[Peace-discuss] From a right-wing paper

[C. G. Estabrook]

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20031221-105933-8761r.htm

	United Press International
	December 22, 2003
	U.S. to realign military
	By Jamie Dettmer

-The Polish talks are just the start of the biggest U.S. military
realignment since the end of World War II.

-[T]here have been negotiations, too, about establishing new bases in the
former Eastern 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.

-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.

-The Pentagon was frustrated in the run-up to the Iraq war with the time
it took to move equipment for American armored divisions out of Germany
and deliver it to the Persian Gulf.

-Out of the public gaze, the United States has been securing air bases and
landing rights, and signing military agreements with countries located in
what American military planners call the "arc of instability" -- 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.

-Many critics say the Pentagon is out to create a new military empire
spanning the globe. They also worry 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.
     
The Kremlin was quick off the mark.

Within hours of Washington's 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.

"The Kremlin is not concealing from the Americans or the Poles its
negative attitude toward Polish-American discussions about relocating
bases in Germany," a Russian official said.

But in the weeks to come, the Russians won't be the only ones jittery
about a long-studied repositioning of U.S. forces and bases. For different
reasons, allies and rivals around the globe are exercised about the
ambitious Bush administration plans to shift and reshuffle tens of
thousands of American troops stationed worldwide.

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 U.S. military commitments in Afghanistan and
Iraq, Pentagon planners have been working for months on what Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld calls a "readjustment to fit the 21st
century."

Last month, President Bush addressed the issue of a major realignment,
saying: "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 Eastern 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, planned troop and base reductions spell economic loss.
There also are concerns in Seoul about any moves that would reduce the
U.S. military commitment on the peninsula. Pentagon sources say changes
being discussed include moving U.S. soldiers away from the Korean
demilitarized zone.

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

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 that some
troops serving in Iraq could learn that their home bases have shifted
before their tours of duty are finished -- 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 deploying units such as the 1st Armored to Iraq confirm the
need for repositioning 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 American armored divisions out of Germany and deliver it to
the Persian Gulf.

But even before the Iraq war, Mr. 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 -- the Soviet Union.  They wanted more
forward -- but smaller -- bases and lighter, more-mobile forces that could
react quickly, be deployed fast and project power against enemies.

Mr. 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 deployed during the Cold War.

Since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, the Pentagon
hasn't confined itself to planning.

Out of the public gaze, the United States has been securing air bases and
landing rights, and signing military agreements with countries located in
what American military planners call the "arc of instability" -- 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.

Even 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, as did German opposition.  But because of its
opposition to the war in Iraq, Berlin is no longer in favor in Washington
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 centrist 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 Mr. 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, the defense secretary said:
"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 also worry 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 on the global battlefield against
terrorism.

Furthermore, they argue that by having 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, a centrist think tank, this vision in
some ways is born of American distrust regarding some of its oldest
allies, including Germany, which opposed the war in Iraq.

[Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight magazine.]