US reconsiders ground forces in Korea, Japan
By Richard Halloran*
A searching review of the American strategy of stationing ground forces in Japan and South Korea is under way to see whether those forces can be reduced or withdrawn. The United States would rely instead on warships, air power, and rapidly deployable ground forces to maintain a military presence in Asia.
Senior US officials emphasize that no decisions have been made as this examination is still under discussion among military leaders in Washington, the Pacific Command, US forces in Japan, and US forces in Korea. They further emphasize that the review is not intended to lessen US security commitments in Asia.
Even so, a fundamental shift in the composition of US forces in Asia is contemplated over the next five or so years. The review includes forces in Japan, notably Okinawa, and South Korea 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 is being considered. A Pentagon spokesman, in a carefully worded statement, said "there is no study or report" on reducing US ground forces in South Korea and Japan. General 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 Bill Clinton, in a statement in The New York Times, said a reduction should not be considered.
Nonetheless, military officers said on condition of anonymity that the review is in response to several trends. They indicated that the US must respond to protests in Japan and Korea against the presence of US 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 study published this month by the National Intelligence Council in Washington, which concluded: "An unmoving US stance on military bases and related issues would risk nationalistic backlash in Japan and perhaps South Korea."
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 US presence. In Seoul, Koreans have repeatedly protested around the US headquarters in a former Japanese base around which the city has grown. Surveys in both nations indicate that public support for US forces stationed there has dropped.
In the US, 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 US forces in Korea and Japan is intended to contribute to the overall defense review due in 2001.
Further, a national commission chaired by former Senators Gary Hart, Democrat of Colorado, and Warren Rudman, Republican of New Hampshire, has been examining the entire field of national security and is expected to present a report to the incoming president before he takes office.
The US claims it maintains 100,000 troops "forward deployed" in Asia and the Pacific. But senior military officers have quietly played down that number in public in favor of the number 300,000, which includes all forces within the Pacific Command,including those on the US West Coast, Alaska, and Hawaii.
Whatever the outcome of the review, changes would be made only after careful consultation with US allies in Korea and Japan. Officials appear to be mindful of the turmoil caused by former President Jimmy Carter, who declared in the election campaign of 1976 that he would remove most US ground forces from South Korea. Tokyo and Seoul were alarmed that such a change would be made without consulting them. Confronted with such resistance, plus that in the US armed forces, 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 target US forces as far away as Okinawa.
Even so, this changes the US negotiating position with North Korea, suggesting that US 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 US ground troops would be a problem primarily of cost. "We have plenty of places where we could put them," said one official. Alaska, Guam and other Pacific islands, Hawaii, and the US 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 of the US 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. |
