Hmmm, do you think they have any ulterior motives for closing overseas bases -- uh, sorry, "realigning" -- since there are military installations within their own states which are in danger of being shut down?
Certainly they pander to the notion that perhaps more overseas basing is necessary, but that certainly isn't the overall tone of the article in which they horribly fail to understand the vital importance of established overseas operating bases. I am not saying that there isn't a need to examine our force posture, but their intent seems clear enough to me -- don't touch Ft. Hood or Twentynine Palms!
San Diego Union-Tribune
May 6, 2003
A Needed Look At Overseas Basing
By Kay Bailey Hutchison and Dianne Feinstein
As the recent military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have illustrated, the Cold War concept guiding the overseas basing for the U.S. military is obsolete. Yet the number, structure and scope of our overseas bases are still largely aligned for the threat of Soviet aggression.
The process of when, how and why we base troops abroad is in need of a thorough examination to assure that our basing structure is adequate to the new security environment. And as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Military Construction Subcommittee, we have proposed legislation to do just that.
During the Cold War, our primary military mission was to defend our nation and our allies from the symmetric Soviet threat of aggression, and "boots on the ground" in Europe and Asia allowed us to do just that.
But even though the United States decreased some forces with the end of the Cold War, our nation still has 112,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in Korea and 45,000 in Japan, largely in installations designed, devised and intended for the threats of an earlier era.
The challenges we face today, however, are largely asymmetric, such terrorists groups or rogue states gaining weapons of mass destruction. Events of the past decade ? and since Sept. 11, 2001, especially ? have taught us that we need not only to maintain a military presence abroad, but to be in a position to support contingencies where we have no permanent bases, such as in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Africa and throughout the Middle East.
In the final analysis we may need less troops based overseas ? or more ? but clearly the needs are different than they once were, and it is critical that the United States move beyond the Cold War basing concepts.
This is not simply a matter of security ? although that is sufficient ? but also of assuring that taxpayer dollars are well and wisely spent. The Defense Department has requested $174 million for Korea and $284 million for Germany for new military construction next year ? a large bill for an outdated model.
In South Korea, our soldiers often serve on the same patches of ground U.S. troops occupied when the Korean War ended in 1953. Today, these training areas are inadequate to accommodate the extended reach of our weapons and the rapid pace of modern maneuver warfare. In fact, more than 7,000 U.S. troops are stationed at the Yongsan Army Garrison, which was built by the colonial Japanese Army long before World War II.
In Grafenwoehr, Germany, our troops train on tank and artillery ranges used by the Bavarian Army more than a century ago. The Army has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the complex in the past decade, even though the best training area consists of only 18,000 acres of land, a postage stamp compared to the 400,000 acres of maneuver area and ranges available at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, or the more than 1 million acres at Fort Bliss' McGregor Range on the Texas-New Mexico border.
Further complicating matters, the Defense Department is preparing for another round of domestic base closures in 2005. As we scrutinize stateside military installations, we must take a look at our worldwide structure as well. After all, it may well make sense to close a stateside base if certain overseas bases will remain open and in use ? and to make sure that same base remains open or is even upgraded should certain overseas bases be consolidated or closed.
To make sure we get the answers to these questions right, we have introduced bipartisan legislation to create a congressional commission to take an objective and thorough look at our overseas basing structure. The commission will consider a host of criteria to determine whether our bases are prepared to meet our needs in the 21st century. It will be comprised of national security and foreign affairs experts who will provide a comprehensive analysis of our worldwide base and force structure to the 2005 domestic Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or BRAC.
Such a review is timely. Some in the Pentagon have suggested the 2005 BRAC could result in the closure of nearly one out of every four domestic bases. But, if after a careful review, we reduce our overseas presence, we will need stateside bases to station returning troops. It is senseless to close bases on U.S. soil only to later realize that we made a costly, irrevocable mistake ? a painful lesson we learned in the last round of closures.
Our national security strategy is shifting to take on the new threats facing our nation. The position of U.S. troops around the globe must reflect that thinking.
Hutchison, a Republican from Texas, is chairman of the Senate Military Construction Subcommittee. Feinstein, a Democrat from California, is ranking member of that committee.
Certainly they pander to the notion that perhaps more overseas basing is necessary, but that certainly isn't the overall tone of the article in which they horribly fail to understand the vital importance of established overseas operating bases. I am not saying that there isn't a need to examine our force posture, but their intent seems clear enough to me -- don't touch Ft. Hood or Twentynine Palms!
San Diego Union-Tribune
May 6, 2003
A Needed Look At Overseas Basing
By Kay Bailey Hutchison and Dianne Feinstein
As the recent military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have illustrated, the Cold War concept guiding the overseas basing for the U.S. military is obsolete. Yet the number, structure and scope of our overseas bases are still largely aligned for the threat of Soviet aggression.
The process of when, how and why we base troops abroad is in need of a thorough examination to assure that our basing structure is adequate to the new security environment. And as chairman and ranking member of the Senate Military Construction Subcommittee, we have proposed legislation to do just that.
During the Cold War, our primary military mission was to defend our nation and our allies from the symmetric Soviet threat of aggression, and "boots on the ground" in Europe and Asia allowed us to do just that.
But even though the United States decreased some forces with the end of the Cold War, our nation still has 112,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in Korea and 45,000 in Japan, largely in installations designed, devised and intended for the threats of an earlier era.
The challenges we face today, however, are largely asymmetric, such terrorists groups or rogue states gaining weapons of mass destruction. Events of the past decade ? and since Sept. 11, 2001, especially ? have taught us that we need not only to maintain a military presence abroad, but to be in a position to support contingencies where we have no permanent bases, such as in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Africa and throughout the Middle East.
In the final analysis we may need less troops based overseas ? or more ? but clearly the needs are different than they once were, and it is critical that the United States move beyond the Cold War basing concepts.
This is not simply a matter of security ? although that is sufficient ? but also of assuring that taxpayer dollars are well and wisely spent. The Defense Department has requested $174 million for Korea and $284 million for Germany for new military construction next year ? a large bill for an outdated model.
In South Korea, our soldiers often serve on the same patches of ground U.S. troops occupied when the Korean War ended in 1953. Today, these training areas are inadequate to accommodate the extended reach of our weapons and the rapid pace of modern maneuver warfare. In fact, more than 7,000 U.S. troops are stationed at the Yongsan Army Garrison, which was built by the colonial Japanese Army long before World War II.
In Grafenwoehr, Germany, our troops train on tank and artillery ranges used by the Bavarian Army more than a century ago. The Army has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the complex in the past decade, even though the best training area consists of only 18,000 acres of land, a postage stamp compared to the 400,000 acres of maneuver area and ranges available at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, or the more than 1 million acres at Fort Bliss' McGregor Range on the Texas-New Mexico border.
Further complicating matters, the Defense Department is preparing for another round of domestic base closures in 2005. As we scrutinize stateside military installations, we must take a look at our worldwide structure as well. After all, it may well make sense to close a stateside base if certain overseas bases will remain open and in use ? and to make sure that same base remains open or is even upgraded should certain overseas bases be consolidated or closed.
To make sure we get the answers to these questions right, we have introduced bipartisan legislation to create a congressional commission to take an objective and thorough look at our overseas basing structure. The commission will consider a host of criteria to determine whether our bases are prepared to meet our needs in the 21st century. It will be comprised of national security and foreign affairs experts who will provide a comprehensive analysis of our worldwide base and force structure to the 2005 domestic Base Realignment and Closure Commission, or BRAC.
Such a review is timely. Some in the Pentagon have suggested the 2005 BRAC could result in the closure of nearly one out of every four domestic bases. But, if after a careful review, we reduce our overseas presence, we will need stateside bases to station returning troops. It is senseless to close bases on U.S. soil only to later realize that we made a costly, irrevocable mistake ? a painful lesson we learned in the last round of closures.
Our national security strategy is shifting to take on the new threats facing our nation. The position of U.S. troops around the globe must reflect that thinking.
Hutchison, a Republican from Texas, is chairman of the Senate Military Construction Subcommittee. Feinstein, a Democrat from California, is ranking member of that committee.
