Too early to decide on carrier transfer
By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — The commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific told congressional lawmakers yesterday that the military wants to increase its response capabilities to deter emerging threats in Asia, but he said it is too soon to determine whether any new forces will be assigned to the region.
Asked by Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo whether the U.S. territory would be suitable as a home port for an aircraft carrier, Adm. Thomas Fargo said the military is still evaluating its forces worldwide.
"It's way premature right now to make any commitments," Fargo said during a hearing before a House subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
Hawai'i officials said last week that they have had talks with the Navy about bringing an aircraft carrier and strike group to Pearl Harbor, an initiative that Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawai'i, has long advocated. Inouye, who met with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday, has said the military would likely increase its presence in Hawai'i.
Bordallo has also said Guam is interested in a carrier group, arguing that the island is closer to Asia than Hawai'i. "I'm glad we're still in the picture," the Guam Democrat told the admiral.
Bordallo said later that she asked Fargo about the carrier because she wanted to call attention to Guam's stake in federal money for infrastructure improvements. She noted that the carrier USS Carl Vinson docked at Kilo Wharf in Guam in April before taking part in regional training exercises.
The military's 12 aircraft carrier groups are divided between the Atlantic and the Pacific, but the Navy has suggested that some forces may be moved during restructuring to respond to threats in Asia, particularly North Korea's nuclear ambitions and Philippine and Indonesian terrorism-linked insurgents.
Five Atlantic carrier groups are based in Norfolk, Va., and one in Florida. Three Pacific carrier groups are based in San Diego, two are in Washington state and one is in Japan.
Shifting a carrier group from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or transferring a carrier group within the Pacific fleet, would likely touch off political battles because of the economic benefit. A 1998 study by the Chamber of Commerce of Hawai'i estimated that home-porting a carrier at Pearl Harbor could infuse $375 million annually into the economy and create 4,200 jobs.
"Moving a carrier group from the Atlantic to the Pacific fleet is not the answer to meet concerns from growing foreign powers, and if this is more than talk, I along with other members of the Virginia delegation will work to ensure that this does not occur," said Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., who serves on the House Armed Services Committee.
Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was quoted in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot this week as saying Norfolk "should feel quite secure with regard to its naval components."
Patrick Garrett, a defense analyst with Global Security.org, a think tank in Alexandria, Va., said it would be "bad politics" to pull a carrier out of Norfolk. It takes 18 to 21 days for a carrier from Norfolk to get to the Persia Gulf vs. about 30 days from San Diego, he said.
"What's the harm of pulling one out of San Diego?" Garrett said. "The reason you need one in Hawai'i is because there's a big, bad wolf on the Korean peninsula."
According to Garrett, having a carrier in Hawai'i would cut off about a week's sailing time to Asia.
Peter Rodman, assistant defense secretary for international security affairs, told the subcommittee yesterday that the Defense Department wants to tailor its military power to regional challenges and increase the ability to respond quickly to unexpected or unconventional threats. Rodman testified that regional defense posture should be based on global considerations.
Staff writer William Cole contributed to this report.
