thedrifter
06-16-03, 06:10 AM
Pacific has eye on realignment horizon
By Joseph Giordono, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, June 15, 2003
YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — They’re moving. They’re not moving.
Those five words — referring to the thousands of U.S. Marines stationed on Okinawa — sum up what countless pages of newsprint and several breathless, front-page headlines have screamed in recent weeks.
At the center of the speculation are the Philippines and Australia. According to several reports, those two nations are likely hosts for 15,000 of Okinawa’s 20,000 U.S. Marines.
As quickly as reports of their possible departure emerged, however, officials on all sides wasted little time refuting them.
Regardless of whether the Marines pack up their gear and establish new bases in either country, both the Philippines and Australia have long-standing military histories with the United States that contribute to the ongoing speculation.
The Philippines
While Pentagon officials deny there is any plan to move 20,000 Marines from Okinawa, they acknowledge interest in moving some of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force away from its current bases.
Inevitably, the Philippines is mentioned as a possible location. It has perhaps the most long-standing — and tumultuous — relationship with the U.S. military.
From the time it was an American colony in the early 1900s, to its pivotal role as a World War II battlefield and the current struggle between Muslim rebels and U.S.-trained government troops, the Philippines has a history entwined with the U.S. military.
But in 1992, America’s last permanent base on the islands was closed. The local economies around U.S. bases at Clark Air Field and Subic Bay, once bustling hubs of the U.S. military, still struggle to replace what the bases meant to them.
With frequent exercises in the region — and a continuing Visiting Forces Agreement that governs those deployments — the bases still see action.
When Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, visited the Philippines last week for the annual meeting to discuss the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, the question of permanent bases flared up again.
Philippine officials say nothing of the sort is being planned.
Several phone interviews with members of the Philippine Foreign Secretary’s office resulted in the same answer — a statement issued by Foreign Secretary Blas Ople: “Both our countries have a clear idea of what we want and what we expect in our strategic relationship. The establishment of U.S. bases in the Philippines is not even contemplated.
“During the Cold War, the Philippines carried the burden of contributing to the stability of our region by hosting the U.S. bases, to the benefit of everyone else in the region. Perhaps it is time for other countries to share this burden.”
The ongoing exercises, though, have laid the foundation for a continued presence. U.S. troops have been stationed in Zamboanga the past two years, training Filipino commandos to battle rebel groups on southern islands.
During her May visit with President Bush in Washington, Philippine President Gloria Macagapal Arroyo said the American military has promised $47 million for “Balikatan 03-1.”
By Arroyo’s accounting, the U.S. has already spent $30 million on anti-terrorism training, $20 million for helicopters, planes and trucks, and donated 30,000 M-16 rifles worth $10 million.
According to a recent Washington Post article, U.S. forces in the Pacific — and elsewhere — will be arrayed in a series of smaller facilities, instead of large concentrations such as Okinawa. If that’s the case, some Marines could be moved to areas like Guam and Saipan, which were previously labeled “too small” for any significant move of forces.
Neither island would likely be able to support the relocation of an entire division, but existing facilities on Guam are able to house and provide training complexes for up to 2,500 troops, Marine officials said.
Guam is already seeing a buildup of Navy forces, including a squadron of attack submarines.
Australia
If open space is a concern, there is no better option than the wide-open expanses of Australia, where Marines and sailors frequently conduct exercises with their counterparts Down Under.
This summer will see the return of the “Crocodile” training exercise, a war game involving Australian and American troops on Australia’s northern coast. Crocodile 03 kicks off in August and features a Marine beach landing, officials said.
The Marines will be supported by ships from the Military Sealift Command, which has made frequent forays to Australian ports. American warships also make frequent port calls, and local business owners say they welcome the business.
“We welcome the American military with open arms. They are a credit to their country and are the best-mannered and behaved of any people we have had anything to do with,” said John Richards, who runs a T-shirt and hat company in the port city of Gladstone.
“We have provided embroidered shirts and caps to Japan and Guam for the military and merchant navy, and have a good relationship with many of the skippers.”
In 2001, 15,000 U.S. and 12,000 Australian troops participated in exercise Tandem Thrust, a monthlong mission at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area. It involved more than just troops — MSC ships transported hundreds of tanks, trucks, Humvees, heavy equipment and water tanks for use by the Marines’ 31st MEU.
But Steven Mills, a Gladstone city councilman, said that despite the good working relationship, most residents would probably balk at a large permanent presence.
“We all look forward to the next visit to Gladstone of the ships of the fleet and the people involved with those ships,” Mills wrote in an e-mail interview.
“I would say that there would be some reluctance by many Australians for the stationing of full-time troops from another nation in significant numbers on our soil. If you were to put yourself in the same position and another nation wanted to put significant numbers of troops into the US, what would be the reaction?
“This is not to say that Australia does not appreciate the alliance currently forged for I believe it does.”
Australia has also been a stalwart partner in recent U.S.-led conflicts, deploying troops for both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns.
But top Australian officials have unequivocally denied the reports, specifically dousing a claim that Washington had requested to station up to 15,000 Marines and support aircraft equipment at bases in Canberra.
“It hasn’t been raised with me, and it hasn’t been raised with the defense minister,” Australian Prime Minister John Howard told reporters.
While Howard made it clear he’s not saying “no” to a deployment, he reiterated that an inquiry has not been made.
“I don’t give advance, gratuitous, blank-check comments about the stationing of troops in this country to anybody,” he added. “If the Americans had a proposition, they would need to put it in the proper fashion and we would need to consider it. But I am not saying yes or no. The thing has not come up.”
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=16062
Sempers,
Roger
:marine:
By Joseph Giordono, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Sunday, June 15, 2003
YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — They’re moving. They’re not moving.
Those five words — referring to the thousands of U.S. Marines stationed on Okinawa — sum up what countless pages of newsprint and several breathless, front-page headlines have screamed in recent weeks.
At the center of the speculation are the Philippines and Australia. According to several reports, those two nations are likely hosts for 15,000 of Okinawa’s 20,000 U.S. Marines.
As quickly as reports of their possible departure emerged, however, officials on all sides wasted little time refuting them.
Regardless of whether the Marines pack up their gear and establish new bases in either country, both the Philippines and Australia have long-standing military histories with the United States that contribute to the ongoing speculation.
The Philippines
While Pentagon officials deny there is any plan to move 20,000 Marines from Okinawa, they acknowledge interest in moving some of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force away from its current bases.
Inevitably, the Philippines is mentioned as a possible location. It has perhaps the most long-standing — and tumultuous — relationship with the U.S. military.
From the time it was an American colony in the early 1900s, to its pivotal role as a World War II battlefield and the current struggle between Muslim rebels and U.S.-trained government troops, the Philippines has a history entwined with the U.S. military.
But in 1992, America’s last permanent base on the islands was closed. The local economies around U.S. bases at Clark Air Field and Subic Bay, once bustling hubs of the U.S. military, still struggle to replace what the bases meant to them.
With frequent exercises in the region — and a continuing Visiting Forces Agreement that governs those deployments — the bases still see action.
When Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, visited the Philippines last week for the annual meeting to discuss the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty, the question of permanent bases flared up again.
Philippine officials say nothing of the sort is being planned.
Several phone interviews with members of the Philippine Foreign Secretary’s office resulted in the same answer — a statement issued by Foreign Secretary Blas Ople: “Both our countries have a clear idea of what we want and what we expect in our strategic relationship. The establishment of U.S. bases in the Philippines is not even contemplated.
“During the Cold War, the Philippines carried the burden of contributing to the stability of our region by hosting the U.S. bases, to the benefit of everyone else in the region. Perhaps it is time for other countries to share this burden.”
The ongoing exercises, though, have laid the foundation for a continued presence. U.S. troops have been stationed in Zamboanga the past two years, training Filipino commandos to battle rebel groups on southern islands.
During her May visit with President Bush in Washington, Philippine President Gloria Macagapal Arroyo said the American military has promised $47 million for “Balikatan 03-1.”
By Arroyo’s accounting, the U.S. has already spent $30 million on anti-terrorism training, $20 million for helicopters, planes and trucks, and donated 30,000 M-16 rifles worth $10 million.
According to a recent Washington Post article, U.S. forces in the Pacific — and elsewhere — will be arrayed in a series of smaller facilities, instead of large concentrations such as Okinawa. If that’s the case, some Marines could be moved to areas like Guam and Saipan, which were previously labeled “too small” for any significant move of forces.
Neither island would likely be able to support the relocation of an entire division, but existing facilities on Guam are able to house and provide training complexes for up to 2,500 troops, Marine officials said.
Guam is already seeing a buildup of Navy forces, including a squadron of attack submarines.
Australia
If open space is a concern, there is no better option than the wide-open expanses of Australia, where Marines and sailors frequently conduct exercises with their counterparts Down Under.
This summer will see the return of the “Crocodile” training exercise, a war game involving Australian and American troops on Australia’s northern coast. Crocodile 03 kicks off in August and features a Marine beach landing, officials said.
The Marines will be supported by ships from the Military Sealift Command, which has made frequent forays to Australian ports. American warships also make frequent port calls, and local business owners say they welcome the business.
“We welcome the American military with open arms. They are a credit to their country and are the best-mannered and behaved of any people we have had anything to do with,” said John Richards, who runs a T-shirt and hat company in the port city of Gladstone.
“We have provided embroidered shirts and caps to Japan and Guam for the military and merchant navy, and have a good relationship with many of the skippers.”
In 2001, 15,000 U.S. and 12,000 Australian troops participated in exercise Tandem Thrust, a monthlong mission at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area. It involved more than just troops — MSC ships transported hundreds of tanks, trucks, Humvees, heavy equipment and water tanks for use by the Marines’ 31st MEU.
But Steven Mills, a Gladstone city councilman, said that despite the good working relationship, most residents would probably balk at a large permanent presence.
“We all look forward to the next visit to Gladstone of the ships of the fleet and the people involved with those ships,” Mills wrote in an e-mail interview.
“I would say that there would be some reluctance by many Australians for the stationing of full-time troops from another nation in significant numbers on our soil. If you were to put yourself in the same position and another nation wanted to put significant numbers of troops into the US, what would be the reaction?
“This is not to say that Australia does not appreciate the alliance currently forged for I believe it does.”
Australia has also been a stalwart partner in recent U.S.-led conflicts, deploying troops for both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns.
But top Australian officials have unequivocally denied the reports, specifically dousing a claim that Washington had requested to station up to 15,000 Marines and support aircraft equipment at bases in Canberra.
“It hasn’t been raised with me, and it hasn’t been raised with the defense minister,” Australian Prime Minister John Howard told reporters.
While Howard made it clear he’s not saying “no” to a deployment, he reiterated that an inquiry has not been made.
“I don’t give advance, gratuitous, blank-check comments about the stationing of troops in this country to anybody,” he added. “If the Americans had a proposition, they would need to put it in the proper fashion and we would need to consider it. But I am not saying yes or no. The thing has not come up.”
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=16062
Sempers,
Roger
:marine: