Rethink U.S. military base plans for Japan
U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta shakes hands with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda prior to their talks at Noda's office in Tokyo on October 25, 2011. Panetta arrived in Japan on October 24 for a three-day visit. (Getty Images)
November 4th, 2011
06:45 PM ET

Rethink U.S. military base plans for Japan

Editor's Note: Mike Mochizuki is Associate Dean, Professor, and Sigur Chair at George Washington University specializing in U.S.-Japan relations; Michael O'Hanlon is senior fellow at Brookings and author of The Wounded Giant: America's Armed Forces in an Age of Austerity. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon.

By Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon - Special to CNN

On his inaugural trip to Asia as secretary of defense, Leon Panetta offered reassuring words throughout the region that America’s presence in the Western Pacific will not decline as a result of the ongoing military budget reduction process in the United States.

The current U.S. strength of almost 30,000 soldiers in South Korea, closer to 40,000 in Japan, and several thousand more sailors and Marines typically aboard ships patrolling the area’s huge waters will remain as is, according to the Pentagon’s new leader. At a time when “sequestration” threatens to cut up to one trillion dollars from the Pentagon’s previous ten-year spending plan, such words of resolve and continuity are understandable, and mostly right on.

But they are not completely correct. Mr. Panetta should seek to honor their spirit rather than their letter in the crucial months ahead.

Troop numbers should not be confused with capability or commitment. American officials make a mistake by unnecessarily constraining their options when making such statements. Sustaining, and indeed increasing, American capability should be the leitmotif guiding future defense policy decisions. In some cases that may mean more numbers, and in other cases less.

The specific area where current American basing arrangements should in fact be thoroughly revisited is in regards to the presence of nearly 20,000 U.S. Marines on Okinawa. In fact, due to ongoing war efforts in Afghanistan, the actual number of Marines in this Japanese island prefecture has been typically much less than that figure - which American officials should seize on as an opportunity to downsize without in fact downsizing.

Keeping 5,000 to 10,000 Marines on Okinawa while relocating the rest makes the most strategic sense. Right now, Japanese and American officials in Tokyo and Washington agree; and they have a plan to relocate about 8,000 of the Marines to Guam in the coming years. But a better approach would be to bring those Marines home to California where the inevitable downsizing of the broader U.S. Marine Corps will create space for them at existing bases.

American capabilities in East Asia - the crucial matter - can then be sustained (if not actually enhanced) if Japan and the United States purchase extra equipment for those Marines and place it on maritime prepositioning vessels in Japanese waters where it can be quickly put to sea in the event of conflict and sailed to where forces are needed. Equipment could then be quickly unloaded and the Marines in California could fly over to meet needs even faster than they could currently reach regional hotspots in a place like Korea or Southeast Asia.

The Guam relocation plan is a complex relocation of Marine assets. Not only would almost half the Marines move to American territory about 1,000 miles away, but the remaining Okinawa Marines would use a brand new airfield. The existing site at Futenma Marine Air Station in southern Okinawa, which has over the years become even more surrounded by Japanese urban dwellers than has LaGuardia in New York or National Airport in DC, would close and be replaced by V-shaped airfield constructed on the shore of Henoko Bay near Nago City.

There are however two major problems with the existing plan. First, Okinawan politics will not tolerate it. Not only did voters in Nago City elect in January 2010 a mayor who is adamantly against this new airfield, but also every head of Okinawa’s cities, towns and villages are also opposed. Okinawan Governor Hirokazu Nakaima was re-elected in November 2010 on a platform opposing the current relocation plan; and he is almost certain to reject the upcoming application for a landfill, which is necessary to build the new airfield.

If the Japanese government were to force the construction of proposed Henoko facility, this is likely to provoke a physical clash with anti-base activists and erode the willingness of Okinawans to host more important U.S. bases on Okinawa, such as Kadena Air Force Base.

Second, and just as importantly in the era of American budgetary austerity, the Guam/Henoko plan is way too expensive. Lots of costly construction would be needed to make it happen - about $15 billion for each of the two countries. Keeping U.S. forces at existing bases in Japan is in fact a bargain, since Japan pays most of their local costs and since having Navy and Air Force capabilities in particular in forward-deployed locations is a big net positive for the United States.

They can operate in the region from existing facilities on Okinawa and Japan’s main islands, with aircraft within combat radius of North Korea and the Taiwan Straits and ships within a couple days’ sail of each place. But moving Marines to different places in the region costs big money - money that Washington in particular does not now have.

A better policy would bring much if not most of the Marine combat capability back to America, where the added forces could partly counter what appear to be pending cuts of up to 30,000 in total Marine Corps uniformed strength in the years ahead. If Tokyo and Washington shared in the costs, equipment for the relocating Marines and ships to hold it in Japanese ports until needed could be purchased for around $5 billion, far less than the costs of the new construction projects.

The incorrect perception that the United States was weakening its commitment to the Western Pacific with such a move could be countered in several ways. First, more attack submarines could be located on Guam, as could more unmanned aerial vehicles and various other assets. Second, the capabilities of the maritime prepositioned ships could be widely advertised. Third, America’s potential access to Japanese military and civilian facilities on Okinawa and other Japanese prefectures, already legally permitted, could be beefed up with pre-stationing of more supplies and with a gradual hardening of fuel depots and the like in such places. Fourth, U.S. Marine units could fly from California to Japan on a regular basis to participate in exercises - and many of them could be conducted jointly with Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Other steps are surely possible as well.

It is time that Tokyo and Washington break out of the Okinawa Marine Corps policy swamp, where they have been enmeshed and entrapped far too long. And there is a better way that can save each side around $10 billion in the process. That would make for a meaningful dent in the coming budget reduction process, and make for good strategy and good alliance politics as well.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon.

soundoff (9 Responses)
  1. Onesmallvoice

    If those people living in that country whose name starts with a J are so adamant about having foreign troops on their soil, why don't they just ask neighboring China to deploy some there, replacing those from the U.S.? Since the above mentioned country is under no current threat from anybody, they really don't need any foreign troops there at all!!!

    November 4, 2011 at 7:22 pm | Reply
    • Tron
















      November 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm | Reply
  2. Ray

    Mr. O'hanlon and Mochizuka, Question. What about the broader implications of less theater security cooperation which equals Engagement. A Nss 2010 major priority? Moving Marines and sailors to Cali does little to solve that problem. People forget that Okinawa is a staging area within the Pacific that mitigates the "Tyranny of Distance". Flying to Korea, Thailand,PI etc is time consuming and not resposive when needed. It's a bad idea leaving Okinawa

    November 4, 2011 at 8:02 pm | Reply
  3. PMcDonald

    This entire article is an exercise in sophistry. The US is losing $1trn from its defense budget. It will be weakened across the globe, especially in East Asia, where China and Russia are growing in might. This article tries to argue that the US will be stronger in the Eastern Pacific when it is clearly not true. Why do people waste their time constructing false arguments?

    November 4, 2011 at 11:52 pm | Reply
  4. Mark Murata

    If anyone wants to know why this Okinawa things is such a big deal, read this...

    November 5, 2011 at 1:05 am | Reply
  5. j. von hettlingen

    In Immanuel Kant's philosophical sketch, "standing armies shall in time totally be abolished. For they incessantly menace other states by their readiness to appear at all times prepared for war; they incite them to compete with each other in the number of armed men, and there is no limit to this". Permanent military bases abroad as well!

    November 5, 2011 at 5:26 pm | Reply
  6. adoring the website qzmlqzlaza click here O:-) gwadaijrdxwihje, :( wjkzfdzdvq [url=""]or here[/url] :'( mkjtr, :/ mlrnkmlzhq :-( gfltaqf, :/ zkyrrbglwu [url=]khdcsueqvb[/url] :-D mk


    July 4, 2013 at 12:59 am | Reply
  7. 犀利士

    督脈上的要穴縣黨委政法委執法監督規范化建設問題的思考。1998年,中央政法委員會《關于加強黨委政法 樂威壯 藥效 委執法監督工作的意見》出臺,黨委政法委的執法監督工作隨之全面鋪開,并逐漸成為黨委政法委的一項基本職能和重要 高雄一夜情 工作內容。實踐中 樂威壯 藥效,少數政法領導干部和部分干警對黨委政法委執法監督在認識上存在誤區和錯誤傾向 高雄一夜情,認為黨委政法委執法監督是對司法獨立的干預,把黨對政法工作的領導、監督、管理與司法獨立對立起來,拒不接受黨委政法委的監督中國古代廉政文化集粹學歐堂 台北援交 4、外殼就靠對比了 台北援交 (與證明是好的機器去比亮度,均勻度,色調,顆粒度.)。 威而剛價錢 5、聞氣味,新機器有檀香, 不同與一

    November 19, 2015 at 11:06 pm | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.