U.S. to reduce Marines in Okinawa by 7,000

[Judi Lynn]

U.S. to reduce Marines in Okinawa by 7,000

Saturday, October 29, 2005 at 17:16 JST
WASHINGTON — The United States will reduce the number of U.S. Marines in Okinawa Prefecture by 7,000, almost halving the 15,000 to 18,000 Marines in Japan, as part of a bilateral realignment agreement to reduce the burden on base-hosting communities, Japanese Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono said Friday in Washington.

The personnel to be relocated away from Okinawa, which currently hosts 75% of all U.S. military facilities in Japan, will mostly be from command posts and not operational troops in order to maintain deterrence, Ono and his agency officials told reporters. The Marines will be relocated outside of Japan, mostly to Guam, the officials said.
(snip/)

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=353686

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. Marines in Japan to be slashed by half
WASHINGTON -- Japan and the United States have agreed to reduce the number of U.S. Marine Corps troops in Okinawa Prefecture by about a half, visiting Defense Agency chief Yoshinori Ono told reporters Friday evening.

As part of the ongoing efforts to reduce and integrate U.S. forces in Japan's southernmost prefecture, Tokyo and Washington agreed to shift some 7,000 of about 15,000 Marines to U.S. bases in Guam and other locations, Ono said in Washington.

"We demanded that Okinawa's burden of hosting U.S. bases be reduced in a tangible way, and the two sides have recently agreed to reduce Marines by 7,000," he said.
(snip/...)

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20051029p2a00m0na020000c.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AP version of the same story:

.S. and Japan Agree to Reduce Number of Marines on Island of Okinawa
By Harry Dunphy Associated Press Writer

Published: Oct 29, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States and Japan agreed Saturday to step up military cooperation and substantially reduce the number of Marines on the strategically important southern island of Okinawa.

The agreement calls for the phased withdrawal of 7,000 Marines from Okinawa to the Pacific island of Guam, a move that is expected to take six years.

There are 14,460 Marines in Japan, the largest Marine contingent based overseas. Nearly all are located on Okinawa, ideally situated for dealing with potential problems in the Pacific. However, Okinawans have long complained of crime, crowding and noise associated with the Marine bases.

The agreement came after talks involving Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Japanese Defense Minister Yoshinori Ono and Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura.

Rumsfeld said at a joint news conference at the Defense Department that the United States and Japan "agreed to findings and recommendations to strengthen the alliance and reduce the impact of the U.S. military on local communities."
(snip/...)

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBMCCM1EFE.html

[CountAllVotes]

1. The Marines will be relocated outside of Japan, mostly to Guam

Bullshit. They take some out of Iraq and send these Marines there (most of to Guam - :wtf: for) - aka ye 'ol switcharoo.

Being lied to AGAIN!

WHEN DO THE LIES STOP? They stop when these crooks are all in JAIL for life! :grr:

:kick:

[DemoTex]

2. Just like "stand-downs" in Viet Nam.

When my first unit was "withdrawn" from Viet Nam, only the unit flag and records went back to the States. The personnel were disbursed to other, similar units in Viet Nam. My guess, too, is that Marines from Okinawa will be seeing duty in a hot, dry, and very dangerous theater of operations.

[wordpix2]

3. my first reaction, too---they'll be off to Iraq or

maybe central Asia where big oil deposits lie and where Russia does not want BushCo corporate meddling.

[Bacchus39]

4. more than likely

but I don't know why US troops are in Japan or Germany at all.

[Ms. Clio]

5. The same reason that Rome kept troops everywhere

The foundation of empire is military force.

[Catch22Dem]

7. Korea

There's your #1 answer.

[northzax]

15. Taiwan

number 2. it's containment of China. Frankly, from a historical perspective, having marines in Japan has been a stabalising influence on the region for half a century, despite the two other wars.

and yes, I am sure that the Japanese government is not sorry to see the levels drawn down, they've been talking about it for years.

[Bacchus39]

17. I can see Korea

with US troops but not Japan or Germany. I think its a waste of resources.

[niallmac]

18. Let me wow you with my ignorance

I don't know why we have any troops overseas at all! That's how out of it I am. I seem to think we should spend the resources of the greatest country on earth toward becoming the greatest country on earth. If some evil doers don't like it then we make sure we have a strong home defense and act accordingly. Oil? What about the free market? Are we coercing countries to sell us oil? I only see us using our military to support our overseas corporations sucking profits from indigenous people around the world.

I think we are greedy bastards. I think we kill our youth and anyone else in the world just for greed. I think we could be doing so much more for humanity and if we did then fundamentalism and fanatacism wouldn't have a hand rail to grab on the way down to oblivion. Pretty ignorant, I know but it's what's in my head.

[akarnitz]

6. 5,000 more years of occupation?

Seems pretty harsh.

[Catch22Dem]

8. I think it's pretty safe to say, like Rome, our "empire"

will have fallen long before 5,000 years.

[akarnitz]

11. Say it ain't so!

We only need to envision empire and it shall be so.

On a serious note, how long are we going to hold Japan(or Germany) to the terms of a surrender from 60 years ago? How long will punish them for their socalled "inbred milataristic attitudes"? Or are we still using the Cold War as an excuse?

[enigma000]

19. Japan ruling party OK's revision giving military greater role(war OK now)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1886262

Does this answer your question?

[akarnitz]

24. Not really where I was going, but thanks for the article.

My question was relating to our perceptions of Japan and Germany as bellicose societies. I'm of the belief that the US uses this perception as an excuse to remain in those nations.

A look back through history suggests that these reputations as expansionistic, militaristic societies may not have been earned, only projected by the societies which defeated them in 1945. Japan, though it's history contains many decades of civil war, fought no expansionistic wars until the late 19th/early 20th centuries. Germany,as it is now, fought one clearly expansionistic war(WW II), and one war(WW I) which was only arguably a war to expand(I'll grant that Prussian history suggests a pugilistic tendency, at least as far back as the mid-18th century and Frederick the Great, and possibly as far back as the Teutonic Order in the 13th century. But what of Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, etc.?)

Now let's look at the history and reputations of the victorious nations of WW II. France and England, though their powers now seem to be waning. Before either nation began colonizing in the 17th century both were expanding into other countries for many centuries. England expanded into Wales, Scotland, and Ireland; the Hundred Years war found England attempting to expand in France. France fought wars, dating to at least the time of Charlamagne, to expand into Italy, Germany and Spain. Russian expansionism dates to Ivan the Terrible(16th century), its borders stretching to the east, south and west in every following centuryup to this one. The US has gained its territories, since 1800, through war with only two notable excptions: the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly(Alaska). Okay, there's a third(the Gadsen Purchase). But consider how we obtained Florida, California, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines, etc- thru war or the threat of war!

We read, however, in our history books that Japan and Germany are the nations to be fretted over because of their pasts. As I said at the top, I believe this an excuse, one that allows us to remain in strategic hotspots and exert our power globally. I think its time to admit our true reasons for staying.

[enigma000]

25. Excellent historical perspective

History has been a long series of wars and might seems to make right.

Germany was looking for "a place in the sun" at the beginning of the 20th century. Being one of the post economically, militarily, technologically counties at the time, I suspect German leaders felt it was time to replace the British Empire as the most powerful country in the world. Thus leading to WWI. It was the most deadly war in history and the first war among all the great powers since the Napoleonic Wars ended a century earlier. People of the time, didn't harbour too much hate/fear for Germany afterwords.

WWII was a rematch, but this time Germany was going for world domination and a genocidal plan to eliminate much of the human race. Include the fact that the Western powers: Britain, France, America had no taste for another war, and had repeatably sought compromise, Germany's actions were seen as particularly heinous.

Japan was just following in the footsteps of other European powers by creating an empire. However, the deaths of 10 million Chinese (mostly civilians) was far more brutal than one would expect from the European powers.

There still exists some weariness of these 2 countries, just like 60 years after the Napoleonic Wars (perhaps most suitably called history's first world war) Europeans were probably weary of the French. I'm not sure there is much fear of these 2 nations anymore. Are the French and the Poles comforted by American troops based in Germany? Do the Koreans and Chinese feel the same about Japan?

[Demeter]

9. Incoming! Cannon Fodder for Iraq!

or Syria, or New Orleans. Whatever.

[deadparrot]

10. Something tells me those Marines aren't going home.

And if they are, they're not gonna be here for long.

[Endangered Specie]

12. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't that war end about 60 years ago?

[leftchick]

13. that is a pretty good indication of how long the neo-freaks want to stay

in Iraq. But wanting and reality are often not them same.

[MADem]

21. We told Japan they couldn't have an army, though

It is in their constitution, thanks to General McArthur. That, ostensibly, is why we are there--to protect them from China.

They have a halfway decent "Self Defence Force" though--Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine. They do not put enough into it to make it on their own, though, so basically, they hire us to do the protecting for them.

[Endangered Specie]

23. mmm, I would not want to be in the way of the Chinese...

if they got the idea of exacting some 'retribution' in their heads.

and in any event, you can't blame the Chinese for disliking them.

[WhiteTara]

14. read -- Redeployed to Iraq

seems pretty transparent, doesn't it. Maybe it will keep the rapes down in Okinawa, but too bad for the Iraqis.

[jwirr]

16. That will make the people there happy. And it is about time.

[MADem]

20. This has to do with the ongoing fight over Futenma MCAS

It is right on the main highway, up the road from Kadena, surrounded by villes, towns, schools, apartments. A while back a helo crashed into a building right near a school. They want those helos out of there.

This fight has been going on since the late seventies, but only in the last decade or so has it gotten any real traction.

Originally the plan was to build an offshore helo facility, but that has kinda been pushed off the plate. Now they are going to relocate the function to Camp Schwab, which will make the northerners happy (NOT).

While the realignment will no doubt result in some of those people going to Iraq, it is not the intent of it--this issue has been festering for years. The guys who are stationed on Oki full time already deploy to Iraq from where they are at. Now they will leave from Guam instead.

[BrotherBuzz]

22. Hell, Marines are fungible. You can have them here or there...

Rumsfeld told me so....

(Fungible, for those not schooled in "Rummy-ese," means "commodities" that can be "traded or substituted," according to the dictionary - much like cannon fodder.)