Asian Outlook
By Ralph A. Cossa
Talk about restructuring
U.S. forces in East
Asia is prematureThere was a time when the Pentagon saw relieving regional anxiety as one of its primary alliance maintenance tasks in East Asia. Today it seems more adept at creating it.
I'm talking about the now infamous -- and frequently misquoted -- Los Angeles Times story about U.S. military force restructuring in East Asia. In that story, U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith is quoted as saying, "Everything is going to move everywhere ... There is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it used to be ... We're going to rationalize our posture everywhere -- in Korea, in Japan, everywhere."
The article also quotes unnamed senior Pentagon officials saying that plans were "on the table" to move the bulk of Marine forces now based in Okinawa to Australia, and that Washington was "seeking agreements to base Navy ships in Vietnamese waters and ground troops in the Philippines," as part of an effort to establish a "network of small bases" that would serve as "launching pads for moving U.S. forces quickly and clandestinely to future areas of conflict."
A reduction in Korea-based forces "is probably in the cards" as well, although plans have not yet been made "for fear of sending a signal of lack of resolve to North Korea." The latter is an important consideration, given the current nuclear crisis, but one wishes the Pentagon spent more time worrying about the signals it was sending South Korea as well. There seems to be an attitude among some in the Pentagon that Seoul needs to be punished for anti-American attitudes during the last election. This simplistic view overlooks the fact that ROK President Roh Moo-hyun has demonstrated great political courage since his election by strongly supporting the alliance and U.S. troop presence (not to mention a tougher approach toward Pyongyang), despite intense criticism from his core supporters.
The timing of the subsequent announcement that U.S. forces would eventually be moved south of Seoul reinforces feelings of anxiety. Some consolidation of forces north of Seoul is expected within the next year, with relocation to hubs south of South Korea's capital city planned later. The consolidation is both overdue and anticipated, but the timing of the announcement seems insensitive to ROK concerns.
As for the other projected movements, defense establishments in most of the countries named have been quick to point out that they have agreed to no such thing. This is not surprising. Largely overlooked in much of the reporting has been the story's last sentence -- "Pentagon officials say such options are still being discussed and stress that no final decisions have been made." That point was reinforced by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, who singled out reports about troop movements to Australia and the Philippines in particular as being inaccurate.
"Many studies have been done and many ideas have been presented," Wolfowitz said, "but no decisions have yet been made" and none would be made without close consultation with Congress and with "affected friends and allies in the region." If this is so, then why is Feith talking about "everything moving everywhere," and why do officials below him feel compelled to start filling in the details Feith deliberately left blank, right before their boss began a high-profile trip to East Asia?
To his credit, Wolfowitz, in remarks at the Asia Security Conference in Singapore, tried to lay out the broader rationale behind Washington's "fundamental look at our military posture worldwide," aimed at determining "how best to sustain the American commitment to this region in the face of the global demands on our defense resources."
Yes, changes in force structure were inevitable, he seemed to be saying, but they would not be made at the expense of the region's security. Unfortunately, this was Page 2 news. Front pages region-wide were filled with reports of the (real and imagined) restructuring plans, forcing Wolfowitz on the defensive from the moment he arrived in Asia.
I am not suggesting that Feith was trying to undercut his boss. But even if everyone's intentions were honorable, the comments reveal a lack of sensitivity to growing concerns about American unilateralism, while lending credence to skeptics' definition of "close consultations"; i.e., "Americans come in and tell us what they are going to do and we are expected to agree."
The truth is that there is little new here; debates about force restructuring in Asia have been ongoing for some time. What is new and potentially significant is the reported change in attitude toward China. In the past, most Pentagon statements focused on the need to counter a potential peer competitor. If the threat posed by China is now "pale beside that posed by unstable countries in Asia, Africa and the Middle East that are viewed as breeding grounds for terrorists," this would bring the Pentagon more in line with State Department thinking, which stresses cooperation rather than competition with China and the other great powers. If true, this would be welcomed news, indeed.
Ralph A. Cossa is president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, a Honolulu-based nonprofit research institute, and senior editor of Comparative Connections.