News

Plan to Move Marines Off Okinawa Faces Challenges

FA-18 air fighters prepare to take off on the U.S. carrier George Washington in the Pacific near Minamidaito Island in Okinawa Prefecture, southern Japan, during a joint drill with the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. (2010 File)
FA-18 air fighters prepare to take off on the U.S. carrier George Washington in the Pacific near Minamidaito Island in Okinawa Prefecture, southern Japan, during a joint drill with the Japanese Self-Defense Forces. (2010 File)
TEXT SIZE - +

Friday's announcement by the United States and Japan that 9,000 U.S. Marines will be transferred from a base on the Japanese island of Okinawa is being hailed as a major diplomatic accomplishment. But there are also concerns the actual transfer will be fraught with numerous complications.

The revised realignment plan, agreed to by Japan and the United States, is seen as both a compromise and a work still in progress.

It calls for moving nearly half of the 19,000 U.S. Marines off Okinawa. Up to 5,000 are to be re-deployed to the Pacific island of Guam and 4,000 moved to either Hawaii or rotated in and out of Australia.

No timelines were revealed.

Related story - US, Japan Reach Agreement to Move 9,000 Marines

Political analyst and adjunct senior fellow Richard Baker at the East West Center in Hawaii says the agreement comes after complex negotiations involving political, technical, financial and infrastructural issues.

"And I don't think it was inevitable that they would be able to make a meeting of the minds of that sort, so that is the good news," he said. "Now the bad news is that the public handling of this has got to be as sensitive as the negotiations were and as nuanced."

Still unresolved is what to do with a Marine air station in the middle of a congested community on Okinawa. Most analysts believe that a proposed move to a site farther north on the island is unlikely to occur because of strong opposition locally. But the new airfield plan has officially not been scrapped.

Many Okinawans prefer to see all the Marines permanently vacate the  islands.  That is also unlikely in an era when concerns about China's rise mean other Asia-Pacific nations want a reassuring presence of U.S. military forces in the immediate neighborhood.

The Obama administration has been telling its allies that the United States is making renewed and long-term military commitments to the region.

Baker, a retired veteran U.S. diplomat, acknowledges that repositioning troops from Okinawa to Guam and Hawaii may be viewed as a move in the wrong geographical direction.

"Critics will be tempted to say that this belies the intended pivot to Asia. I think that would be an unfair criticism given the realities of the negotiations and the realities of the very, very longstanding problem in Okinawa that this is designed to solve," he noted.

Japan is to partly fund the $8.6 billion cost of a buildup on the U.S. Pacific territory of Guam.

It will be the largest military presence on the island since the Vietnam War when U.S. Air Force B-52s made daily bombing runs from Guam.

Guam, with a population of about 180,000, already hosts more than 7,000 military personnel, primarily assigned to Andersen Air Force Base, and a facility on the western side of the island known as “Big Navy.”

"The key thing, I think, for most people in Guam, is just to make sure that our infrastructure is developed so we can handle the new capacity," stated Senator Judi Guthertz who chairs Guam's legislative committee on the military buildup. "And that everyone has a deep respect for each other here so that we're able to maintain the new identity and the unique tropicalness and beauty of the island. And I think our military partners are aware of that."

Originally there were plans to move twice the number of Marines -- 9,000 in all, to Guam.

That will somewhat ease concerns over the expensive infrastructure upgrades.

Lawmakers and the public in Guam still have many concerns and unanswered questions. Among them: the location for firing ranges and a port where visiting U.S. Navy aircraft carriers will berth.

The indigenous Chamorros have objected to any range site trespassing on ancient grounds while the initial anchorage site in Apra harbor has upset environmentalists and the tourism sector because dredging would destroy or damage more than 25 hectares of coral.

Guam Senator Guthertz supports the move of more Marines to the island but faces other questions from her constituents.

"Questions that remain are will the military be building housing to accommodate the Marines or will they be using housing available in the community? What kind of services will they need in the community from our private sector companies that are anxious and able to provide responses to their requests for proposals? So the economic benefits, I think, will occur but we're not sure in what shape or what form yet," he said.

Several powerful U.S. senators have been concerned about the plan's overall cost and its impact on America's regional military strategy.

The simultaneous announcement Friday in Tokyo and Washington addressed some of their concerns.

After the joint announcement the senators (Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and Jim Webb, both Democrats, along with former Republican presidential candidate John McCain) issued a statement saying they “still have many questions about the specific details” and its implications for force posture in the Asia-Pacific region.



This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
Comments
     
by: Scott
April 28, 2012 7:43 PM
@ Miguel it's the Okinawans, not the Japanese, that want the Americans off the island. Big difference. Okinawa was an independent kingdom conquered by the Japanese. Many Okinawans along with Chinese and Koreans were conscripted into the Japanese army during WWII and suffered great losses.


by: Scott
April 28, 2012 7:42 PM
@ Henry can't sell the land; Japan already owns and pays for all US base land in Okinawa. But I share the sentiment that the bases should be closed. Futenma is very dangerous located in the middle of a major city.


by: Henry
April 28, 2012 4:38 PM
This is an odd piece to me. First off why did we have to negotiate with Japan? Are we afraid they might attack?! (sarcasm)

We should just bring all our troops home and sell what's left of the military base to Japan. China may rattle a saber or two, but they are not going to attack anyone. I believe their goal is economic dominance - not territory.


by: Miguel
April 27, 2012 8:05 AM
The reason we don't speak Japanese on the US mainland is partly because of the Marine presence in Okinawa - With the Chinese Movie industry reviving the Rape of Nanging in the minds of their people, and China aggressively claiming sovereignty over its neighboring seas - the Japanese are fools to run the Yanks off their soil. Japan may soon find itself alone to face a future Chinese claim that they too are part of greater China.


by: Mike
April 27, 2012 7:27 AM
Perhaps we have no need for these troops at all. I know that the troops are intended to be a trip-wire for Chinese actions but lets be real: there is absolutely nothing a few thousand troops on a remote island can do to influence the Chinese, unless the troops were actually stationed in disputed waters. Better to re-arm Japan itself, perhaps with nuclear-capable weapons. Then China would have to be more respectful.


by: Ken
April 27, 2012 5:05 AM
I think one thing the policy makers in DC fail to take into account is the will of the people in those regions. No surprise as its not done at home. They don't want us there, and our troops have not been warmly recieved.

The US and a few corrupt governments in the area are all that worry on China. Are we truely defenders of "peace and Freedom" or of keeping on top and forcing others to act as we deem?

Which is known as Tyranny.


by: Gerry Roy
April 27, 2012 4:57 AM
Bring ALL our troops home. The cost of keeping them overseas is overwhelming. They can perform their original obligation - keeping America safe - right here. If a foreign nation wants us to play policeman for them, let them pay for the service.


by: W74
April 27, 2012 4:29 AM
Why we need troops stationed on Islands is beyond me. This isn't 1942 and we're not fighting hard-scrabble battles to take marginal guano fields to use as stepping stones.

Japan is a big-boy country now and wants to build it's own military capability back up. Guam can suck it. And what do we need our troops in Australia for? The Aussies are bad-ass (talked to enough of the blokes downrange in Iraq) and far more disciplined than US troops are.


by: Steve
April 27, 2012 4:23 AM
Move the 19,000 U.S. Marines off Okinawa and put them on the US boarder with Mexico.


by: JG
April 27, 2012 4:18 AM
It is time to let Japan determine how they want to defend their country. It is not the job of any country to force how they will be protected. The Japanese are aware of the global threats as well as those next door. Let's pull back and use our manpower for other good.

Feature Story

Maritime police search for missing passengers in front of the South Korean ferry that sank near Jindo, South Korea, April 16, 2014.

Photogallery Hundreds Missing After South Korean Ferry Sinks

South Korean divers resumed searching Thursday for 290 people - many of them teenagers - missing nearly 24 hours More