Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Saturday, October 7, 2000
A searching review of the American strategy of stationing ground forces in South Korea and Japan is under way to see whether those forces can be reduced or withdrawn. Instead, the United States would rely on warships, air power, and rapidly deployable ground forces to maintain a military presence in Asia. U.S. reviews
deployment of
troops in Japan
and South KoreaStudy analyzes whether
ground forces can be
reduced or withdrawnBy Richard Halloran
Special to the Star-BulletinSenior U.S. officials emphasized that no decisions have been made as this examination is still under discussion among military leaders in Washington, the Pacific Command here, U.S. Forces in Japan and U.S. Forces in Korea.
They further emphasized the review was not intended to lessen U.S. security commitments in Asia.
Even so, a fundamental shift in the composition of U.S. forces in Asia is contemplated over the next five or so years. The review includes forces in South Korea and Japan, notably Okinawa, because Northeast Asia is considered an integrated operational area.
While this review is being conducted out of the public eye, political and military leaders have denied that a reduction was being considered. A Pentagon spokeman, in a carefully worded statement, said "there is no study or report" on reducing U.S. ground forces in South Korea and Japan.
Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week that a review was possible but it would be "premature" to foresee a reduction. Secretary of Defense William Cohen told South Korean leaders recently that no pullout was planned. Even President Clinton, in a statement in the New York Times, said a reduction should not be considered.
Nonetheless, military officers said on condition of anonymity, the review is in response to several trends. They indicated that the United States must respond to protests in Korea and Japan against the presence of U.S. forces. "I don't think this is anti-Americanism so much as anti-base-ism," said a senior officer. "The Japanese and Koreans want their alliances with us but they don't want our troops on their sovereign soil."
That warning was included in a recent study published by the National Intelligence Council in Washington, which concluded, "An unmoving U.S. stance on military bases and related issues would risk nationalistic backlash in Japan and perhaps South Korea."
In Seoul, Koreans have repeatedly protested around the U.S. headquarters in a former Japanese base around which the city has grown. In Okinawa, memories are still fresh about the rape of a junior high school girl by two American servicemen five years ago; it has accentuated long-festering resentments against the U.S. presence. Surveys in both nations indicate that public support for U.S. forces stationed there has dropped.
In the United States, the review anticipates the new president who will take office in January. Military leaders want to present a coherent strategy that will win the support of their new civilian superiors -- or to avert what they consider bad ideas.
In addition, Congress has mandated that the Pentagon prepare a Quadrennial Defense Review, a comprehensive examination of the strategy, arms and readiness of the armed forces. The review of U.S. forces in Korea and Japan is intended to contribute to the overall defense review due in 2001.
The U.S. claims it maintains 100,000 troops forward deployed in Asia and the Pacific. But senior military officers have quietly downplayed that number in public in favor of the number 300,000, which includes all forces in the Pacific Command, including those in the U.S. West Coast, Alaska and Hawaii.
Whatever the outcome of the review, changes would be made only after careful consultation with U.S. allies in Korea and Japan. Officials appeared to be mindful of the turmoil caused by President Jimmy Carter, who declared in the election campaign of 1976 that he would remove most U.S. ground forces from South Korea.
Seoul and Tokyo were alarmed that such a change would be made without consulting them. Confronted with such resistance, plus that in the U.S. armed forces, President Carter relented.
In addition, officials said, no changes would be made until China and North Korea understood that the American security commitment to Korea and Japan remained in place. In particular, said one official, "we've got to get something from North Korea first."
That something would be a reduction in North Korean forces along the demilitarized zone that divides the peninsula. About 70 percent of North Korea's army, including long-range artillery and rocket launchers, is stationed within a short distance of the DMZ. North Korea would also be required to eliminate missiles that could range U.S. forces as far away as Okinawa.
Even so, this changes the U.S. negotiating position with North Korea, suggesting that U.S. ground forces in South Korea could become a bargaining chip. They would be reduced or withdrawn from South Korea in return for visible, verifiable reductions in the North Korean threat to South Korea and Japan.
Transferring the U.S. ground troops would be a problem primarily of cost. "We have plenty of places where we could put them," said one official. Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and other Pacific islands, or the U.S. West Coast might be home base for the Second Infantry Division in Korea. Tanks, artillery and heavy equipment could be stored on ships or ashore in Korea in case the troops were required to return.
The Third Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa has looked at a new base in northern Australia where it would be close to Indonesia, the Philippines and the disputed South China Sea. Another possibility would be northern Okinawa, which is relatively uninhabited and away from present bases in densely populated southern Okinawa.
The new look in the U.S. military posture in Asia would be joint mission forces of Army and Marine troops moved by air and sea, naval ships and submarines, and air power comprising aircraft carriers, Air Force fighters and long range bombers. They would be drawn from bases anywhere, trained and dispatched on a mission. When it was over, they would go home again.
Richard Halloran, a former New York Times
correspondent in Asia, is a freelance
writer based in Honolulu.