Largest Post-1945 Shift: US 'Forward Bases' In E. Europe, Mideast, C. Asia, Africa

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>From Rick Rozoff:


---------------------------
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/06/11062003155139.asp

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
June 11, 2003

U.S.: Pentagon Eyes New Flexible Network Of Military
Bases Abroad
By Jeffrey Donovan

-[T]urkey's importance as a base for the Middle East
has already diminished with the Iraq war creation of
forward operating bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar,
Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.
Also, U.S. media report that contrary to what U.S.
officials said after the Afghan war in late 2001,
Washington is not planning on leaving its new bases in
Central Asia any time soon. If anything, bases set up
for that war in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan
may be upgraded and expanded.
-U.S. bases are also envisioned for the Caucasus --
possibly Azerbaijan -- to protect against instability
in the oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Still more bases
may be set up in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia in
North Africa and Senegal, Ghana, Mali, and Kenya in
sub-Saharan Africa.



In a strategic shift aimed at improving America's
ability to combat terrorism and rogue states, the
Pentagon has plans to carry out the biggest
realignment of its forces abroad since 1945. U.S.
troops are expected to leave traditional bases in
Germany, Turkey, and elsewhere for a new network of
smaller and more flexible "forward operating bases" in
Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and
Africa.

Washington, 11 June 2003 (RFE/RL) -- U.S. military
forces abroad will undergo their most radical
reconfiguration since the beginning of the Cold War,
under plans first reported this week by "The
Washington Post" newspaper.

The report says the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the
demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea
and the recent removal of U.S. forces from Saudi
Arabia are the first steps in an ambitious project to
replace most of America's permanent bases with dozens
of smaller ones for quick strikes around the world.

The plan's architect, Deputy Assistant Defense
Secretary Andy Hoehn, says that with the Soviet threat
no longer in Europe, U.S. strategy must adapt to the
new challenge of terrorism and hostile states with
weapons of mass destruction.

Peter Singer is a defense analyst with the Brookings
Institution, a Washington think tank. Singer explained
to RFE/RL the Pentagon's rationale: "We have a
military basing structure right now that reflects Cold
War priorities. And that's not in the best interests
of U.S. national security; it certainly doesn't
reflect any kind of grand strategy. And so it makes
sense to shift some of these forces around, to move
them into areas where there's greater need, to take
them out of areas where there's local resistance,
where they're unpopular, where they're not able to
carry out their training."

The plan reportedly envisions a series of military
"hubs" on U.S. territory, such as the Pacific island
of Guam, and in trusted allies such as Britain and
Japan. Traditional bases in Germany, Turkey, Saudi
Arabia, and elsewhere would be replaced by dozens of
bare-bones "forward operating bases" maintained by
small support units in Eastern and Southern Europe,
the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. These small bases
would function like "lily pads," with forces hopping
between them depending on the needs of the moment.

Among the key changes would be a significant reduction
in the 70,000 U.S. forces stationed in Germany, where
military officials say that training exercises have
become difficult if not impossible due to
environmental and other restrictions.

Although Washington would maintain the headquarters of
its European command in the German city of Stuttgart,
most U.S. troops there would be shifted to new bases
in Poland as well as Romania and Bulgaria, where
restrictions on training won't be tight as in Germany.
Plus, their Black Sea ports are seen as key to quickly
moving troops to the Middle East.

Janusz Bugajski specializes in Eastern European
studies at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, a Washington think tank. He told RFE/RL that
much remains unclear as to the exact nature of the new
base that would take shape in Poland. "The question is
also, it has to be practical. In other words, for what
will the troops be used? What would their function be?
Would they simply be there to train? Will they be
there to interact with their Polish and other
counterparts? Will they be there on a specific
mission? Some of this we're not going to learn about
because I think some of this will be Special Force
operations as well," Bugajski said.

Since the base restructuring follows a major dispute
over the Iraq war with Germany and Turkey, analysts
say those countries and others may see the change as
U.S. punishment for their dissent, even if U.S.
officials say their considerations are purely
strategic.

Singer of the Brookings Institution believes the
restructuring is driven by mostly strategic concerns.
But he said that's not all. "There's always politics,"
he said. "I mean, to say that it doesn't play even a
small, minute rule would be erroneous. There's always
going to be politics in this. And that's not just
about the potential withdrawals from Germany as a way
of showing our displeasure, but also some of the areas
where they've decided to potentially relocate [some
of] these forces which are new U.S. allies. That's
another way of rewarding them."

Bugajski agrees. He said that politics does play some
role in deciding to build bases in Poland, Romania,
and Bulgaria. "These countries proved themselves very
good allies during the Iraqi campaign as well as in
other issues such as the Afghani reconstruction and
generally in the antiterrorism campaign. So it's
political in that sense. It's sort of payback,"
Bugajski said.

Public opinion in some of the countries set to lose
U.S. troops, such as Germany and Turkey, has grown
more anti-American. That means the departure of U.S.
troops might make a lot of people happy. On the other
hand, it will have a negative impact on the economies
of the base areas.

And then there are the strategic considerations of the
countries themselves, which don't always jive with
public opinion.

Take Turkey, for example. Ankara failed to allow
Washington to deploy troops into northern Iraq in time
for the war. Now, troops at Turkey's Incirlik air base
are reportedly set to be reduced from 3,000 to around
500 or less.

That might not seem like much. But in reality, it has
Turkish officials deeply worried, said Bulent Aliriza,
who heads the Turkish program at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies.

Aliriza said the purpose of U.S. forces in Incirlik --
to protect the "no-fly zone" over northern Iraq -- is
obsolete now that U.S. forces occupy Iraq. But Aliriza
said that's no consolation to officials in Ankara
worried about Washington losing interest in Turkey.

"And I guess what they're really worried about is that
with the end of Operation Northern Watch [and the
patrols over the no-fly zone in northern Iraq], that
the Incirlik base will no longer house any American
troops and that this is going to reduce the
Turkish-American relationship to a point that begins
to eat into what was once a special relationship
between Ankara and Washington," Aliriza said.

Indeed, Turkey's importance as a base for the Middle
East has already diminished with the Iraq war creation
of forward operating bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar,
Oman, and the United Arab Emirates.

Also, U.S. media report that contrary to what U.S.
officials said after the Afghan war in late 2001,
Washington is not planning on leaving its new bases in
Central Asia any time soon. If anything, bases set up
for that war in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan
may be upgraded and expanded.

That's something of a concern to Singer. He said that
while he agrees with the overall plan, the choice of
some countries for bases may end up backfiring, since
it could drive public opinion to see hypocrisy in
America allying itself with authoritarian regimes.

"Ideally, you want to be going into democracies rather
than authoritarian governments. Because when you base
U.S. forces there, it's sort of a stamp of approval on
that local government's legitimacy," Singer said.

According to "The Wall Street Journal," small U.S.
bases are also envisioned for the Caucasus -- possibly
Azerbaijan -- to protect against instability in the
oil-rich Caspian Sea region. Still more bases may be
set up in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia in North
Africa and Senegal, Ghana, Mali, and Kenya in
sub-Saharan Africa.

Pentagon officials say the final decisions will be
made in the coming months and work could be started
within a year. But they caution the undertaking is
immense, hugely expensive, and unlikely to be
completed quickly.



__________________________________