November 22, 2003
THE PACIFIC CENTURY:
US reorganizes its military might (Alan Boyd, 11/20/03, Asia Times)
Thailand, the Philippines and Australia have been targeted as possible US defense staging posts just days after the United States announced that it would restructure its forces in Asia, and as the Pentagon is considering a partial pullout from its remaining Asian bases in Okinawa and South Korea. [...]"Some allies are obviously going to be more important than others. Japan, Korea and Australia will remain the linchpins because they operate the same basic defensive platforms as the US and are more in tune politically," said a diplomat. "Staging points are a logistics rather than a strategic concept. Singapore is the model, as it has performed the role through Changi [naval base] for a number of years, to the extent that it is now servicing Nimitz-class carrier groups."
The US, Japan and Australia formed a liaison group last year to study how East Asia's security and defense capabilities could be enhanced, and it is currently meeting in Canberra. Frontline countries will be offered more training and equipment, but will also be expected to assume increased responsibility for their own defense once the US streamlines its presence in the region.
Despite the obsessive focus of Atlanticists on our relations with yesterday's nations--like France and Germany--Australia, the Philippines, India, and the like are far more important to our future. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 22, 2003 6:18 AM
Speaking as an Australian I must say, tally ho!
Posted by: Amos at November 22, 2003 11:04 AMWe shouldn't pull out *entirely* from Okinawa. I lived there for three years, and I can tell you first-hand that Kadena Air Base is too valuable a facility to lose, being as centrally located in the middle of the western Pacific Rim as it is. However, it would probably be a good idea for 3rd Marine Division to redeploy closer to where the action is likely to be - that is, in Southeast Asia. Thailand would be ideal; their military is small, but high-quality, and they're *very* active in the counter-terror war. In fact, given recent developments, maybe we might even look at leasing dock space at Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam...
Posted by: Joe at November 22, 2003 5:53 PMI agree that forward bases are very important, which is why the idea of leaving Iraq to the Iraqis has so many drawbacks.
Nevertheless, the Navy's base for antisubmarine operations is in Oklahoma. We have a global military reach.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 24, 2003 1:05 AMHarry:
I don't think that the US is contemplating removing ALL forces from Iraq, merely turning over the administration of the country to the Iraqis.
I wouldn't be surprised if we garrisoned tens of thousands of troops there for decades.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 24, 2003 6:30 AMIt seems like we need to get our troops the hell
out of southern Iraq and get some basis
set up in the Turko/Kurd regions of the North.
Better climate, lower profile. Can still keep
an eye on the Iran/Syra/Iraq/Saudi nexus.
I don't believe the administration's intent is to withdraw entirely from Iraq. But Orrin's is.
I can more easily see the US entirely out of Iraq in, say, 10 years than I could have out of Germany or Japan by 1956. Simply because there was a big ogre right next to Germany and Japan.
Should Iraq prove capable of self-government -- which I doubt but I'll be pleased to be wrong -- then there's little obvious reason why we'd want to keep a garrison there.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 25, 2003 12:44 AMHarry:
We'll certainly leave troops for awhile to help the new government, but all this stuff you see about permanent bases seems pretty silly. They don't want us and we're not going to force a democratic Iraq to accept us.
Posted by: oj at November 25, 2003 8:17 AM