Australia as a provocation. Malaysiaâs Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed routinely rails against American hegemony, and in the Philippines, plans for a more potent U.S. role in battling Muslim guerillas there had to be abandoned because of prohibitions in the nationâs constitution against the basing of foreign troops on its soil â a provision that reflects lingering unhappiness with the fact that U.S. troops based troops there for nearly a century until the early 1990s. Allah knows we surely don't want to upset the Muslims. They might be driven to use terrorism. Oh, wait... More than any other nation, however, China has been watching the situation carefully. Ott and other experts in Asian security studies say that analysts at Chinese defense universities have been chewing over the implications of the planned American troops shifts for some time, though Chinaâs government has been characteristically quiet. They're quiet because they are still going through all that juicy info. the Clinton admin. handed them. Hell, they probably know more about our troop deployment than Tommy Franks. Even in Australia, where attitudes toward the United States are broadly positive, there is concern about how the sudden appearance of large numbers of American troops on Australian soil would affect relations with the countryâs neighbors. âI donât think it would be a good thing at all and itâs not something we ought to encourage,â Kim Beazley, a former defense minister, told the Australian Broadcasting Company on Friday. Frankly Kim, I don't either. If I had my druthers, I would have all our troops home, close to their families, protecting our borders and spending their money at American businesses. Regardless of what most of the world thinks, Americans don't like being where they are not wanted. |
| Posted by:Celissa |
| #8 Come to Australia, Please COME HERE TO AUSTRALIA we really do want you how fantastic to have a shield to fend of the Indo's to the north. But you are right we have so many stupid dicks on the left like Beasley, Crean, Mark Latham (upset your ambassador with a filthy anti-US tirade in parliament) the Greens etc that it would be hard. I think that's a great idea if you let it be well known that it is a joint US-Australian base, emphasise that we are skill sharing, joint training but just make sure there are 50,000 US troops here to the 5,000 Aussies! Great for business, great for Darwin property prices ( I knew I should have bought that terrace in The Gardens for $180,000)and GREAT FOR US GIRLS. My friend Kati and I were joking: let me at 'em! American men are so good looking and generally polite and lovely I want to have 50,000 of them so I can pick and choose. |
| Posted by: Anon1 2003-06-02 21:00:32 |
| #7 Northern Australia might not be a bad place to deploy the 2nd Infantry Division. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-06-02 20:57:19 |
| #6 Aussie Mike, All I can say is that it would be one "hell of a bull session" listening to your pilots and our pilots trying to play "one up!" Fighter pilots, the good ones at least, are the same the world over. Would be great fun to hear a tape recording of THAT session! All the Best. |
| Posted by: Ralph 2003-06-02 20:31:22 |
| #5 Do we really have more leftists than the US? Even on a percentage basis? You guys have Mike Moore etc? A little known fact in Australia is that we already host a foreign military power - Singapore, which has a significant part of its Air Force here permanently. There is close to zero political concern about this. At least please base some airplanes at RAAF Tindal. It is a popular duty station in the RAAF(lots of outdoorsy type activities and the Northern Territory has NO open road speed limits.) I'm sure our fighter pilots will enjoy showing your fighter pilots how to do it :-) |
| Posted by: Aussie Mike 2003-06-02 19:58:11 |
| #4 All good things come to an end. Fortress America is looking better and better all the time. |
| Posted by: Hiryu 2003-06-02 18:00:54 |
| #3 Australia's so huge, our guys could plunk down in the middle of nowhere, establish a reverse osmosis fresh water generation plant and call it home. If Australia rejects US forces, it's not going to be due to lack of space - the reason will be opposition from neighbors that want to preserve their freedom of action in resolving territorial disputes by force. A major US base in Australia would place severe constraints on any empire-building fantasies Australia's neighbors might have. Asian countries still entertain the notion that Australia is "Asian" and therefore terra nova for their imperialistic fantasies - Japan was merely the first Asian country to act on that view (during WWII). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2003-06-02 16:29:11 |
| #2 Actually, I think that a relatively small U.S. base in Australia would work well, as long as it was well known that Australian troops trained there as well. Maybe a co-basing deal of some kind. More for U.S. use the Aussie, but good for the Aussies too. No reason we can't invite the the Brits down for Tea & Crumpets from time to time either. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-06-02 14:57:18 |
| #1 left out an an 'e' on "of course" |
| Posted by: Celissa 2003-06-02 14:40:05 |