Why does us have troops in japan




















Two Russian Tu strategic bombers reportedly practiced bombing runs at the Ruzany firing range, about 37 miles east of the At least five service members allegedly were part of the deadly pro-Trump mob that assaulted the U.

Capitol on Jan. The committees also found the Mar-a-Lago members exerted dominance over White House staff who were tasked with implementing While the involvement of Saudi and Israeli fighters in the same mission is significant, that development does not necessarily A SpaceX rocket carried four astronauts into orbit Wednesday night, including the th person to reach space in 60 years.

Armistice Day remembrances have been observed worldwide after the coronavirus pandemic wiped out ceremonies last year to mark Military News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. You May Also Like. Russia Sends Nuclear-Capable Bombers on Patrol over Belarus Two Russian Tu strategic bombers reportedly practiced bombing runs at the Ruzany firing range, about 37 miles east of the My Profile News Home Page. Identified Benefits to U.

The military services obligated these funds from five categories, in order of size: military personnel, operation and maintenance, family housing operation and maintenance, family housing construction, and military construction. This direct financial support paid for certain costs, such as labor, construction, and utilities.

In addition to direct financial support, Japan and South Korea provided indirect support, such as forgone rents on land and facilities used by U. Similar arguments would apply to other scenarios of land combat in Asia, such as trouble between Japan and Russia. The Marine force on Okinawa is too small for major combat engagements and generally too immobile even for establishing tripwires or slowing down an adversary in the early phases of an attack.

Marines are simply not the right instrument of military force for addressing possible Chinese threats to the Spratly Islands, Taiwan, or the sea lanes of the South China Sea. Marines are configured to fight in coastal regions and on land. The Navy and Air Force are better able to provide the high-performance fighter aircraft, bombers, submarines, and surface warfare ships needed for the blue-water engagements that such scenarios involving China would likely entail.

Okinawa is a convenient base from which to conduct routine Marine patrols in the Western Pacific. Such patrols, typically involving about 2, troops on three to five ships and conducted by so-called Marine Expeditionary Units, are maintained by Okinawan-based Marines.

But other Marines begin and end routine overseas patrols from the continental United States, and the Marines now in Okinawa could too. At worst, if all Marine units were based in the United States, there might be longer gaps between successive patrols overseas.

The usual six-month rotations at sea would include a month in trans-Pacific voyages in addition to the five months on station, making a decline in efficiency of about 15 percent. But the Navy and Marine Corps have already learned how to deal with gaps between successive deployments. They cover for each other, send different types of ships such as destroyers for routine presence missions, or get temporary help from the Army or Air Force if land basing is available in a given theater as it often is for occasional deployments, even when other countries do not want a permanent U.

They could do so even more. Moreover, if one wishes to focus on military efficiency, there is much to be said against keeping forces on Okinawa. Technically, Marines are not stationed there, they are temporarily deployed. Thus, to keep 20, Marines on Okinawa, perhaps twice that number must be kept in the active-duty force structure—a luxury we may no longer want to afford. In the event that it brought forces home from Okinawa, the Marine Corps would have other options as well.

It might, for example, maintain a continuous presence in the Pacific by placing less priority on its standard patrol in the Mediterranean, where the United States enjoys strong allies and a much improved geopolitical backdrop thanks to developments in the Middle East and the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Thus, Army special forces or light infantry units might take over this traditional Marine responsibility in the Mediterranean and allow sea-based forces to focus more attention on those regions where reliable land bases are not so plentiful. As another option, the Marine Corps could borrow an idea from William Morgan, of the Center for Naval Analyses, and rotate crews by flying them from the United States to meet ships overseas.

Doing so would obviate the need for long ocean voyages to and from the United States except when major ship repairs were needed. Indeed, Okinawa might be a rendezvous point where crews began and ended their shifts.

But those dollars would be spent in the United States, stimulating the economy and mitigating the pain of the ongoing military base closure process. Moreover, as suggested above, moving the Marines home might make it possible to reduce the overall size of the Corps if U. In that event, there could even be net savings associated with the move.

Moving the American Marines away from Okinawa, either to Hawaii or to the continental United States, would go far to defuse the current discontent in Okinawa and dramatically reduce the likelihood that it would recur there or elsewhere in Japan in the future.

Any perception abroad that the United States was disengaging from Asia would be countered not only by continued Marine patrols in the Western Pacific, but by the enduring presence of Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel in Japan and Korea.

Japan would retain an important, yet less politically taxing, role in the U.



0コメント

  • 1000 / 1000