US Planning Historic Shift of Military Power Abroad

People Daily (China) ^ | 06.03.03

[Enemy Of The State]

US Planning Historic Shift of Military Power Abroad

 

The United States is planning to shift most of its forces from Germany, South Korea and Japan in the most sweeping realignment of American military power since World War II, US foreign and military officials said on Monday.

The plan would reorient America's presence in Europe eastwards to Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, and shift US power in eastern Asia toward southeastern Asia, with options for new bases in northern Australia, the Philippines and even Vietnam being explored, the NBC television network reported Monday.

Currently there are about 70,000 American troops based in Germany, 38,000 in South Korea and 47,000 in Japan, of which about30,000 are based on the tiny island of Okinawa.

The combination of new threats, the friction US 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, has convinced the Bush administration that a thorough reconfiguration of America's overseas presence is in order.

"What's 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," a senior US military officerwas quoted as saying.

As part of the sweeping plan to reposition US forces around theworld, US forces have largely pulled out of bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey over the last month. The pentagon has also moved rapidly to establish bases in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, in territories formerly controlled by the Soviet Union.

United States officials have publicly denied any concrete plansto move specific units or bases from one country to another. But Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz confirmed on Friday that acomplete rethink is underway.

"We are in the process of taking a fundamental look at our military posture worldwide, including in the United States," Wolfowitz told reporters during a visit to Singapore. "We're facing a very different threat than any one we've faced historically."

[ericthecurdog]

Quid...pro...quo. Reap the whirlwind Germany and Turkey.

[Cacophonous]

Why can't we bring them home?

[Buffalo Bob]

We need our forces deployed throughout the world, to beeyaatch-slap any uppity fools that get outta line.

[trebb]

Why can't we bring them home?

The logistics of deploying would be a nightmare if we didn't have footholds around the globe. Plus, our presence acts as a deterrent and can also be used as a sign of goodwill. I like the fact that we are looking to let the malcontents fend for themselves and lose the economic benefits of our presence...

[swarthyguy]

Interesting.

The US Defence Department has recommended viewing India as a strategic partner and selling modern American technology and equipment to ensure inter-operability between the two countries to meet any regional crisis or threats

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922352/posts

[GrandMoM]

I like the fact that we are looking to let the malcontents fend for themselves and lose the economic benefits of our presence...

....so do I!!!!!

[caltrop]

If by footholds around the globe you're referring to air and naval bases, I'd agree they're needed. If you're referring to large, permanent stationing of ground forces, I'd strongly disagree. By spreading our forces around the globe we create a logistics nightmare when it comes time to send them where they're needed. This is particularly true with the current small (10 division) Army. As an example, we've had 2/3rds of 2 divisions in Germany for the last few years. When it came time to move our tanks to Kosovo the Army found (after fifty years in Germany) that we couldn't ship our tanks to Kosovo through Switzerland because the tunnels were too small. It turned out the fastest way to get tanks to Kosovo was via Savannah, GA and not Germany.

We have 70,000 or so GIs (and their dependents) in Germany. They're maintained at huge cost and have no mission. Almost all of our ground forces should be permanently stationed here in the US. My guess is it'd be cheaper to rebuild our Navy and increase our startegic airlift capability to ensure we could get wherever we need to go than to continue to keep large ground forces overseas.

Beyond the financial and operational advantages we'd enjoy from concentrating our forces here we'd also reduce the inclination on the part of some to commit our forces just because they're there - as in Bosnia, for example.

[Go Gordon]

Why can't we bring them home?

We have about 7000 miles of border to protect (plus ports). I think after the icky shuffle is finished abroad, bringing back 5% of the forces for border patrol, rotated yearly, would be a HUGE step in the right direction. Coupled with a foreign works program (work permits for our friends south of the border) and its a win-win for business and national security.

[Nat Turner]

Why can't we bring them home?

what and protect the domestic borders?? < / sarcasm off >

[walford]

It should also not be lost on us that the source of this article is an organ of the Chinese Government.

This is even more important. Senior officers from the People's Liberation Army have repeatedly said that war is inevitable with the United States. They are slowly acclimating their people to accept that, based upon nationalistic pride rather than ideological fervor. Review the street protests that were permitted in Beijing after the Chinese embassy was bombed in Yugoslavia during the Clinton admin.

They learned the lessons of the USSR's fall and are resolved to not only avoid it, but to be militarily ascendant in the future. The Chinese Communist Party has an astute and realistic grasp of their current international position. They are watching what we are doing, assessing the international reactions and methodically biding their time.

Expect a major war within our lifetimes.

[Cacophonous]

oh...right...what was I thinking?

[kidd]

I think the People's Daily has been monitoring the Free Republic. A major piece of news like this has not been published in any domestic paper - and it would be really bad timing on the part of the Administration to release this information during the G8 summit.

I also doubt that any move from Korea is being considered.

OTOH this is an idea that most Freepers have agreed with, primarily as a means of exacting revenge on an unappreciative host nation and rewarding cooperative nations.

[randog]

The United States is planning to shift most of its forces from Germany...

I'll bet this has the Germans running scared--now who's going to marry all the ugly German girls?

[gcruse]

I read another article the other day from the CCP press. It was factual and without bias. You should always bring your brain to the party, but don't throw it out just because the source is one you strongly agree with, or strongly disagree with.

[caltrop]

Actually, I think this article (or one very close to it) was published yesterday somewhere else first. Other than that, I agree with your position that China is our biggest potential threat. In my view, that argues we should expand our Navy which would be our first defense against Chinese hostilities.

[Recon by Fire]

We need our forces deployed throughout the world, to beeyaatch-slap any uppity fools that get outta line.

Why? The initial troops deployed to Iraq came from Conus.

IMHO, There is no need to keep ground forces in Europe.

[Beck_isright]

Sucks to be a part of the Frog World Order. Enjoy your uselessness.

[thoughtomator]

Because a world war will start the minute they arrive on our shores. We keep much of the world from killing each other by deterrent force of arms. Just imagine, as one example, what China would do if we abandoned our bases in East Asia.

[Cacophonous]

So why don't we exact a payment from Japan and South Korea for keeping them from getting wiped out? I do not know how much money we spend to keep those countries from being wiped out, but shouldn't Japan and South Korea foot the bill? As long with say, 6% on top?

I would like to see a cost-benefit analysis of how much we spend over there...I'm sure someone with an objective viewpoint has done one at some time.