Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Plan to Shift Bases Shakes Up Allies
Insight ^ | Dec. 15, 2003 | Jamie Dettmer

Posted on 12/15/2003 7:03:43 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe


The Kremlin was quick off the mark. Within hours of Washington acknowledging in late November that it had begun formal negotiations to take over several Polish military bases, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned during a trip to Warsaw that any reconfiguration of the U.S. military presence in Europe must consider his country's national-security interests.

According to a Russian official, "The Kremlin is not concealing from the Americans or the Poles its negative attitude toward Polish-American discussions about relocating bases in Germany." But in the weeks to come the Russians won't be the only ones jittery about a long-touted repositioning of U.S. forces and bases. For different reasons allies and foes across the globe are exercised about ambitious Bush administration plans to shift and reshuffle tens of thousands of GIs posted around the world.

The Polish talks are just the start of the biggest U.S. military realignment since the end of World War II. With the war on terrorism in mind, and the need to rethink overseas base locations in the light of the military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, Pentagon planners have been working for months on what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calls a "readjustment to fit the 21st century."

In November, President George W. Bush himself addressed the issue of a major realignment, saying in a statement: "The once-familiar threats facing our nation, our friends and our allies have given way to the less predictable dangers associated with rogue nations, global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It remains for us to realign the global posture of our forces to better address these new challenges."

Informal talks have been under way for weeks with old allies such as Japan, South Korea and Germany about a possible reduction of U.S. troops in their countries, and there have been negotiations, too, about establishing new bases in the former East Bloc countries of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Last summer Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy U.S. defense secretary, held talks in Bucharest on establishing U.S. bases in Romania. For the Germans and the South Koreans, slated troop and base reductions spell economic loss. There also are concerns in Seoul at any moves that would reduce the U.S. military commitment on the peninsula. Pentagon sources say that changes being discussed include moving U.S. soldiers away from the Korean Demilitarized Zone.

Elsewhere in Asia, troops currently based in Japan could find themselves shifted to Australia. A healthy spin-off from that might be a reduction in hostility from locals toward the large presence of U.S. troops in Okinawa. And smaller bases are envisaged for several other countries in the region.

And in the Balkans, sources say, the Pentagon is keen to build an air base at Camp Sarafovo in Bulgaria and to establish U.S. facilities at the air base of Mihail Kogalniceanu in Romania. There also is a good chance that U.S. facilities at the Black Sea port of Constanta will be upgraded. So quickly is the Pentagon working now that some troops currently serving in Iraq could learn that their home bases have shifted before their tours of duty are completed, among them the 1st Armored Division, which is scheduled to leave Iraq in January and return to Germany.

As far as Pentagon planners are concerned, the logistical problems they encountered in deploying units such as the 1st Armored to Iraq confirm the need for the repositioning of U.S. forces based overseas. The Pentagon was frustrated in the run-up to the Iraq War with the time it took to move equipment for U.S. armored divisions out of Germany and to deliver them to the Persian Gulf.

But even before the Iraq War, Rumsfeld and his top aides were sketching out plans for realignment. For them too much of the U.S. global military posture was outdated and designed to fight an adversary that no longer was on the battlefield - namely, the Soviet Union. They wanted more forward, but smaller, bases and lighter and more mobile forces that could react quickly, be deployed fast against enemies and project power. Rumsfeld and his aides thought advanced U.S. military technology and air power would reduce the need for the kind of expensive and large foreign outposts required during the Cold War.

Since 9/11 the Pentagon hasn't confined itself to planning. Away from the public gaze, the United States has been securing air bases and landing rights and signing military agreements with a series of countries located in what military planners call the "arc of instability" - namely, troubled and failing nations in parts of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and Central Asia. Military bases have been upgraded or established in Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bulgaria, Romania, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Georgia, Djibouti and the Philippines.

Ahead of final agreement with the Poles, millions of dollars already have been spent on repairing runways, improving infrastructure and building roads at the Krzesiny air base near Poznan in western Poland.

The U.S. military has been pressing for dispersal of its assets in Europe for some years. The amount of money invested in bases in Germany acted as a political deterrent. So, too, did German opposition. But Bonn no longer is in favor because of its opposition to the war in Iraq, and two of the U.S. Army's six heavy divisions remain based in Germany. "That's a huge fraction of our army for a theater that doesn't plausibly offer any operations to use those forces," writes Michael O'Hanlon, a military strategist at the Brookings Institution.

Some experts, though, worry that pulling U.S. assets out of "old Europe" might make the Germans and the French even more reluctant to agree to U.S. requests. On the other hand, say Pentagon hard-liners, what does it matter? As far as Rumsfeld is concerned, there is no need for the kind of large, expensive and permanent overseas bases that predominated during the Cold War. Speaking at a news conference, Rumsfeld remarked: "We're moving worldwide from a static defense to a different footprint." Overall he wants larger and quicker naval and airlift capacity able to exploit equipment stockpiles located overseas and to utilize harbors and air bases abroad for replenishment and as temporary strike bases.

Many critics say the Pentagon is out to create a new military empire spanning the globe. They worry also that a military presence in so many far-flung places might encourage U.S. adventurism and intervention when national-security interests really aren't at stake.

Supporters of the Rumsfeld plan maintain that what is being planned isn't an old-fashioned imperial vision but a program that will cut costs and allow U.S. forces to strike fast and quickly on the global battlefield against terrorism. Furthermore, they argue that by having a lot more options from which to launch strikes the United States won't be so reliant on a handful of allies. According to Celeste Johnson Ward of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, this vision in some ways is born out of American distrust of some of its oldest allies, including Germany, which opposed the war in Iraq.


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Russia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: jamiedettmer; militarybases; newnwo; oldeurope; troopmovement; usmilitary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last
Russia Feeling Jealous of American Influence

Dec. 15, 2003
By Jamie Dettmer

Before 9/11 few would have forecast that Moscow might give the green light for the United States to station troops and establish bases in any of the five oil-rich and turbulent states of Central Asia - what the Russians jealously like to call the "Near Abroad." But when hijacked airliners were slammed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon they turned the world upside down. Russian cooperation came quickly with President Vladimir Putin deciding to help solve several U.S. logistical problems in its plan to strike at Afghanistan and approving the basing of U.S. forces in the states of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan for search-and-rescue missions and special operations.

But the Kremlin elicited a pledge that the U.S. presence in the independent but heavily Russian-influenced Central Asian states would be only temporary, say Moscow sources. Now the U.S. presence looks to be a semipermanent one, and the leaders of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan have been keen to work both sides of the fence. According to Kremlin sources, Putin has encouraged the Central Asian leaders to tell the Americans that it is time to go, but the responses he has received have been ambiguous at best.

In a bid to restore some of Moscow's lost influence in the region, the Kremlin secured agreement earlier this year from Kyrgyzstan President Askar Akayev to establish an air base in his country at Kant. In October, the base was opened - a mere 20 miles from the U.S. air base at Manas. Putin insisted that the Russian facility is not meant to compete with the U.S. base. "One base will complement the other," he said.

That isn't the way some Russian commentators see it. Military analyst Alexander Golts says there is little military logic to the base at Kant. "Political symbolism is more important than military significance," he explains.

1 posted on 12/15/2003 7:03:43 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
If Russia made arrangements with Mexico to build a military base in Monterey, Mexico, for the purpose of forward staging in case of turmoil in South America, would the US protest?
2 posted on 12/15/2003 7:35:02 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Damn right. I'm far from a bleeding heart, but I don't see any reason to poke the bear in the eye.
3 posted on 12/15/2003 7:49:24 PM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
I would not be surprised to see the Philippines become a sort of unsinkable aircraft carrier.

The Philippines-USA relationship is more than 50 years old and Filipinos have a great aversion to dictators and Muslim terrorists.

4 posted on 12/15/2003 8:05:28 PM PST by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
If Russia made arrangements with Mexico to build a military base in Monterey, Mexico, for the purpose of forward staging in case of turmoil in South America, would the US protest?
I suppose you've never heard of Cuba.
5 posted on 12/15/2003 8:08:56 PM PST by Asclepius (karma vigilante)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
If Russia made arrangements with Mexico to build a military base in Monterey, Mexico, for the purpose of forward staging in case of turmoil in South America, would the US protest?

Maybe we can subcontract the Russians out and get them to patrol the Mexico-USA border for us since our "leaders" don't seem to be doing too great of a job defending our country.

6 posted on 12/15/2003 8:10:44 PM PST by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
I suppose you've never heard of Cuba.

Russia was our enemy then.  Are you saying the US and Russia
are now where the US and the USSR were?
7 posted on 12/15/2003 8:12:53 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xrp
I like it. The Russians have more recent experience at real border control. I'd gladly pay.
8 posted on 12/15/2003 8:13:57 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Asclepius
Also, Russia not longer supports or has bases in Cuba.
9 posted on 12/15/2003 8:15:44 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe
"... some of its oldest allies, including Germany"

Here's that same LIE again!! Can they be so ignorant to not know about Germany in 1917-1918 or 1941-1945? No they can't. It's simply a LIE told so so big that they think you will not notice. Germany was quite possibly America's biggest adversary for the whole first half of the 20th Century! Germany is not in any way shape or form an "old ally."

10 posted on 12/15/2003 8:19:14 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

Welcome to Krzesiny airfield


11 posted on 12/15/2003 8:30:29 PM PST by kaiser80 (You are most welcome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"Russia was our enemy then. Are you saying the US and Russia are now where the US and the USSR were?"

But isn't your first question based on this exact premise? Decide which point you want to debate from before you ask for answers.
12 posted on 12/15/2003 8:30:46 PM PST by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Besides, Polish women are some of the most beautiful in the world. Our armed forces deserve the best!
13 posted on 12/15/2003 8:31:55 PM PST by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kaiser80
Some paint scheme!

The Polish Tyzghkijyrs?

14 posted on 12/15/2003 8:44:15 PM PST by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: okie01
:) yes, that's tygrys (tiger)


15 posted on 12/15/2003 8:55:27 PM PST by kaiser80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
But isn't your first question based on this exact premise?
 Decide which point you want to debate from before you ask for answers.


What premise?  I asked if we would object to Russia doing what we are doing in Eastern Europe, ie, establishing bases in countries in their back yard over which they have no control.
16 posted on 12/15/2003 8:56:39 PM PST by gcruse (http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
...your premise being that we still have some sort of cold war animosity left over between us and russia - which is also a theoretical question based on the false assumption that they are something other than the militarily weak (except for nuclear) power that they now are.

So you pose a question based on two false premises - that there is some sort of cold war still going on, and that russia actually would be able to put some credible military force near our borders. Then someone comes up with an historical analogy, and you say, hey, no fair, that's old news - while all you're doing is trying to start a debate on facts that are no longer accurate. Sorta like having your cake and eating it, too, but not exactly.

And what the hell does it matter what russia thinks? We would be putting troops in sovereign countries - they no longer hold any power over these former bloc countries. Maybe that's what they're afraid of - a final nail in their coffin of former 'greatness'. The only question is why are you afraid of it, and why do you give a damn what russia thinks?
17 posted on 12/15/2003 9:52:19 PM PST by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Okay...picture the US of present strength...now picture us having less than a tenth of our current power. That's the bargaining position the Russains are in. For God's sake can someone PLEASE start acting like it was us who won the Cold War and not them!

I think its time for the Russians to sit down, shut up and recognize the limits of their power.
18 posted on 12/15/2003 9:58:49 PM PST by Live free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
No, we'd go belly up and let them have Mexico like we did with Cuba, maybe sell out any Mexicans that didn't like it, like we did the Cubans.
19 posted on 12/15/2003 9:59:18 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
Russia promised to get out of Lourdes in Cuba, but then changed its mind.
20 posted on 12/15/2003 10:01:15 PM PST by piasa (Attitude adjustments offered here free of charge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson