Air Force Official Visits Guam, But Snubs Leaders

THURSDAY, 08 SEPTEMBER 2011 01:43 BY JANELA BUHAIN | MARIANAS VARIETY

LOCAL leaders weren’t notified about a visit U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley made last month to Andersen Air Force Base for an Airmen’s Call.

Donley was touring the Pacific region to reconnect and thank Airmen serving in the area, according to an article posted on the USAF website. He was on Guam Aug. 29.

The apparent snub has caused frustration among local leaders, particularly Senator Judi Guthertz.

“We’ve repeatedly emphasized the need for harmonious relationships between the Guam civilian community and all branches of the military operating in Guam as the buildup and related work goes forward,” Guthertz said. “This insensitive handling of the visit by Secretary Donley doesn’t help matters.”

Guthertz said she was disappointed with the protocol and general handling of the visit, and hopes 36th Wing Commander Brig. Gen. John Doucette will reconsider the relationship between the base and the civilian community in light of this.

In the article, Donley was quoted as saying, “As the farthest western piece of sovereign territory in the U.S., Guam is critically important to the United States. This is a great wing, and it plays a very important role in this region, and for our nation and our Air Force.”

Apart from encouraging the men and women in uniform and applauding their efforts, Donley also spoke in-depth about the ongoing and future challenges the Air Force faces in light of the “expected reductions” in the Department of Defense budget.

Donley said: “We're in a time of great financial volatility and fiscal crisis at home. The need to get our fiscal 'house' in order has become a national priority. In the last couple of years, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen identified the national debt as the single biggest threat to our national security.”

According to the Air Force public affairs office, a response to Guthertz from Secretary Donley’s office is forthcoming.
Donley also reportedly visited Singapore and Australia in the following days.

Meanwhile, Guthertz, chairperson of the Committee on the Guam Military Buildup, questioned the leadership of the new Joint Guam Program Office director, Capt. Daniel Cuff, who replaced Col. John Jackson, (USMC Ret) in June. Guthertz has yet to meet the new director and wondered if policies have shifted in dealing with the Guam community.

“Director Cuff is most welcome to visit my office at any time to share views on the status of the buildup,” Guthertz added.

The Imperial Defense of Pentagon Bloat

By David Sirotav from Commondreams.org

Beware the sophistry of budget talking points -- especially those seeking to deter any criticism of defense spending.

That's the lesson of these last few weeks, as establishment Republicans desperately try to thwart both progressives and tea party conservatives who are pressuring Congress to reduce Pentagon bloat.

The latest talking point du jour has been around in one form or another for years. It asks us to forget that a) America spends more on defense than every other major nation combined and b) the Pentagon, whose annual budget is now approaching World War II levels in inflation-adjusted terms, has lost track of trillions of taxpayer dollars. In light of those disturbing truths, we are nonetheless urged by Beltway Republicans to focus on the fact that defense spending is "4.9 percent of our gross domestic product, significantly below the average of 6.5 percent since World War II," as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial proclaimed.

That widely circulated article, aimed squarely at grassroots conservatives, was jointly written by three of the most influential Republican think tanks in Washington -- the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Foreign Policy Initiative. And like clockwork, the "percentage of GDP" nugget went from their pen to the GOP's well-oiled media machine.

Within days, RedState.com was bewailing supposedly "historically low (defense) spending" and citing the GDP talking point as a "rallying call." The American Spectator magazine, meanwhile, held up the op-ed as an "important reminder to new Republican congressmen" to refrain from "shortchang(ing) both our troops and American national security." Not surprisingly, that's when the "percentage of GDP" stat began being loyally parroted by establishment Republican voices on talk radio.

At one level, the GDP line is designed to simply avert attention from the $700 billion annual defense bill being, well, $700 billion. That's not only a massive sum, but also comparatively exorbitant. Yes, the Pentagon budget is so outsized that according to former Reagan Pentagon official Larry Korb, "(E)ven if the United States were to cut its (defense) spending in half it would still be spending more than its current and potential adversaries."

But, then, discussing defense spending in GDP argot is more than just distracting. It's dangerously incoherent, or just plain dangerous, because the language implies that military expenditures must increase as the economy expands.

Think about it: From a strictly defensive, protect-the-nation perspective, that assumption makes no sense.

"Does a more prosperous economy increase the risk that we will be attacked by a foreign power or by a terrorist group?" writes Slate's Tim Noah. "Of course not."

He adds that "a growing GDP may increase the level of defense spending we can afford, but it has no bearing on the level of defense spending we actually need."

This is true, except in one disturbing case: if -- but only if -- we assume the economy should grow primarily as a consequence of military dominance.

Herein lies the truly "dangerous" part of the GDP mantra. If Republicans in Washington believe American economic growth should be based on the United States militarily subjugating and exploiting foreign countries, then those Republicans can logically (if abhorrently) insist that Pentagon spending must remain a constant percentage of GDP.

Most elites in the GOP establishment, of course, would never openly admit to believing that our economy should be based on hegemonic conquest. We know this because the GOP establishment expressed unanimous outrage at anyone even vaguely suggesting that America wages war for energy resources.

But maybe that's the unspoken admission in the GDP-themed push for more military expenditures. Perhaps for all of the GOP's outrage at war-for-oil allegations, the Republicans' defense spending rhetoric exposes their truly imperial vision -- one that even the slickest talking points can no longer hide.

566 Million for Guam from DOD

Guam gets $566M under ‘11 DoD budget .
Friday, 21 May 2010 06:14
by Mar-Vic Cagurangan
Marianas Variety News Staff

THE U.S. House Armed Services Committee has unanimously approved its version of the 2011 defense spending legislation that appropriates $566 million for 12 new military projects on Guam, Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo announced yesterday.
The bill also authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer operations and maintenance funding to Guam to bankroll local infrastructure projects to support the military expansion on island. If the appropriations measure is signed into law, the defense department would be authorized to transfer up to $500 million through fiscal year 2017.

“The bill will now move for full consideration on the floor of the House of Representatives next week,” according to a press release from Bordallo’s office.

The proposed allotment for Guam construction is a component of the $708 billion budget request for the Department of Defense’s ongoing contingency operations overseas outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, or H.R. 5136.

“The House Armed Services Committee renewed its commitment to ensuring that the military buildup on Guam is done right,” said Bordallo, who has sponsored several provisions that seek to address Guam’s infrastructure needs to support a population surge.

Another salient feature of the bill provides for the transfer control of Navy’s water, including Fena Reservoir, and wastewater system to the Guam Waterworks Authority.

“This authority will help to eliminate unnecessary redundancies and create economies of scales in our current water and wastewater system that could ultimately improve service across the island,” Bordallo said.

“More importantly, while GWA will have to ultimately pay a fair market value to convey the Navy’s system the total cost can be offset by the cost of unreimbursed Compact-Impact costs to Guam,” she added.

The water provision in the bill, Bordallo said, serves as the cue to start serious discussions over water issues and the possibility of an eventual transfer of Navy water assets to GWA.
Other highlights of the bill are as follows:

• Extends authority to provide travel and transportation allowances for inactive duty training outside of normal commuting distances for members of the Reserve Component. The authority directly supports the training and readiness requirements of the Guam National Guard and is critical for their recruiting of service members from locations outside of Guam;

• Requires the Secretary of Interior to prepare a report on civilian infrastructure needs for Guam. The report would detail the infrastructure improvements needed to directly and indirectly support and sustain the military build-up as well as outline potential funding sources for such improvements from other federal sources;

• Secured additional $635,000 in funding for the Navy Sea Cadet Corps to fully meet their funding requirements. The additional funding will help to lower the out-of-pocket costs for cadets across the United States including on Guam;

• Requires a report from the Secretary of Navy by December 31, 2010 on the methods that the Secretary will use to ensure common standards for workforce housing and medical care. The report is in response to concerns regarding the lack of a coherent and comprehensive framework from the federal government on their expectation of contractors regarding workforce housing and medical needs requirements. The report indicates Congressional preference to ensure appropriate oversight of these matters to avoid unnecessary negative impacts on the local community;

• The Comptroller General will review and assess the proposed design for the replacement Naval Hospital on Guam to ensure the size and scope of the new facility meets anticipated future mission requirements and increased retiree and veteran populations on Guam;
• Requires the Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of establishing TRICARE Prime option for TRICARE beneficiaries in the territories including Guam. The report is due within 6 months of passage of the bill;
• Maintain $318 million for funding procurement of 8 C-27J “Joint Cargo Aircraft” as proposed in the President’s Budget; and
• Added $700 million for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account to improve readiness and preparedness for future missions. The increased funding for Guard and Reserve equipment begins to address nearly $42.5 billion in equipment shortages across all the Reserve Components.
box (if there is space)

Fiscal Year 2011 Military Construction Authorizations

Service Project Cost
Air Force Andersen AFB – Guam Strike Ops Group & Tanker Task Force $9,100,000
Air Force Andersen AFB – Guam Strike South Ramp Utilities, Phase 1 $12,200,000
Air Force Andersen AFB – PRTC – Combat Communications Operations Facility $9,200,000
Air Force Andersen AFB – PRTC – Red Horse HDQ/Engineering Facility $8,000,000
Air Force Andersen AFB – PRTC – Commando Warrior Open Bay Student Barracks $11,800,000
Army National Guard Combined Support Maintenance Ship Ph1 $19,000,000
Army National Guard Readiness Center (Assembly Hall/SRP) $778,000
Navy Marine Aviation - AAFB North Ramp Improvements Phase 1, Increment 2 $93,588,000
Navy Marine Aviation - AAFB North Ramp Utilities Phase 1, Increment 2 $79,350,000
Navy Apra Harbor Wharves Improvement Phase 1 $40,000,000
Navy Defense Access Road Improvements $66,730,000
Navy Finegayan Site Prep and Utilities $147,210,000
Defense Health Programs Hospital Replacement Increment 2 $70,000,000
Grand Total $566,956,000

2011 buildup spending pegged at $1.3B

2011 buildup spending pegged at $1.3B

Guam Delegate Bordallo emphasizes her position against forced land acquisition for the buildup

By Amritha Alladi • Pacific Daily News aalladi@guampdn.com • February 5, 2010

President Obama has proposed $566 million for military construction projects on Guam as part of his fiscal 2011 defense spending budget.

But that's only a portion of the money set aside for Guam, according to Guam Department of Labor chief economist Gary Hiles, who said the Defense Department's draft Environmental Impact Statement has cited an overall assumed value of military contracts for 2011 is over $1.3 billion, including Japan's share of costs.

"It should be noted that there are other sources of funds for the buildup plans including Japan government appropriations and non-appropriated Japan financing. There also could be projects funded from other defense budgets so U.S. (military contract) appropriations do not provide the entire picture for Guam construction," Hiles said.

'Fact-finding team'

This, just as Japan plans to send a "fact-finding team" to Guam on Feb. 10 as part of a mission by Japan's Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to compile a list of possible relocation sites for the Marine Corps Futenma Air station, the Stars and Stripes reported yesterday.

The relocation of the base to northern Okinawa is part of a 2006 agreement between Japan and the United States, and U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in October he didn't see the Guam buildup materializing unless Japan and the United States come to an agreement on the Futenma issue.

Since he was elected last year, Hatoyama has been seesawing between going forward with the current relocation plan to move Futenma to northern Okinawa, or to opt for an alternate site -- possibly Guam-- by the end of May.

But whether Guam will receive more than the 8,000 Marines already scheduled to arrive by 2014 is only one of several looming concerns Guam residents have regarding the buildup.

Eminent domain

On Wednesday, Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo reiterated to leaders in Washington, D.C., her position against the use eminent of domain for acquisition of non-Defense Department lands for military buildup projects on Guam, a release from her office stated.

Bordallo, during a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the Fiscal 2011 defense budget, addressed Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. She suggested they look into building within their existing land on Guam.

Bordallo also shared concerns raised by members of the community at recent town hall meetings regarding the Defense Department's draft Environmental Impact Statement--specifically the aircraft carrier berthing and the potential damage to coral reefs during the dredging process, according to the release.

Gates, according to Bordallo, responded the Department of Defense would work with Guam stakeholders to "have transparency and for (Department of Defense) to take into account the views of the people of Guam," according to the release. Bordallo stated that Mullen and Gates agreed the buildup must be done right.

Army fast ships

Speaking in response to media reports that Guam may also see an increased military presence by way of a dozen Army fast ships that can carry about 300 troops per ship, Sen. Judith Guthertz yesterday raised several questions, among them: when the addition of these forces would occur, where they would be sited and why this project wasn't included within the Defense Department's document that Guam residents are currently reviewing.

U.S. Department of Defense requests $427 million for Okinawa relocation

U.S. Department of Defense requests $427 million for Okinawa relocation

February 2, 2010

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Defense is requesting that $427 million, or approximately 38.4 billion yen, be allocated from the fiscal 2011 federal budget draft to finance the relocation of about 8,000 U.S. Marines stationed in Okinawa to Guam.

The announcement came along with the allocation of $159.3 billion (about 14.3 trillion yen) to fund overseas war expenses. In total, the Pentagon will demand $192.3 billion (about 17.3 trillion yen) for war expenses, including $33 billion from the fiscal 2010 supplementary budget to cover the additional deployment of troops to Afghanistan.

The $427 million is intended to cover the construction of additional facilities at Andersen Air Force Base, and reinforce the pier of Apra Harbor in Guam to accommodate the relocation of the troops from Okinawa Prefecture.

However, congressmen will likely demand that the allocation be deleted from the budget draft if Tokyo further delays a decision on the relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa beyond May, or makes a proposal unacceptable to Washington.

The administration of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has pledged to make a final decision on the Futenma relocation in the Okinawa Prefecture city of Ginowan by the end of May. The previous Liberal Democratic Party-led administration had agreed with the United States that the base would be moved to an area off Camp Schwab in the prefecture city of Nago.

In the meantime, the total budgetary allocation that the Pentagon is set to demand for fiscal 2011, excluding war expenses, came to $548.9 billion, or approximately 49.4 trillion yen, up 3.4 percent from the current fiscal year.

(Mainichi Japan) February 2, 2010

Military budget impact unclear for Guam

Military budget impact unclear for Guam

By John Yaukey • PDN Washington Bureau • January 28, 2010

WASHINGTON -- Boots on the ground will trump jets in the air or boats in the water in the Pentagon's forward-looking, four-year plan due out Monday alongside the 2011 defense budget.

The Quadrennial Defense Review will recommend beefing up the Army and the Marine Corps, now stretched thin in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a draft version of the document.

Many of the cuts in expensive weapons have started already.

Guam impact

For Hawaii and Guam -- home to some of the most expensive conventional weapons the nation deploys, as well as to legions of foot soldiers -- the report will have manifold consequences, although it's not yet clear what they are.

The various military branches are expected to outline how they'll be affected by the QDR and the proposed 2011 defense budget Monday.

The defense budget has been growing by an annual average of 4 percent, which would mean a $563 billion package for 2011, depending on whether it includes special funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If included, the war funding could boost the overall request to $700 billion or more.

The Obama administration has said it wants to include war funding in the annual budget, rather than adding it in as needed, the way the Bush administration did.

"The defense budget is now more people-oriented," said Loren Thompson, a top defense analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute. "You're going to see more emphasis on fighting unconventional warfare and less on weapons like aircraft carriers and bombers -- more on people and less on equipment."

The QDR is a broad, thematic report. It does not lay out the future of the military in any detail. Those decisions unfold annually in the defense budget, and they change with each president.

Already, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has attempted to cut high-priced weapons systems, such as the F-22 fighter and Future Combat System for the Army, in favor of spending on ground-based troops and their support needs.

Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said the upcoming QDR will be the first to be driven by current wartime requirements, largely to balance conventional and nonconventional capabilities, and to embrace a "whole of government" approach to national security.

"This is a landmark QDR," Lynn told aerospace executives at the recent Aerospace and Defense Conference. "And it comes at a time when the nature of war is changing in ways that we need to adapt to."

The 2006 QDR recommended moving naval strength from the Atlantic to the Pacific, in response to the rising prominence of China.

That was a boon for Hawaii and Guam.

China remains a major concern, but it's still not clear how the Obama administration will respond to the world's most populous nation within the larger context of worldwide threats, especially from the radical Islamic world, where soldiers and Marines have been doing most of the work.

Resources are limited.

"Given the state of the federal budget overall, it is unlikely that this rate of (military) growth will continue," said a report from the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

That creates potential conflict between "the people who serve and the weapon systems they depend on," the report said.

The Guam Military Buildup by Congressman Neil Abercrombie

By Neil Abercrombie
July 11, 2009

Some in Guam have expressed strong opposition to provisions in the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, passed overwhelmingly this week by the U.S. House, concerning military construction in Guam.

The measure authorizes a multi-year, multi-billion dollar building program to construct a new home for the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Forces and elements of other units stationed on the island of Okinawa and in mainland Japan for many years. This means building permanent military facilities to accommodate about 8,000 military personnel and as many as 9,000 family members. The move is the result of a lengthy and detailed agreement between the United States and Japan, under which the U.S. will pay about 40% of the cost.

When Members of the House Armed Services Committee considered the matter, we had two aims: 1.) to assure our men and women in uniform and their families high quality, comfortable and durable buildings and facilities in a secure environment in which they can work, train and live, and 2.) create stable, well-paid jobs for skilled American building and construction workers to replace some of the thousands of jobs lost in this economic recession,.

This five-year project will require 15,000 or more construction workers. Thousands will have to be recruited to relocate to supplement the local workforce. The legislation reserves 70% of those jobs for American workers.

My ideal for the quality of housing and facilities we want on Guam are the military construction projects in Hawaii and across the country through public-private joint ventures, in which companies win multi-year contracts to build, maintain, repair and manage family housing and other structures on a base. The company builds out the project and makes its money from the Basic Allowance for Housing paid by the military families who live in the housing. In Hawaii, we negotiated 50-year agreements with our construction companies at Schofield Barracks, Hickam Air Force Base, Pearl Harbor Naval Station and Marine Base Kaneohe. The product and the process have been widely praised by military families and military leaders.

Wages should be commensurate with the experience and skills of the building trades workers who can provide the quality construction our military personnel deserve. The legislation established wages at the level for similar projects in Hawaii, the closest U.S. labor market. Guam’s prevailing wage is significantly less than most U.S. labor markets; its tax base is limited; and its workforce has only a fraction of the trained and skilled people needed for this job.

The alternative is to outsource to Japanese companies that will bring in foreign workers, for which the Guam government collects a bounty of $1000 per head. This will open the door to profiteering and continued wage bondage, and be a slap in the face of every qualified, unemployed American worker.

Relocating thousands of military personnel and their families is a massive undertaking, and will dramatically alter Guam’s future. Building a new military base from scratch will take several years and billions of dollars. The project will offer thousands of local jobs, thousands more from outside, create opportunities for local small businesses and transform the economy of the island. It is also a singular opportunity to put Americans to work, in an American territory, building America’s future in the Pacific region. Economic security and national security go hand in hand.

Fiji Military Spending

RECENT OVER-EXPENDITURE REPORT IS NOTHING NEW: LEWENI
11/28/08
www.radiofiji.com.fj/fullstory.php?id=16140

SUVA (RF Online/Pacific Media Watch): Military spokesman Major Neumi Leweni says the recent hype in the media about the over-expenditure of Fiji’s military in 2007 is nothing new.

The military made the headlines recently after it was discovered it spent $45.6 million more than its 2007 budgetary allocation.

This discovery was accompanied by criticism from many who demanded an explanation for the enormous overspending.

Both Major Leweni and then Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry told FBCL News the reason for the over-expenditure was because of the need to take on extra manpower following reports of a possible external military intervention.

As to the many criticisms that the military and the finance ministry have copped in the last few days, Leweni had this to say.

“As you can see, the criticism did not only start when the budget came out. You will note that it is from the same people. People who have been against the military and the interim government from day one. So these people will always be out there to pick on issues to try and discredit the interim government and the RFMF. And just lately, after having listened to articles that have come out, a lot of people fail to realise the amount of money that have been brought in by peacekeepers. And unfortunately people have always looked at the negative side of it.”

The military allocation for 2007 was $80.7 million.

Its total expenditure was $126.28 million, exceeding their allocation by $40.6 million.