Posted on: Sunday, June 1, 2003

EDITORIAL
Realignment of troops won't occur in vacuum

The Pentagon's plans to realign its forces based overseas may make sense on the drawing board, but they create serious problems in their execution.

U.S. forces have already begun to move out of bases in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Germany. Some of them will be moved to new bases in places like Romania and Poland.

We've previously outlined some qualms about announced plans to move U.S. troops south from the DMZ in Korea. And now the Los Angeles Times reports the Pentagon wants to move the 20,000 Marines based in Okinawa elsewhere, including to new bases in Australia, Singapore and Malaysia. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz says that report is mistaken, but a debate apparently continues.

There's merit in the notion that basing troops in places like Korea and Germany assumes they'll be called on to fight reruns of wars fought decades ago, right there. Instead, the Pentagon wants them to be highly mobile, ready to fight in unexpected hotspots, and not tied down.

Further, the Bush administration seems to have decided that an expansionist China is not the threat it was once deemed, but that instability in places like Indonesia, the Philippines and Africa is of more concern.

And it's understandable that civilians in Okinawa and Seoul would appreciate some relief from the burden of intimate coexistence with American GIs and their equipment. That said, however, we'd suggest the problem is more one of inequality bordering on disrespect in forcing agreements, rather than a feeling the troops are no longer needed.

Actually, we'd expect that U.S. troops will encounter even more civilian sensitivity in some of their new locations, such as Malaysia.

Meanwhile, we're very concerned about how all these moves will be interpreted in the capitals of our allies and potential enemies.

Moving troops away from the Korean DMZ during the nuclear weapons program crisis sends the wrong message at the wrong time, both to South and North Koreans. Its worst interpretation is that the Pentagon wants its forces out of harm's way in a coming conflagration.

All of East Asia will wonder whether American commitment to regional stability and allies like Taiwan is being diluted or reconsidered, while the very future of NATO becomes doubtful. These plans suggest a change in philosophy from protection of people who want and need it to freeing forces for the projection of power to accomplish American will.

So far Washington's idea of consultation with allies amounts to extracting public professions of acquiescence. But clearly many of our allied leaders are very worried.