-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
U. S. base closure deepens dispute with Japan
- Thread starter rookie7734
- Start date
I fear there is more to this than simply protests against the US Bases in Okinawa. I hear echos of the greater Asia Co-prosperity Sphere or Dai-to-a Kyoeken. PM Hatoyama, with a very fragile coalition, left leaning for the most part, seems to be steering a course toward greater alliances in Asia, notwithstanding the problems Japan has with North Korea, on several fronts. The local government in Okinawa wants all US bases removed from Okinawa, total. I keep hearing that Japan needs more friends in Asia and less reliance on the "US Military Shield". I understand the decision has been put off until March 2010 but it seem sure that Japan will abrogate the agreement they made vs.a.vs BRAC in 2006.
I have lost the bubble on moving CVW-5 to Iwakuni in Yamguchi-ken. Anyone know if that is still on track or has it been subsumed into the debate vs.a.vs Okinawa?
I have lost the bubble on moving CVW-5 to Iwakuni in Yamguchi-ken. Anyone know if that is still on track or has it been subsumed into the debate vs.a.vs Okinawa?
It pleases me to no end that I disrupted HOURS of class at a Japanese elementary school while bouncing in the pattern at Futema. Fun place to bounce - though the coral runway is rough on tires (or maybe it was just my landings, but let's blame the coral). Nothing beats having three P-3s, 2 C-130s, and 5 or so helos in a pattern at once. Now that’s good times!
Favorite call of all time, just having rotated, not even started the crosswind turn, "Marlin XX, cleared touch and go, you're number 5." Ah, Marine ATC.
Favorite call of all time, just having rotated, not even started the crosswind turn, "Marlin XX, cleared touch and go, you're number 5." Ah, Marine ATC.
"The protests by Nago residents have effectively thwarted efforts to finally settle on a site and have the sympathy of Okinawans in general, who would prefer that no replacement facility be built on their island at all."
Translation - We dont give a damn about your or our Defence and Security requirements we are unwilling to compromise and will stand with our fingers in our ears screaming LALALALALALA whenever you attempt to appease us in a manner that isnt our predecided position.
Translation - We dont give a damn about your or our Defence and Security requirements we are unwilling to compromise and will stand with our fingers in our ears screaming LALALALALALA whenever you attempt to appease us in a manner that isnt our predecided position.
When I was over there we kept being told between FY13-FY15. Of course none of the infrastructure buildup had even been started and that stuff will take years to complete before anything can move. Then right as I was leaving there was a big public scandal where the "Mayor" of Yamaguchi was discovered to have been giving out bribes to gain votes because he wanted the airbase there. (Which of course none of the citizens actually wanted.) So last I heard it was on hold with no set timeframe.
It may or may not happen 'this time' ... but you know; the locals have been complaining/talkin' about this -- moving the Marines -- for 30+ years ... there was once a 'plan' to move it to a small-ish offshore existing island (believe it was Ie Shima) and/or 'create' a base, ala 'artificial island airport' Kansai INTL, but then KIX started sinking ... *GASP* ... and nothing has come of either proposal.
It ratchets up each & every time there's a 'law enforcement' issue caused by base personnel ... and then, of course, there's always the 'noise' ... and then, there's always those Yankee greenbacks to consider ...
It ratchets up each & every time there's a 'law enforcement' issue caused by base personnel ... and then, of course, there's always the 'noise' ... and then, there's always those Yankee greenbacks to consider ...
Ah, yes, story time.
Early 1970, early in the first Nixon administration, I was on the project to reduce the number of US Navy ships (boats to you guys) from about 1,600 to 700, ergo Project 701 as I recall. Elimination of uneeded bases/facilities were also on the table. A sort of Pre-BRAC brac (small letters).
We put together a plan that included return of the entire Yokosuka Naval Base, the entire Yokohama complex (mostly dependent housing, except North Pier, then primarily an Army facility). NAS Atsugi was included but think we were to keep some parts. Kamiseya was also set for closing.
We mounted our trusty steeds, along with the folks from the Foreign Ministry (ops.. State Department) and went off to see the wizards in Japan Land. Talk about mis-reading the tea-leaves, we though the GOJ would accept the plan. However, it set off a firestorm. Under no conditions would Japan allow the US Navy to leave the Kanto area. They promised us everything, incuding massive amounts of money to "refurbish" facilities. Well, Navy is still in Yokosuka, Atsugi (redesignated NAF) and even Kamiseya (which is vacant after CTF 72 left).
Okinawa was not included in the plan, per se, although some realignment was accomplished. Okinawa was still under US Administration, as I recall the locals in Okinawa were against reversion of Japanese control by an 80-20 margin, according to some polls, and riots in the streets against reversion.. The American public was against return of Okinawa to Japan by an almost 90 percent margine (Lou Harris polls as I recall).
However, Pres Nixon took the issue head on, started negotiations to return Okinawa to Japan. He was savaged on both fronts, e.g., homefront and Okinawa. As I recall we had about 10,000 tons of chermical weapons on Okinawa, I am not sure what types were included in that stockpile, maybe just tear gas (smilly face - what happend to those things). It was rumored that nuclear weapons were stored on the Island? (I know nothing!!). First things first, all that was removed - or not removed if they were never there!! May 1972 the Japanese flag replaced the American flag in Okinawa, some 20 years after the peace treaty.
Nap time!
Still looking at this timeframe (at least on paper). The have started to actually drawn up blueprints for the hangars. While not much of an improvements, it's the biggest step in that direction I've seen. Of course, they just build a brand new NEX at NAF Atsugi, so you be the judge.
Thanks. Is my info re Kamiseya accurate, that is, it is simply used as storage facility, with all operations and dependent housing closed?
Kamiseya was an ammo depot for Atsugi during WWII. Long ago (1960), there was a huge tunnel between Kamiseya and Atsugi.
New NEX? Well just before Bayside was turned over to the Japanese circa 1960, all of the buildings were totally refurbished by the Navy. Japanese promptly tore down all the houses, Club and NEX. Yamashita park was created on the site.
Am I the only one who thinks the U.S. should just say; "OK, we'll leave" and do it when some foreign country decides our presence is no longer desired.
Of course once North Korea starts acting up, the U.S. will just stand aside and say; "How do you like us now???"
This policy is also in effect for Saudi Arabia and the E.U.
What, Iran is bulding up arms??? I'm sorry King Abdullah, you really should have done something about all the money flowing out of your country and into Al Quaida for the last 20 years..
What's that Europe, Putin is thinking of expanding Russia? Sorry, we're busy dealing with all the problems created by European colonialism in the 19th and 20th Centruries.
Of course once North Korea starts acting up, the U.S. will just stand aside and say; "How do you like us now???"
This policy is also in effect for Saudi Arabia and the E.U.
What, Iran is bulding up arms??? I'm sorry King Abdullah, you really should have done something about all the money flowing out of your country and into Al Quaida for the last 20 years..
What's that Europe, Putin is thinking of expanding Russia? Sorry, we're busy dealing with all the problems created by European colonialism in the 19th and 20th Centruries.
Is it cheaper to maintain bases abroad, or maintain a rapid-deployable ready force at home?
It takes an unbelievable amount of time, money and airlift/sealift power to put any kind of sizable force in place. Have things forward deployed is generally the way to go, despite the hassle.
Brett
One of the plans that Rumsfeld was pushing was to have gear forward deployed and have troops all based in the U.S. The thought was to use some strategically placed locations (like the PREPRO ships, but land based) to have large supplies of vehicles and supplies that could be moved quickly when the situation dictated. Camp As Salaya in Qatar was an example. After Desert Storm As Salaya had a Division’s worth of equipment staged there; it was used in the initial push into Baghdad for OIF.
The problem diplomatically with pulling the troops home is that many countries enjoy the benefits ($$$) of having the presence of troops in their country. Look at Bahrain, the gov't there has been pushing the U.S. to bring the families back ever since they got sent home after 9/11. The reason was the DOD schools; the Bahraini elite like to have their kids attend the DOD school; for a price of course.
The forward presence of troops is not problem solver for 90% of the contingency planning that is going on at the Combatant Commander’s level. The largest headache is how to get all the gear required moved. When you deal with planning the TFFDD is always the long-pole in the tent. With the airlift the DOD presently has, we can get all the troops to any hotspot in less than a week. The problem is you can't move the equipment of an Army Heavy BCT in anywhere near that time frame.
Forward deploying of troops is an old way of doing business that I think will be changing in the future. With the Global Force Management posture that DOD is using and will be using for the future, it doesn't matter where a force is stationed, it's going to CENTCOM. Combined with the political sensitivities that countries are having with U.S. forces, I wouldn't be surprised to see the U.S. pull more troops home.
I'll defer to our Army brethren, but I believe most of V Corps is being pulled back from Germany and is going to Ft. Bliss in Texas.
There is a risk with not having troops deployed forward but with the way DOD is moving now, with more Phase 0 operations and theater security cooperation events, combined with increased emphasis on Indirect Operations, then I would say that the U.S. is moving towards having more U.S. based forces augmented with larger PREPRO stocks to respond to world wide crisis.
The problem diplomatically with pulling the troops home is that many countries enjoy the benefits ($$$) of having the presence of troops in their country. Look at Bahrain, the gov't there has been pushing the U.S. to bring the families back ever since they got sent home after 9/11. The reason was the DOD schools; the Bahraini elite like to have their kids attend the DOD school; for a price of course.
The forward presence of troops is not problem solver for 90% of the contingency planning that is going on at the Combatant Commander’s level. The largest headache is how to get all the gear required moved. When you deal with planning the TFFDD is always the long-pole in the tent. With the airlift the DOD presently has, we can get all the troops to any hotspot in less than a week. The problem is you can't move the equipment of an Army Heavy BCT in anywhere near that time frame.
Forward deploying of troops is an old way of doing business that I think will be changing in the future. With the Global Force Management posture that DOD is using and will be using for the future, it doesn't matter where a force is stationed, it's going to CENTCOM. Combined with the political sensitivities that countries are having with U.S. forces, I wouldn't be surprised to see the U.S. pull more troops home.
I'll defer to our Army brethren, but I believe most of V Corps is being pulled back from Germany and is going to Ft. Bliss in Texas.
There is a risk with not having troops deployed forward but with the way DOD is moving now, with more Phase 0 operations and theater security cooperation events, combined with increased emphasis on Indirect Operations, then I would say that the U.S. is moving towards having more U.S. based forces augmented with larger PREPRO stocks to respond to world wide crisis.