US Military Reorganization
May 1, 2003 1:20:51 GMT -5
Post by MC Habber on May 1, 2003 1:20:51 GMT -5
The US is pulling it's troops out of Saudi Arabia. Their presence there is supposed to be the main justification given by bin Laden for 9/11.
www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=ACAD2877-821E-4688-B54C-7568E6A20331
U.S. military positions itself to fight wars of the future
Forces to be set up in smaller bases in useful countries
Jan Cienski
National Post
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
CREDIT: Luke Frazza, The Associated Press
Donald Rumsfeld addresses troops at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, yesterday.
ADVERTISEMENT
WASHINGTON - U.S. troops preparing to pack up computers, fly out planes and mothball buildings at Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base are part of a much broader reorganization that will dramatically change the U.S. military's global footprint.
As well as pulling out everything but training teams from Saudi Arabia, U.S. war planners are talking about reducing forces stationed in Germany, deploying troops to Central Europe, reassessing the utility of bases in Turkey and moving soldiers in South Korea.
"After 50 years of our basing relationships and alliances being largely unchanged, they are now rather rapidly being transformed," said Loren Thompson, a defence analyst with the Lexington Institute think-tank.
There are a host of reasons why such a transformation makes sense, but the overarching thought is to prepare the U.S. military to fight wars of the future by being light and capable of deploying anywhere in the world, even from permanent bases in the United States.
The idea is to set up many more smaller bases in useful countries around the world, ranging from Poland to Uzbekistan, to preposition equipment where possible and then rotate U.S. troops through for frequent training missions.
General James Jones, NATO's Supreme Commander in Europe, calls the concept establishing "lily pads" around the world that U.S. troops could use as jumping-off points.
Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defence Secretary, has been credited with pushing such a vision, but it has been percolating through the Pentagon since the collapse of the Soviet Union made it clear the United States had to change the way it structures its military.
For a decade after the Soviet Union's fall little was done to reposition U.S. forces. The war in Iraq, and its antecedent diplomatic crisis, forced the Pentagon into a dramatic reassessment as U.S. military planners found that bases set up to deal with past crises were little help in the current one.
Germany, a leader in the anti-war movement, levied extra charges for the freight trains needed to move tanks and equipment, which then got snarled up in Austrian border formalities.
Saudi Arabia did not want U.S. planes at Prince Sultan to be used against Iraq, the same position it took in the war in Afghanistan, although it later backed down and quietly agreed to help. U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia, home to the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, has inflamed Islamic passions and provided one of the reasons cited by Osama bin Laden for his war of terror against the United States.
Turkey was the biggest surprise, destroying a carefully built defence relationship by refusing to allow U.S. troops in to attack Iraq from the north.
"If you can't use a base for the military purpose that brought you there then there's not much point in being there," said Mr. Thompson.
The United States will now rely on Persian Gulf allies such as Bahrain and Qatar, new home of U.S. air operations for the Middle East. Significantly, those states are edging toward greater democracy, while Saudi Arabia shows few signs of reforming its autocratic regime.
"I just think the United States was getting a little tired of the attitude of Saudi Arabia," said David Grange, a retired U.S. Army general. "The U.S. has nurtured relationships with some of the other Gulf states."
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein has also changed the rationale for positioning U.S. forces in the Middle East, since they were there to deter and later to invade Iraq.
"Iraq was a threat to the region, and because that threat will be gone, we also have the ability to adjust some of our relationships," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters yesterday in Doha, Qatar.
The U.S. Air Force is looking at withdrawing from Turkey's Incirlik Air Base, which had been used to patrol the northern no-fly zone over Iraq. Saddam's elimination also ended the need for the southern no fly zone, enforcement of which was the principal use of the Prince Sultan Air Base.
"There is obviously no need for them to remain," said Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, Saudi Arabia's Defence Minister.
While the successful war in Iraq is providing the greatest impetus for change, the force realignment will be felt around the world.
There are about 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in Germany, prepared to fight an enemy who never came. It is hugely expensive to keep them there and training exercises grate on German nerves.
The Pentagon is considering sending about half of those troops back to the United States and of setting up training bases in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and other new allies in Central Europe.
"In Eastern Europe the political relationships are better, and the move of U.S. troops there would be good for the economy and stability," said Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. colonel and a military theorist.
The Pentagon is also looking at reducing the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and moving the remaining soldiers farther from the demilitarized zone bordering North Korea.
South Koreans have become increasingly unhappy with U.S. forces stationed there and the country is wealthy enough to defend itself against the heavily militarized but impoverished North.
After winning the Second World War, U.S. troops in Germany, Italy and Japan never left. They are still in Korea 50 years after the Korean War. But that pattern is unlikely to be repeated with Iraq, where Mr. Rumsfeld has ruled out setting up permanent military bases.
"A permanent presence where we have these massive infrastructures tying down large numbers of troops is a thing of the past," Gen. Grange said.
Setting up new bases combined with swiftly deployable U.S. troops has military advantages, but it carries potential costs.
"If you want to have a national security strategy that says you are able to go anywhere and fight anybody then you certainly do want access to bases all around the world," said Marcus Corbin, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information.
"But the new basing approach cuts both ways. On the one hand you reduce the irritation of very large bases. On the other hand you appear to be expanding your tentacles all over the world, in the view of foreigners, and this may create a broader backlash among people who fear that the United States is really trying to run the world by force."
www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=ACAD2877-821E-4688-B54C-7568E6A20331
U.S. military positions itself to fight wars of the future
Forces to be set up in smaller bases in useful countries
Jan Cienski
National Post
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
CREDIT: Luke Frazza, The Associated Press
Donald Rumsfeld addresses troops at Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia, yesterday.
ADVERTISEMENT
WASHINGTON - U.S. troops preparing to pack up computers, fly out planes and mothball buildings at Saudi Arabia's Prince Sultan Air Base are part of a much broader reorganization that will dramatically change the U.S. military's global footprint.
As well as pulling out everything but training teams from Saudi Arabia, U.S. war planners are talking about reducing forces stationed in Germany, deploying troops to Central Europe, reassessing the utility of bases in Turkey and moving soldiers in South Korea.
"After 50 years of our basing relationships and alliances being largely unchanged, they are now rather rapidly being transformed," said Loren Thompson, a defence analyst with the Lexington Institute think-tank.
There are a host of reasons why such a transformation makes sense, but the overarching thought is to prepare the U.S. military to fight wars of the future by being light and capable of deploying anywhere in the world, even from permanent bases in the United States.
The idea is to set up many more smaller bases in useful countries around the world, ranging from Poland to Uzbekistan, to preposition equipment where possible and then rotate U.S. troops through for frequent training missions.
General James Jones, NATO's Supreme Commander in Europe, calls the concept establishing "lily pads" around the world that U.S. troops could use as jumping-off points.
Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. Defence Secretary, has been credited with pushing such a vision, but it has been percolating through the Pentagon since the collapse of the Soviet Union made it clear the United States had to change the way it structures its military.
For a decade after the Soviet Union's fall little was done to reposition U.S. forces. The war in Iraq, and its antecedent diplomatic crisis, forced the Pentagon into a dramatic reassessment as U.S. military planners found that bases set up to deal with past crises were little help in the current one.
Germany, a leader in the anti-war movement, levied extra charges for the freight trains needed to move tanks and equipment, which then got snarled up in Austrian border formalities.
Saudi Arabia did not want U.S. planes at Prince Sultan to be used against Iraq, the same position it took in the war in Afghanistan, although it later backed down and quietly agreed to help. U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia, home to the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina, has inflamed Islamic passions and provided one of the reasons cited by Osama bin Laden for his war of terror against the United States.
Turkey was the biggest surprise, destroying a carefully built defence relationship by refusing to allow U.S. troops in to attack Iraq from the north.
"If you can't use a base for the military purpose that brought you there then there's not much point in being there," said Mr. Thompson.
The United States will now rely on Persian Gulf allies such as Bahrain and Qatar, new home of U.S. air operations for the Middle East. Significantly, those states are edging toward greater democracy, while Saudi Arabia shows few signs of reforming its autocratic regime.
"I just think the United States was getting a little tired of the attitude of Saudi Arabia," said David Grange, a retired U.S. Army general. "The U.S. has nurtured relationships with some of the other Gulf states."
Overthrowing Saddam Hussein has also changed the rationale for positioning U.S. forces in the Middle East, since they were there to deter and later to invade Iraq.
"Iraq was a threat to the region, and because that threat will be gone, we also have the ability to adjust some of our relationships," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters yesterday in Doha, Qatar.
The U.S. Air Force is looking at withdrawing from Turkey's Incirlik Air Base, which had been used to patrol the northern no-fly zone over Iraq. Saddam's elimination also ended the need for the southern no fly zone, enforcement of which was the principal use of the Prince Sultan Air Base.
"There is obviously no need for them to remain," said Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, Saudi Arabia's Defence Minister.
While the successful war in Iraq is providing the greatest impetus for change, the force realignment will be felt around the world.
There are about 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in Germany, prepared to fight an enemy who never came. It is hugely expensive to keep them there and training exercises grate on German nerves.
The Pentagon is considering sending about half of those troops back to the United States and of setting up training bases in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and other new allies in Central Europe.
"In Eastern Europe the political relationships are better, and the move of U.S. troops there would be good for the economy and stability," said Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. colonel and a military theorist.
The Pentagon is also looking at reducing the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and moving the remaining soldiers farther from the demilitarized zone bordering North Korea.
South Koreans have become increasingly unhappy with U.S. forces stationed there and the country is wealthy enough to defend itself against the heavily militarized but impoverished North.
After winning the Second World War, U.S. troops in Germany, Italy and Japan never left. They are still in Korea 50 years after the Korean War. But that pattern is unlikely to be repeated with Iraq, where Mr. Rumsfeld has ruled out setting up permanent military bases.
"A permanent presence where we have these massive infrastructures tying down large numbers of troops is a thing of the past," Gen. Grange said.
Setting up new bases combined with swiftly deployable U.S. troops has military advantages, but it carries potential costs.
"If you want to have a national security strategy that says you are able to go anywhere and fight anybody then you certainly do want access to bases all around the world," said Marcus Corbin, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information.
"But the new basing approach cuts both ways. On the one hand you reduce the irritation of very large bases. On the other hand you appear to be expanding your tentacles all over the world, in the view of foreigners, and this may create a broader backlash among people who fear that the United States is really trying to run the world by force."
