Japan Aff Michigan
Download 1.23 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Guam good—flexibility, readiness, and solves Asian stability and terrorism
- Guam is an easy target with low infrastructure—the best way to solve the alliance is to have presence in Japan Kan Niksch, 1/19
- Relocation of troops in Okinawa to Guam is a key step in entering a new relationship with Japan that facilitates increased cooperation with the U.S.
- Guam is awesome—better than Okinawa Kaplan 06
Guam GoodGuam relocation solves power projection, deterrence, and counter-terrorism—but the buildup has been moderate so far Kan & Niksch, 1/19 – Specialists in Asian Security Affairs (1/19/10, Shirley & Larry, Congressional Research Service, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments”, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA513871) Visiting Guam in May 2008, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Guam’s buildup will be “one of the largest movements of military assets in decades” and will help to “maintain a robust military presence in a critical part of the world.”1 Guam is a U.S. territory long considered to be strategically significant to U.S. forward deployments in the Western Pacific. In the Pacific Ocean, Hawaii is about 2,400 miles west of California, and Guam is about 3,800 miles further west of Hawaii. Guam has two important U.S. military bases: Apra Naval Base and Andersen Air Force Base. The island, three times the size of Washington, DC, is home to about 171,000 residents. As the Defense Department has faced increased tensions on the Korean peninsula and requirements to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pacific Command (PACOM), since 2000, has built up air and naval forces on Guam to boost U.S. deterrence and power projection in Asia. Concerns include crisis response, counter-terrorism, and contingencies in the western Pacific. But the defense buildup on Guam is moderate. Guam good—flexibility, readiness, and solves Asian stability and terrorism Kan & Niksch, 1/19 – Specialists in Asian Security Affairs (1/19/10, Shirley & Larry, Congressional Research Service, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments”, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA513871) One rationale for the military build-up on Guam is its status as a U.S. territory. Thus, the United States is not required to negotiate with sovereign countries on force deployments or face the risks of losing bases or access. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld visited Guam in November 2003 and expressed support for building up Guam as he considered a new round of base closings.8 In contrast, the United States had to close Subic Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Force Base in the Philippines in 1992, and countries like South Korea could restrict the use of U.S. forces based there. U.S. forces based in Guam also do not have to contend with political sensitivities over nuclear powered vessels. Moreover, some countries, including allies, have raised doubts about their support for U.S. forces in a possible conflict between the United States and China. Another rationale is the expansion of options that Guam offers to the evolving U.S. force structure. As Commander of PACOM, Admiral William Fallon expressed his vision for Guam as a staging area from which ships, aircraft, and troops can “surge” to the Asian theater. He stressed “flexibility,” saying “we need to have forces ready to react,” and we must have built-in flexibility” to meet emergencies (including disaster relief).9 In 2004, the Navy held “Summer Pulse 04,” its first exercise to increase readiness to “surge” operations in response to a crisis or emergency. In June 2006, PACOM held the “Valiant Shield” exercise that brought three aircraft carriers to waters off Guam. A third rationale is the need to counter what commanders call the “tyranny of distance.” PACOM, headquartered in Honolulu, has an area of responsibility that encompasses almost 60% of the world’s population, over 50% of the earth’s surface, the Pacific and Indian Oceans, 16 time zones, and five of seven U.S. defense treaties. U.S. forces on Guam are much closer to East Asia, where the United States has alliances with Australia, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. The United States also has concerns in Asia about threats to peace and stability in the East China Sea, South China Sea and over terrorist threats in Southeast Asia, humanitarian crises, and security for sea lines of communication (SLOCs), particularly through the Straits of Malacca. Combat aircraft on Guam can reach Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, or the Korean peninsula in two to five hours.10 Moreover, Table 1 presents the shorter sailing distance and time from Guam to Manila in East Asia, compared to that from Honolulu, Seattle, and San Diego. Guam is an easy target with low infrastructure—the best way to solve the alliance is to have presence in Japan Kan & Niksch, 1/19 – Specialists in Asian Security Affairs (1/19/10, Shirley & Larry, Congressional Research Service, “Guam: U.S. Defense Deployments”, http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA513871) As U.S. forces relocate to Guam, the state of its infrastructure has been of concern to some policymakers. Also, Guam’s political leaders have expressed concerns about the impact of additional deployments on its infrastructure, including utilities, roads, and water supplies. Guam’s location in the Western Pacific also requires construction of protection for U.S. forces and assets against typhoons. In the fall of 2006, PACOM officials briefed Guam on some aspects of an undisclosed draft plan for military expansion, the Integrated Military Development Plan, with possible military projects worth a total of about $15 billion.11 In addition, Guam’s remoteness and conditions raise more questions about hosting military families, training with other units in Hawaii or the west coast, and costs for extended logistical support. Addressing another concern, a former commander of Marine Forces Pacific urged in 2007 that Guam’s buildup include more than infrastructure to develop also human capital, communities, and the environment.12 In 2009, Wallace Gregson became Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs. Guam’s higher military profile could increase its potential as an American target for terrorists and adversaries during a possible conflict. China has a variety of ballistic missiles that could target Guam. In addition, in 2008 North Korea started to deploy its intermediate range ballistic missile (Taepodong-X) with a range of about 1,860 miles that could reach Guam, according to South Korea’s 2008 Defense White Paper.13 Any such vulnerabilities could raise Guam’s requirements for both counterterrorism and missile defense measures. Moreover, some say that Guam is still too distant from flash points in the Asia and advocate closer cooperation with countries such as Singapore, Australia, the Philippines, and Japan.14 Building up the U.S. presence in those countries could enhance alliances or partnerships, increase interoperability, and reduce costs for the United States. Relocation of troops in Okinawa to Guam is a key step in entering a new relationship with Japan that facilitates increased cooperation with the U.S. Chanlett-Avery and Konishi, 9 – Specialist in Asian Affairs and Analyst in Asian Affairs (7/23/2009, Emma and Weston S.,“The Changing U.S.-Japan Alliance: Implications for U.S. Interests”) The reduction of Marines from about 18,000 to 11,000 on Okinawa seeks to quell the political controversy that has surrounded the presence of U.S. forces in the southernmost part of Japan for years. Public outcry against the bases has continued since the 1995 rape of a Japanese schoolgirl by an American serviceman, and was renewed after a U.S. military helicopter crashed into a crowed university campus in 2004. Though constituting less than 1% of Japan’s land mass, Okinawa currently hosts 65% of the total U.S. forces in Japan. Okinawan politicians, along with the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, have called for a renegotiation of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a reduction in U.S. troop strength. The U.S. and central Japanese governments have opposed revising the SOFA, but Japan has increasingly pushed the U.S. to alleviate the burden of its military presence in Okinawa. The DPRI review identified friction between the U.S. forces stationed in Okinawa and the local population as a key obstacle to a durable alliance. In addition to the 1995 rape conviction, complaints about noise pollution from the air bases and concern about safety issues after the crash of a helicopter in August 2004 convinced alliance managers that the burden on Okinawa’s urban areas needed to be reduced in order to make the alliance more politically sustainable. As part of the realignment of U.S. bases, U.S. officials agreed to move most aircraft and crews constituting the Marine Air Station at Futenma (a highly populated area) to expanded facilities at Camp Schwab, located in a less-congested area of Okinawa. The challenge of replacing Futenma had dogged alliance managers for years: since 1996, both sides had worked to implement the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) Report, which called for the return of 12,000 acres of land to the Japanese, provided that appropriate replacement facilities were arranged. In addition to the Futenma agreement, the United States agreed to relocate the Okinawa-based III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF), which includes 8,000 U.S. personnel and their dependents, to new facilities in Guam. In return, Tokyo promised to pay $6.09 billion of the $10.27 billion estimated costs associated with the move. With the DPRI review and the revitalized alliance, new momentum led to a tentative agreement in 2006. However, implementation of the agreement has been slow and reflects the long-standing struggle between the Okinawan and central Tokyo governments. Public opposition and cost overruns threaten to further stall the Futenma relocation plan. Nevertheless, some progress has been made in the Guam relocation initiative. In February 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone signed a new agreement on implementing the Guam relocation plans by 2014. Although resolving the base realignment issues is anticipated to consume the bulk of bilateral efforts in the short term, U.S. and Japanese officials envision sweeping changes to the entire defense relationship. The “2+2” reports of recent years outline a new alliance approach to both enhance the defense of Japan and to move beyond traditional realms of cooperation. Areas specifically mentioned for cooperation include air defense, ballistic missile defense, counter- proliferation, counter-terrorism, maritime security operations, search and rescue efforts, intelligence and surveillance, humanitarian relief, reconstruction assistance, peace-keeping, protection of critical infrastructure, response to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) attacks, mutual logistics support, provision of facilities for a non-combatant evacuation, and the use of civilian infrastructure for emergency purposes. Joint efforts in several of these areas have existed for decades, whereas other programs are in their infancy. Security and regional analysts have offered a range of opinions on which areas are most appropriate for further development of joint capabilities.10 Below are some of the most notable aspects of bilateral cooperation. Guam is awesome—better than Okinawa Kaplan 06 (Robert D. Kaplan is an Atlantic correspondent and the author of Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground, 2006, "How We Would Fight China", The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/kaplan/4) Andersen Air Force Base, on Guam's northern tip, represents the future of U.S. strategy in the Pacific. It is the most potent platform anywhere in the world for the projection of American military power. Landing there recently in a military aircraft, I beheld long lines of B-52 bombers, C-17 Globemasters, F/A-18 Hornets, and E-2 Hawkeye surveillance planes, among others. Andersen's 10,000-foot runways can handle any plane in the Air Force's arsenal, and could accommodate the space shuttle should it need to make an emergency landing. The sprawl of runways and taxiways is so vast that when I arrived, I barely noticed a carrier air wing from the USS Kitty Hawk, which was making live practice bombing runs that it could not make from its home port in Japan. I saw a truck filled with cruise missiles on one of the runways. No other Air Force base in the Pacific stores as much weaponry as Andersen: some 100,000 bombs and missiles at any one time. Andersen also stores 66 million gallons of jet fuel, making it the Air Force's biggest strategic gas-and-go in the world. Guam, which is also home to a submarine squadron and an expanding naval base, is significant because of its location. From the island an Air Force equivalent of a Marine or Army division can cover almost all of PACOM's area of responsibility. Flying to North Korea from the West Coast of the United States takes thirteen hours; from Guam it takes four. "This is not like Okinawa," Major General Dennis Larsen, the Air Force commander there at the time of my visit, told me. "This is American soil in the midst of the Pacific. Guam is a U.S. territory." The United States can do anything it wants here, and make huge investments without fear of being thrown out. Indeed, what struck me about Andersen was how great the space was for expansion to the south and west of the current perimeters. Hundreds of millions of dollars of construction funds were being allocated. This little island, close to China, has the potential to become the hub in the wheel of a new, worldwide constellation of bases that will move the locus of U.S. power from Europe to Asia. In the event of a conflict with Taiwan, if we had a carrier battle group at Guam we would force the Chinese either to attack it in port—thereby launching an assault on sovereign U.S. territory, and instantly becoming the aggressor in the eyes of the world—or to let it sail, in which case the carrier group could arrive off the coast of Taiwan only two days later. Relocation of troops in Okinawa to Guam is a key step in entering a new relationship with Japan that facilitates increased cooperation with the U.S. Chanlett-Avery and Konishi, 9 – Specialist in Asian Affairs and Analyst in Asian Affairs (7/23/2009, Emma and Weston S.,“The Changing U.S.-Japan Alliance: Implications for U.S. Interests”) The reduction of Marines from about 18,000 to 11,000 on Okinawa seeks to quell the political controversy that has surrounded the presence of U.S. forces in the southernmost part of Japan for years. Public outcry against the bases has continued since the 1995 rape of a Japanese schoolgirl by an American serviceman, and was renewed after a U.S. military helicopter crashed into a crowed university campus in 2004. Though constituting less than 1% of Japan’s land mass, Okinawa currently hosts 65% of the total U.S. forces in Japan. Okinawan politicians, along with the opposition Democratic Party of Japan, have called for a renegotiation of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a reduction in U.S. troop strength. The U.S. and central Japanese governments have opposed revising the SOFA, but Japan has increasingly pushed the U.S. to alleviate the burden of its military presence in Okinawa. The DPRI review identified friction between the U.S. forces stationed in Okinawa and the local population as a key obstacle to a durable alliance. In addition to the 1995 rape conviction, complaints about noise pollution from the air bases and concern about safety issues after the crash of a helicopter in August 2004 convinced alliance managers that the burden on Okinawa’s urban areas needed to be reduced in order to make the alliance more politically sustainable. As part of the realignment of U.S. bases, U.S. officials agreed to move most aircraft and crews constituting the Marine Air Station at Futenma (a highly populated area) to expanded facilities at Camp Schwab, located in a less-congested area of Okinawa. The challenge of replacing Futenma had dogged alliance managers for years: since 1996, both sides had worked to implement the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) Report, which called for the return of 12,000 acres of land to the Japanese, provided that appropriate replacement facilities were arranged. In addition to the Futenma agreement, the United States agreed to relocate the Okinawa-based III Marine Expeditionary Force (III MEF), which includes 8,000 U.S. personnel and their dependents, to new facilities in Guam. In return, Tokyo promised to pay $6.09 billion of the $10.27 billion estimated costs associated with the move. With the DPRI review and the revitalized alliance, new momentum led to a tentative agreement in 2006. However, implementation of the agreement has been slow and reflects the long-standing struggle between the Okinawan and central Tokyo governments. Public opposition and cost overruns threaten to further stall the Futenma relocation plan. Nevertheless, some progress has been made in the Guam relocation initiative. In February 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone signed a new agreement on implementing the Guam relocation plans by 2014. Although resolving the base realignment issues is anticipated to consume the bulk of bilateral efforts in the short term, U.S. and Japanese officials envision sweeping changes to the entire defense relationship. The “2+2” reports of recent years outline a new alliance approach to both enhance the defense of Japan and to move beyond traditional realms of cooperation. Areas specifically mentioned for cooperation include air defense, ballistic missile defense, counter- proliferation, counter-terrorism, maritime security operations, search and rescue efforts, intelligence and surveillance, humanitarian relief, reconstruction assistance, peace-keeping, protection of critical infrastructure, response to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) attacks, mutual logistics support, provision of facilities for a non-combatant evacuation, and the use of civilian infrastructure for emergency purposes. Joint efforts in several of these areas have existed for decades, whereas other programs are in their infancy. Security and regional analysts have offered a range of opinions on which areas are most appropriate for further development of joint capabilities.10 Below are some of the most notable aspects of bilateral cooperation. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|