Posted on 05/10/2003 11:51:13 AM PDT by Ready4Freddy
05/09/2003
By KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON & DIANNE FEINSTEIN
As the recent military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have illustrated, the Cold War concept that has guided the basing of the U.S. military overseas is obsolete. Yet the number, structure and scope of our overseas bases still are aligned largely for the threat of Soviet aggression.
The process of when, how and why we base troops abroad is in need of a thorough examination to ensure that our basing structure is adequate for the new security environment. As the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate military construction subcommittee, we have proposed legislation to assess every overseas installation.
During the Cold War, our primary military mission was to defend our nation and our allies from the Soviet threat of aggression, and "boots on the ground" in Europe and Asia allowed us to do just that.
But even though the Cold War has been over for a decade, our nation still has 112,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in Korea and 45,000 in Japan, mainly in installations designed, devised and intended for the threats of an earlier era. Training constraints are evident in many of those bases.
Today, the threats we face are different. They come largely from terrorist groups or rogue states gaining weapons of mass destruction. Events of the last decade, especially since Sept. 11, have taught us that we need not only to maintain a military presence abroad but to be in a position to support contingencies where we have no permanent bases, such as in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Africa and throughout the Middle East.
In the final analysis, we may need more troops based overseas, not fewer, but the needs clearly are different from what they once were, and it is critical that the United States move beyond the Cold War basing concepts.
This isn't simply a matter of security – although that is sufficient concern – but also of ensuring that taxpayer dollars are well spent. The Defense Department has requested $174 million for Korea and $284 million for Germany for military construction next year, a large bill for a model in transition.
In South Korea, our soldiers often serve on the same patches of ground that U.S. troops occupied when the Korean War ended in 1953. Today, those training areas are inadequate to accommodate the extended reach of our weapons and the rapid pace of modern warfare. In Grafenwoehr, Germany, our troops train on tank and artillery ranges used by the Bavarian Army more than a century ago.
Further complicating matters, the Defense Department is preparing for another round of domestic base closures in 2005. As we scrutinize stateside military installations, we must take a look at our worldwide structure as well.
To make sure we get the answers to those questions right, we have introduced bipartisan legislation to create a congressional commission to take an objective and thorough look at our overseas basing structure.
The commission will consider a host of criteria to determine whether our bases are prepared to meet our needs in the 21st century. It will be composed of national security and foreign affairs experts who will provide a comprehensive analysis of our worldwide base and force structure to the 2005 domestic Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
Such a review is timely. Some in the Pentagon have suggested the domestic commission could result in the closure of nearly one of every four domestic bases. But if, after a careful review, we reduce our overseas presence, we will need stateside bases to station returning troops.
It is senseless to close bases on U.S. soil only to realize later that we made a costly, irrevocable mistake – a painful lesson we learned in the last round of closures.
Our national security strategy is shifting to take on the new threats facing our nation. The position of U.S. troops around the globe must reflect that thinking.
U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison is a Republican from Texas. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat from California.
What other locales have the possibilty of basing quick response type units?
Makes one wonder about SK, tho - would we be better off bailing out of there (considering the current SK regime's attitude of ingratitude :) and see what happens?
This was probably fineswines only contribution to the article.
What other Diego Garcia type bases are possibilities, and
What about SK? Any point in sticking there, given their anti-US tirades lately?
If I can refurbish a barracks as an apartment building, then I can get a far better price for it.
I think some of our union contracts in Germany require us to pay the retirements of any German workers displaced by base closures (and other such things). We'll be paying someone in Germany for a long time to come.
I had the same feelings as you (what a waste of money!) until someone explained the process to me.
Doesn't seem to be too militantly Islamic, but I don't know if they're amenable to a US base there. Good location, though.
The shrub you're referring to is usually spelled khat (as if there is a usual spelling for arab words, eh? :). Rather than a 'buzz like caffeine', the active ingredient in khat is more pharmacologically related to amphetamines - it'll keep ya up & alert for days whilst waiting in a tree for things worth killing to pass by :>).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.