The difference between the bases in Korea and Okinawa

Capability buzzword in Pentagon jargon. Tsutomu Ishiai: The Asahi Shimbun

Seen from this standpoint, U.S. military bases in Okinawa Prefecture allow for quick deployment to the Korean Peninsula as well as to the Taiwan Strait and Afghanistan.

That is why Rumsfeld apparently views the U.S. military presence in Okinawa as a ``very helpful base.'' The role of U.S. forces there is expected to continue even after the global realignment is complete.

The reduction in the U.S. troop presence in South Korea does not necessarily translate into a cut of U.S. forces in Japan

The US forces on Okinawa have always had an external focus. The island chain was only captured to provide a stepping stone for an invasion of the Japanese mainland and they have been used as forward bases in every war since.

Most of the forces on Okinawa are part of America's expeditionary armed force, the United States Marine Corps.

The difference is in Korea where mostly Army bases will now be used as staging bases to project force further out rather than as the static defensive positions they started out as. This parallels what has already happened with the bases in Germany that started out near the front lines and are now used to support operations deep in Asia.

But this pattern was established a long time ago. The American bases on Puerto Rico have just started to close down after a century long stay.

Isn't it a measure of success that bases are realigned and closed when the countries they were built in become stable well connected democracies and the front lines in The Pentagon's New Map of the war against oppressive disconnection are drawn further out?

-HJC