Published on Tuesday, October 31, 2006
by CommonDreams.org
Bush Losing Support of Military
by Bob Burnett
One of the most memorable Iraq war images was President Bush's May 1, 2003, speech from the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. As Bush announced, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," framed by the banner, "Mission Accomplished," he was surrounded by hundreds of cheering troops. At the time, it would have been hard to predict that three years later major combat operations would not have ended, the mission would not be accomplished, and Bush would be losing the support of the military.
How did George Bush manage to lose the backing of our armed forces, which at one time was highly supportive of his Administration?
Four factors contributed to this change: First, the occupation of Iraq was botched. Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor's recent book, Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq argues the Administration "committed five grievous errors" during the planning and execution of the invasion: "They underestimated their opponent and failed to understand the welter of ethnic groups and tribes that is Iraq." "They did not bring the right tools to the fight and put too much confidence in technology." "They failed to adapt to developments on the ground;" did not recognize the rise of the insurgency. "They presided over a system in which differing military and political perspectives were discouraged." Finally, "they turned their backs onŠ nation-building."
Second, the Bush Administration's failure to "bring the right tools to the fight" directly impacted rank-and-file troops. Particularly in the early days of the occupation, most had inadequate equipment. A recent poll indicated that 42 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans "said their equipment was below the military standard of being 90 percent operational."
Third, the longer our troops stayed in Iraq the more they became aware that most Iraqis didn't want them there. A recent poll indicated that 71 percent of Iraqis want occupation forces to leave within a year. Further, 60 percent supported attacks on US-led forces.
And fourth, increasing numbers of retired Army and Marine generals began to express opposition to the war. (It's a violation of the Uniform code of Military Justice for an active-duty officer to criticize the President or anyone in the chain of military command.)
The Administration attempted to keep a lid on this discontent. As a result, there have been very few surveys that asked active-duty troops how they felt about the war. The most recent poll indicated that 72 percent of active-duty personnel believed the war should end in 2006. A more recent survey indicated that 53 percent "did not always know who the enemy was."
Increasing numbers of soldiers have gone AWOL or asked for Conscientious Objector status. In October, military personnel began adding their names to a web-based petition calling for withdrawal from Iraq. Active duty troops have begun to speak against the war.
The most notable recent comment came from Kevin Tillman on October 19th. Kevin is the brother of former pro football star, Pat Tillman, who killed in Afghanistan on April 22. 2004. Both brothers enlisted after September 11, 2001, and initially served in Iraq; then they were trained as Army Rangers and sent to Afghanistan. Kevin said, "Somehow American leadership, whose only credit is lying to its people and illegally invading a nation, has been allowed to steal the courage, virtue and honor of its soldiers on the ground."
One of the reasons the military has turned on the Bush Administration is the increasing number of wounded troops. There have been more than 21,000 such casualties, in addition to the more than 2800 deaths. The Bush Administration prohibits pictures of coffins returning from Iraq.
They've also told the Department of Veteran's Affairs to not give out the names of the wounded. Democratic Congressman John Murtha noted that in addition to the soldiers' grievous physical injuries,"50,000 will suffer from what I call battle fatigue." In July 2004, the PBS News Hour reported, "about one-sixth of troops returning from Iraq showed symptoms of mental health problems but many are not receiving treatment." ( A recent study indicated these injuries will cost the US more than $1 trillion.)
Of course, Active-duty troops are being required to spend multiple tours of duty in Iraq. This has increased their financial and psychological problems. Recently, Stars and Stripes reported the divorce rate for Iraqi veterans jumped from 9 to 15 percent and alcohol abuse rose from 13 percent to 21 percent.
Last year, decorated combat veteran John Murtha came out against the war in Iraq. One of his reasons was the damage the occupation is doing to the military. Murtha spoke movingly of his visits with returning veterans. He concluded, "Our military is suffering."
It is this suffering, the consequences of an ill conceived and tragically mishandled war, that cost the Bush Administration the support of our troops.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer. He can be reached at bobburnett@comcast.net
###
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Bula Nukes Giya Guahan
‘US Unlikely to Redeploy Nukes in South’
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
Washington is unlikely to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula to deter North Korea's nuclear threat largely because of its goal ofdenuclearizing the peninsula, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
``The chances of the United States re-deploying those weapons are slim,'' the newspaper reported, citing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's remarks last week that the goal of U.S. diplomacy is to denuclearize the peninsula.
A group of 17 former South Korean defense ministers and war veterans last week issued a statement calling on the government to ask the U.S. military to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons, which were removed by former President George H.W. Bush's administration in 1991 as part of arms reductions following theCold War.
In the same year, the two Koreas signed a pact pledging not to deploy, develop or posses nuclear bombs on the peninsula, which was apparently breached by Pyongyang when it reportedly conducted a nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9.
Defense analysts also said the U.S. government is expected to provide a stronger nuclear umbrella to Seoul rather than re-deploying nuclear weapons on the peninsula, which would fan a nuclear arms race among countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Kim Tae-woo, a researcher at the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), said the current U.S. nuclear umbrella for South Korea is enough to counter North Korea's nuclear capability.
``What South Korea needs right now is the United States' firm commitment to the provision of nuclear umbrella to South Korea, given that U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines frequently visit South Korean ports and are being deployedaround the peninsula,'' said Kim.
Defense Yoon Kwang-ung and his U.S. counterpart Donald H. Rumsfeld are to meet in Washington, D.C. on Saturday to reaffirm military cooperation, includingthe nuclear umbrella for Seoul, against the apparently nuclear-armed Pyongyang regime.
During the security talks, called the Security Consultative Meeting, the two sides are also expected to draw up a final road map regarding the transition of wartime operational control that has remained in the hands of the U.S. military.
The U.S. military is reportedly deploying about 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons around the world. Most of the atomic weapons are being stationed at bases in Hawaii and Guam and have advanced aircraft carriers and submarinesavailable for nuclear weapons installment.
Tactical nuclear weapons are used in a limited nuclear war targeting the enemy military forces. They have an explosive yield ranging from 0.1 kiloton (100 tons of TNT) to 1 megaton (1 million tons of TNT).
The ``low-yield'' weapons are short-range, covering less than 500 kilometers, and take the form of artillery shells. An arms control treaty does not currently cover these nuclear weapons.
Tactical nuclear weapons expected to cover Korea include the Tomahawk cruise missile capable of carrying a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, the AGM-69 short-range attack missile, the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile fo rB-52 bombersand the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile, according to defense experts.
Strategic nuclear weapons are used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including both military and civilian targets, in a full-scale nuclear war. Such an attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social and military infrastructure of a country.
A case in point is the United States' nuclear bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr10-15-2006 17:41
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
Washington is unlikely to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula to deter North Korea's nuclear threat largely because of its goal ofdenuclearizing the peninsula, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
``The chances of the United States re-deploying those weapons are slim,'' the newspaper reported, citing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's remarks last week that the goal of U.S. diplomacy is to denuclearize the peninsula.
A group of 17 former South Korean defense ministers and war veterans last week issued a statement calling on the government to ask the U.S. military to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons, which were removed by former President George H.W. Bush's administration in 1991 as part of arms reductions following theCold War.
In the same year, the two Koreas signed a pact pledging not to deploy, develop or posses nuclear bombs on the peninsula, which was apparently breached by Pyongyang when it reportedly conducted a nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9.
Defense analysts also said the U.S. government is expected to provide a stronger nuclear umbrella to Seoul rather than re-deploying nuclear weapons on the peninsula, which would fan a nuclear arms race among countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Kim Tae-woo, a researcher at the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), said the current U.S. nuclear umbrella for South Korea is enough to counter North Korea's nuclear capability.
``What South Korea needs right now is the United States' firm commitment to the provision of nuclear umbrella to South Korea, given that U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines frequently visit South Korean ports and are being deployedaround the peninsula,'' said Kim.
Defense Yoon Kwang-ung and his U.S. counterpart Donald H. Rumsfeld are to meet in Washington, D.C. on Saturday to reaffirm military cooperation, includingthe nuclear umbrella for Seoul, against the apparently nuclear-armed Pyongyang regime.
During the security talks, called the Security Consultative Meeting, the two sides are also expected to draw up a final road map regarding the transition of wartime operational control that has remained in the hands of the U.S. military.
The U.S. military is reportedly deploying about 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons around the world. Most of the atomic weapons are being stationed at bases in Hawaii and Guam and have advanced aircraft carriers and submarinesavailable for nuclear weapons installment.
Tactical nuclear weapons are used in a limited nuclear war targeting the enemy military forces. They have an explosive yield ranging from 0.1 kiloton (100 tons of TNT) to 1 megaton (1 million tons of TNT).
The ``low-yield'' weapons are short-range, covering less than 500 kilometers, and take the form of artillery shells. An arms control treaty does not currently cover these nuclear weapons.
Tactical nuclear weapons expected to cover Korea include the Tomahawk cruise missile capable of carrying a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, the AGM-69 short-range attack missile, the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile fo rB-52 bombersand the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile, according to defense experts.
Strategic nuclear weapons are used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including both military and civilian targets, in a full-scale nuclear war. Such an attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social and military infrastructure of a country.
A case in point is the United States' nuclear bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr10-15-2006 17:41
Bula Nukes
‘US Unlikely to Redeploy Nukes in South’
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
Washington is unlikely to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula to deter North Korea's nuclear threat largely because of its goal ofdenuclearizing the peninsula, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
``The chances of the United States re-deploying those weapons are slim,'' the newspaper reported, citing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's remarks last week that the goal of U.S. diplomacy is to denuclearize the peninsula.
A group of 17 former South Korean defense ministers and war veterans last week issued a statement calling on the government to ask the U.S. military to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons, which were removed by former President George H.W. Bush's administration in 1991 as part of arms reductions following theCold War.
In the same year, the two Koreas signed a pact pledging not to deploy, develop or posses nuclear bombs on the peninsula, which was apparently breached by Pyongyang when it reportedly conducted a nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9.
Defense analysts also said the U.S. government is expected to provide a stronger nuclear umbrella to Seoul rather than re-deploying nuclear weapons on the peninsula, which would fan a nuclear arms race among countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Kim Tae-woo, a researcher at the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), said the current U.S. nuclear umbrella for South Korea is enough to counter North Korea's nuclear capability.
``What South Korea needs right now is the United States' firm commitment to the provision of nuclear umbrella to South Korea, given that U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines frequently visit South Korean ports and are being deployedaround the peninsula,'' said Kim.
Defense Yoon Kwang-ung and his U.S. counterpart Donald H. Rumsfeld are to meet in Washington, D.C. on Saturday to reaffirm military cooperation, includingthe nuclear umbrella for Seoul, against the apparently nuclear-armed Pyongyang regime.
During the security talks, called the Security Consultative Meeting, the two sides are also expected to draw up a final road map regarding the transition of wartime operational control that has remained in the hands of the U.S. military.
The U.S. military is reportedly deploying about 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons around the world. Most of the atomic weapons are being stationed at bases in Hawaii and Guam and have advanced aircraft carriers and submarinesavailable for nuclear weapons installment.
Tactical nuclear weapons are used in a limited nuclear war targeting theenemy military forces. They have an explosive yield ranging from 0.1kiloton (100tons of TNT) to 1 megaton (1 million tons of TNT).The ``low-yield'' weapons are short-range, covering less than 500 kilometers,and take the form of artillery shells. An arms control treaty does notcurrently cover these nuclear weapons.Tactical nuclear weapons expected to cover Korea include the Tomahawk cruisemissile capable of carrying a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, the AGM-69short-range attack missile, the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile forB-52 bombersand the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile, according to defenseexperts.Strategic nuclear weapons are used in an attack aimed at an entire country,including both military and civilian targets, in a full-scale nuclear war.Suchan attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social and militaryinfrastructure of a country.A case in point is the United States' nuclear bombing of the Japanese citiesof Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr10-15-2006 17:41
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
Washington is unlikely to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula to deter North Korea's nuclear threat largely because of its goal ofdenuclearizing the peninsula, the Washington Post reported Saturday.
``The chances of the United States re-deploying those weapons are slim,'' the newspaper reported, citing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's remarks last week that the goal of U.S. diplomacy is to denuclearize the peninsula.
A group of 17 former South Korean defense ministers and war veterans last week issued a statement calling on the government to ask the U.S. military to re-deploy tactical nuclear weapons, which were removed by former President George H.W. Bush's administration in 1991 as part of arms reductions following theCold War.
In the same year, the two Koreas signed a pact pledging not to deploy, develop or posses nuclear bombs on the peninsula, which was apparently breached by Pyongyang when it reportedly conducted a nuclear bomb test on Oct. 9.
Defense analysts also said the U.S. government is expected to provide a stronger nuclear umbrella to Seoul rather than re-deploying nuclear weapons on the peninsula, which would fan a nuclear arms race among countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan.
Kim Tae-woo, a researcher at the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA), said the current U.S. nuclear umbrella for South Korea is enough to counter North Korea's nuclear capability.
``What South Korea needs right now is the United States' firm commitment to the provision of nuclear umbrella to South Korea, given that U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines frequently visit South Korean ports and are being deployedaround the peninsula,'' said Kim.
Defense Yoon Kwang-ung and his U.S. counterpart Donald H. Rumsfeld are to meet in Washington, D.C. on Saturday to reaffirm military cooperation, includingthe nuclear umbrella for Seoul, against the apparently nuclear-armed Pyongyang regime.
During the security talks, called the Security Consultative Meeting, the two sides are also expected to draw up a final road map regarding the transition of wartime operational control that has remained in the hands of the U.S. military.
The U.S. military is reportedly deploying about 10,000 tactical nuclear weapons around the world. Most of the atomic weapons are being stationed at bases in Hawaii and Guam and have advanced aircraft carriers and submarinesavailable for nuclear weapons installment.
Tactical nuclear weapons are used in a limited nuclear war targeting theenemy military forces. They have an explosive yield ranging from 0.1kiloton (100tons of TNT) to 1 megaton (1 million tons of TNT).The ``low-yield'' weapons are short-range, covering less than 500 kilometers,and take the form of artillery shells. An arms control treaty does notcurrently cover these nuclear weapons.Tactical nuclear weapons expected to cover Korea include the Tomahawk cruisemissile capable of carrying a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, the AGM-69short-range attack missile, the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile forB-52 bombersand the BGM-109G ground-launched cruise missile, according to defenseexperts.Strategic nuclear weapons are used in an attack aimed at an entire country,including both military and civilian targets, in a full-scale nuclear war.Suchan attack would seek to destroy the entire economic, social and militaryinfrastructure of a country.A case in point is the United States' nuclear bombing of the Japanese citiesof Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr10-15-2006 17:41
Monday, October 23, 2006
Only 5.3% of Guam is over the age of 65
Compensation overdue for radiation victims
by Jean Hudson, KUAM News
Sunday, October 22, 2006
One non-profit organization continues to push for victims of radiation exposure. President of the Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors Robert Celestial says according to the National Research Council Guam has missed out on many years of compensation. "Because as of 2000 through 2002, counties in the United States have been receiving millions of dollars through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, and we missed it back then and last year again,' he explained.
Celestial continued, "And so what that does, we now have to justify ask for funding for a new hospital, radiation therapy, and we need a radiation oncologist and a team to operate the machine because they appropriated $2 million for through the Legislature for the machine. It's like buying an airplane without the pilots and mechanics to run it."
He says according to the National Research Council, survivors who lived on Guam between 1946 and 1962 may qualify for compensation. Also, during the PARS annual membership meeting this afternoon, guest speaker Dr. Luis Syzfres with the Cancer Research Center talked about research that reveals that only 5.3% of Guam's population is over age 65. "This is something that is even published in the U.S. Census. I began to ask what is going on in Guam? I receive answers like 'Oh, they're on vacation, the old people', 'They are visiting their children.' No! So what is it? What is unique to Guam that people can't get really old?
"And when we say old, we know that these are diseases that are not like bullets. They are chronic diseases that start early in life," he said.
by Jean Hudson, KUAM News
Sunday, October 22, 2006
One non-profit organization continues to push for victims of radiation exposure. President of the Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors Robert Celestial says according to the National Research Council Guam has missed out on many years of compensation. "Because as of 2000 through 2002, counties in the United States have been receiving millions of dollars through the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, and we missed it back then and last year again,' he explained.
Celestial continued, "And so what that does, we now have to justify ask for funding for a new hospital, radiation therapy, and we need a radiation oncologist and a team to operate the machine because they appropriated $2 million for through the Legislature for the machine. It's like buying an airplane without the pilots and mechanics to run it."
He says according to the National Research Council, survivors who lived on Guam between 1946 and 1962 may qualify for compensation. Also, during the PARS annual membership meeting this afternoon, guest speaker Dr. Luis Syzfres with the Cancer Research Center talked about research that reveals that only 5.3% of Guam's population is over age 65. "This is something that is even published in the U.S. Census. I began to ask what is going on in Guam? I receive answers like 'Oh, they're on vacation, the old people', 'They are visiting their children.' No! So what is it? What is unique to Guam that people can't get really old?
"And when we say old, we know that these are diseases that are not like bullets. They are chronic diseases that start early in life," he said.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
How Prepared is Guam?
How prepared is Guam for a nuclear attack?
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News - Saturday, October 21, 2006
With concerns about North Korea and nuclear testing, some in the community may be wondering if Guam is ready. Guam homeland security advisor Frank Blas, Jr says that he takes the threat of a nuclear attack seriously, telling KUAM News, "There is the concern of North Korea's capability to be able to launch nuclear missiles not only to Guam but to Hawaii, Japan and the [United States] West Coast."
Blas says that they are in constant contact with the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House about the North Korean threat. "We can only hope and pray that the diplomacy that is ongoing right now will help to calm the situation down," he speculated. Aside from this, Blas says they've already procured some equipment and training to deal with a nuclear disaster and are looking at expanding this training.
But what should you and I do in the event of a nuclear attack? Blas suggests, "Make sure you've got you're emergency supply kits, you've got your flashlights, your battery-operated radios, your batteries, three days' supply of food just in case; then should an incident occur and should you get word of something that may be going on please listen to radio and television broadcasts for official homeland security civil defense releases."
We asked the homeland security advisor if there were any actual bomb shelters for people to go to in the event of a disaster. "No no, I think a lot of people can recall back in the old days the fallout shelters were concrete, and a lot of that was based on," he continued. "Back in those days there were less concrete buildings than, there were steel and wooden structures. Now, obviously there are a little bit more concrete structures."
Blas says your best bet is to stay indoors.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Navy May Outsource Civilian Jobs
Navy may outsource civilian jobs
By Gerardo R. Partido Variety News Staff
A NUMBER of civilian workers at U.S. Naval Base Guam may lose their jobs if the Navy proceeds with plans to outsource their work. According to the Department of the Navy, jobs that may be affected would be in the non-guard security support services and emergency management dispatch support services.
These include jobs in the field of vehicle inspection, explosive detection, pass and ID, court services or administrative support, armory and ready for issue, training, physical security, supply/logistics, crime prevention, surveillance detection, and dispatching functions.
According to the Navy, two separate competitions will be conducted to determine if it is more cost-effective for the Navy to continue to perform these functions or to contract them out.
The jobs are being considered as part of a Navy-wide review of commercial activities being undertaken as per Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, which establishes federal policy for the performance of commercial activities. If an activity can be performed by either contract or government in-house personnel, an A-76 study will be done to determine the most economical method of operation.
Sen. Antonio Unpingco, R-Santa Rita, who heads the Legislature’s military committee, wrote to Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo to ask for assistance. “It has been brought to my attention that once again, the people of Guam are subjected to unfair treatment by the Department of Defense. Guam is the only jurisdiction in the country that has an A-76 Study. It is unfair that our island and our people are the only ones who continue to suffer from the impact of this program,” Unpingco wrote.
He added that Guam has seen how the A-76 Study has devastated the island’s economy and negatively impacted a large number of families.
“We have observed how the A-76 Study has caused the deterioration of existing military assets such as the Fena Reservoir which supplies water to the Navy. It is time that we diligently work together to terminate this program,” Unpingco stressed.
The OMB Circular requires periodic review of each commercial activity to determine if continued performance by government personnel is economical.
Both the government and contract cost figures used in the competition are based on the same scope of work and the same performance standard to assure a fair comparison and continued high level of performance. If the costs of contracting are lower than the costs of continued government performance, the Navy said the jobs will be contracted out.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Nuclear Sub Docks At Apra
Nuclear submarine docks at Apra
By Gerardo R. Partido
Variety News Staff
10/21/06
THE nuclear attack submarine USS Seawolf (SSN 21) has docked at the Navy’s Apra Harbor facility, Variety sources said.
The USS Seawolf is more advanced than the three Los Angeles-type submarines currently homeported on Guam.
Variety sources said this was the first time that the USS Seawolf has been to Guam or this part of the world.
It was unclear yesterday whether the USS Seawolf’s visit was connected to the current North Korean crisis.
The Navy yesterday confirmed the presence of the submarine but did not give details. “The submarine is here for a routine port visit,” COMNAVMAR public affairs assistant Ben Keller told Variety. But he could not say how long the submarine would be on Guam or where it was headed for next.
“For security reasons, we do not discuss ship movements,” Keller said.
Usually, submarines or any ships making routine port visits to Guam are announced by the Navy.
Ceremonies are even held to welcome the crew and ship visits are offered to the public. But this time, the Navy said no such things were planned for the submarine.
The USS Seawolf is the lead ship of her class, succeeding the Los Angeles-type of attack submarine. It is said that the USS Seawolf is quieter at its tactical speed of 25 knots than a Los Angeles submarine is at pier side. Originally, 29 were to be produced, but with the end of the Cold War, the cost was judged to be prohibitively high and only three were built in favor of the smaller, cheaper, Virginia class.
According to Global Security, the USS Seawolf is designed to rapidly deploy to hostile ocean areas and clear the way for strikes by other friendly forces, as well as engage and destroy surface forces and land targets.
In addition, the USS Seawolf is designed to be a quiet, fast, heavily armed, and shock-resistant submarine. Variety sources said the USS Seawolf is just the first of more submarines that will be sent to Guam as part of normal rotations and a more deliberate show of force in the region.
Currently, Guam is home port to two attack submarines, the USS City of Corpus Christi and the USS Houston, as well as the submarine tender USS Frank Cable.
Another submarine, the USS Buffalo, will join them next year to replace the USS San Francisco, the Los Angeles-class submarine currently being repaired in the mainland.
But the number of U.S. submarines based on Guam may further increase to five in line with the Department of Defense’s quadrennial defense review released last February, which recommended the deployment of more submarines to the Pacific by 2010.
In addition, the Navy is reportedly planning to deploy missile submarines to Guam, in addition to the attack submarines already homeported on island.
The cruise missile submarines are designed to attack large warships and tactical targets on land in contrast to the attack submarines currently based on Guam, which specialize more in combat with other naval vessels.
Two cruise missile submarines, perhaps as many as four, may be deployed to Guam as part of deterrence measures against China and North Korea, which has lately been beefing up its military posture in the region.
By Gerardo R. Partido
Variety News Staff
10/21/06
THE nuclear attack submarine USS Seawolf (SSN 21) has docked at the Navy’s Apra Harbor facility, Variety sources said.
The USS Seawolf is more advanced than the three Los Angeles-type submarines currently homeported on Guam.
Variety sources said this was the first time that the USS Seawolf has been to Guam or this part of the world.
It was unclear yesterday whether the USS Seawolf’s visit was connected to the current North Korean crisis.
The Navy yesterday confirmed the presence of the submarine but did not give details. “The submarine is here for a routine port visit,” COMNAVMAR public affairs assistant Ben Keller told Variety. But he could not say how long the submarine would be on Guam or where it was headed for next.
“For security reasons, we do not discuss ship movements,” Keller said.
Usually, submarines or any ships making routine port visits to Guam are announced by the Navy.
Ceremonies are even held to welcome the crew and ship visits are offered to the public. But this time, the Navy said no such things were planned for the submarine.
The USS Seawolf is the lead ship of her class, succeeding the Los Angeles-type of attack submarine. It is said that the USS Seawolf is quieter at its tactical speed of 25 knots than a Los Angeles submarine is at pier side. Originally, 29 were to be produced, but with the end of the Cold War, the cost was judged to be prohibitively high and only three were built in favor of the smaller, cheaper, Virginia class.
According to Global Security, the USS Seawolf is designed to rapidly deploy to hostile ocean areas and clear the way for strikes by other friendly forces, as well as engage and destroy surface forces and land targets.
In addition, the USS Seawolf is designed to be a quiet, fast, heavily armed, and shock-resistant submarine. Variety sources said the USS Seawolf is just the first of more submarines that will be sent to Guam as part of normal rotations and a more deliberate show of force in the region.
Currently, Guam is home port to two attack submarines, the USS City of Corpus Christi and the USS Houston, as well as the submarine tender USS Frank Cable.
Another submarine, the USS Buffalo, will join them next year to replace the USS San Francisco, the Los Angeles-class submarine currently being repaired in the mainland.
But the number of U.S. submarines based on Guam may further increase to five in line with the Department of Defense’s quadrennial defense review released last February, which recommended the deployment of more submarines to the Pacific by 2010.
In addition, the Navy is reportedly planning to deploy missile submarines to Guam, in addition to the attack submarines already homeported on island.
The cruise missile submarines are designed to attack large warships and tactical targets on land in contrast to the attack submarines currently based on Guam, which specialize more in combat with other naval vessels.
Two cruise missile submarines, perhaps as many as four, may be deployed to Guam as part of deterrence measures against China and North Korea, which has lately been beefing up its military posture in the region.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
US Reviewing War Plans with North Korea
US Reviews War Plan on N. Korea
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
The Korean Times
10 - 16- 06
The United States is mapping out a new theater war plan on the Korean Peninsula aimed at striking weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, reports said yesterday, citing an unidentified Chinese defense expert in Canada.
The U.S. move comes after North Korea's self-proclaimed nuclear weapon test on Oct. 9.
According to the report, the United States is considering a plan against North Korea to neutralize Pyongyang's nuclear capability with overwhelming use of the U.S. Air Force.
Whether the new plan is related to the joint contingency plan with South Korea, dubbed OPLAN 5027, was not confirmed.
South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) declined to comment on the report.
Under the envisaged plan, U.S. combat aircraft and bombers, such as F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters and F-15Es, would conduct ``surgical strikes'' on major weapons of mass destruction (WMD) facilities, training sites, and intelligence and communication facilities in the North instead of ground forces advancing into the North, the report said.
OPLAN 5027, drawn up by the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC), aims to deter North Korean forces armed with conventional weapons. The South Korean and U.S. militaries review the contingency scheme every year and update it in accordance with the security situation.
Washington is reportedly committed to dispatching some 690,000 troops with 1,600 aircraft and 160 ships to the peninsula within 90 days after a war breaks out under OPLAN 5027.
The plan, however, lacks specific actions to cope with a nuclear war.
Since Pyongyang's nuclear test, the South Korean military has also stepped up preparations for a possible nuclear war on the peninsula.
Sources at the JCS said last week that Seoul is reviewing OPLAN 5027 to address North Korea's missile and nuclear threats.
The JCS has submitted two reports to Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung since Oct. 3 when Pyongyang announced its plan to conduct a nuclear test, they said.
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter
The Korean Times
10 - 16- 06
The United States is mapping out a new theater war plan on the Korean Peninsula aimed at striking weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, reports said yesterday, citing an unidentified Chinese defense expert in Canada.
The U.S. move comes after North Korea's self-proclaimed nuclear weapon test on Oct. 9.
According to the report, the United States is considering a plan against North Korea to neutralize Pyongyang's nuclear capability with overwhelming use of the U.S. Air Force.
Whether the new plan is related to the joint contingency plan with South Korea, dubbed OPLAN 5027, was not confirmed.
South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) declined to comment on the report.
Under the envisaged plan, U.S. combat aircraft and bombers, such as F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighters and F-15Es, would conduct ``surgical strikes'' on major weapons of mass destruction (WMD) facilities, training sites, and intelligence and communication facilities in the North instead of ground forces advancing into the North, the report said.
OPLAN 5027, drawn up by the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC), aims to deter North Korean forces armed with conventional weapons. The South Korean and U.S. militaries review the contingency scheme every year and update it in accordance with the security situation.
Washington is reportedly committed to dispatching some 690,000 troops with 1,600 aircraft and 160 ships to the peninsula within 90 days after a war breaks out under OPLAN 5027.
The plan, however, lacks specific actions to cope with a nuclear war.
Since Pyongyang's nuclear test, the South Korean military has also stepped up preparations for a possible nuclear war on the peninsula.
Sources at the JCS said last week that Seoul is reviewing OPLAN 5027 to address North Korea's missile and nuclear threats.
The JCS has submitted two reports to Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung since Oct. 3 when Pyongyang announced its plan to conduct a nuclear test, they said.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Guam Rebuffs NK Threat
GUAM REBUFFS NORTH KOREA THREAT OF MISSILE ATTACK
HAGÅTÑA, Guam (Pacific Daily News, Oct. 16)
A North Korean missile attack on Guam will likely fail because the communist country doesn't have the capabilities to accurately target such weapons, according to U.S. officials. Any attack on Guam also would result in an "overwhelming retaliation" from the United States, according to Delegate Madeleine Bordallo. The top Air Force commander on Guam said U.S. forces are "ready to go yesterday" should an attack happen. Also, such an attack would have to first penetrate U.S. military and allied defenses that includes missile interceptors in bases and ships that line the Asia-Pacific region from South Korea and Japan to Guam. A missile launched from North Korea could reach the island within an hour. An unofficial spokesmanfor North Korea in Japan, Kim Moyong Choi, during an interview with ABC Radio Australia yesterday, said North Korea might attack Guam, Japan and Hawai'i if tougher sanctions are levied against the country. Kimtold ABC Radio Australia that North Korea might test a hydrogen bomb in a show of force.
HAGÅTÑA, Guam (Pacific Daily News, Oct. 16)
A North Korean missile attack on Guam will likely fail because the communist country doesn't have the capabilities to accurately target such weapons, according to U.S. officials. Any attack on Guam also would result in an "overwhelming retaliation" from the United States, according to Delegate Madeleine Bordallo. The top Air Force commander on Guam said U.S. forces are "ready to go yesterday" should an attack happen. Also, such an attack would have to first penetrate U.S. military and allied defenses that includes missile interceptors in bases and ships that line the Asia-Pacific region from South Korea and Japan to Guam. A missile launched from North Korea could reach the island within an hour. An unofficial spokesmanfor North Korea in Japan, Kim Moyong Choi, during an interview with ABC Radio Australia yesterday, said North Korea might attack Guam, Japan and Hawai'i if tougher sanctions are levied against the country. Kimtold ABC Radio Australia that North Korea might test a hydrogen bomb in a show of force.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Arms Race in Asia
N. Korea nuke test fans fears of Asian arms race
Regional stability shaken as Pyongyang's neighbors feel threatened
AP
SEOUL, South Korea - The specter of an Asian atomic arms race loomed over the region Monday after communist North Korea shocked its neighbors by announcing it conducted its first-ever nuclear test.
Raising the nuclear stakes from Pyongyang to Tokyo would put some of the world’s biggest cities in the shadow of atomic weapons. It might also put nuclear arms in the hands of previously reluctant powers like South Korea or Taiwan.
On a wider scale, North Korea’s dabbling with atomic weapons could spur other nuclear powers, including the United States, India or China, to resume their own nuclear testing, a move that raises the risk of proliferation.
“If the test was true, it will severely endanger not only Northeast Asia but also the world stability,” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said.
Officials from Washington to Seoul had warned of an arms race even before North Korea said it fulfilled its threat to join the elite club of nuclear powers.
'No equalizer like the bomb'
South Korea fears Japan would be the first to go nuclear, triggering countermoves by suspicious Asian neighbors in a cascade that upends regional security.
“There’s no equalizer like the bomb,” said Peter Beck, head of the Seoul office of the International Crisis Group think tank. “It’s safe to say it will lead to an arms race — will push all the governments in the region to increase defense spending.”
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned Thursday that allowing North Korea to test a bomb would provoke far-reaching fallout.
“The lack of cohesion and the inability to marshal sufficient leverage to prevent North Korea from proceeding toward a nuclear program ... it will kind of lower the threshold, and other countries will step forward with it,” Rumsfeld said.
The current North Korean nuclear standoff dates to 2002, when the United States accused North Korea of conducting a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement.
North Korea announced Monday it had safely conducted an underground test, claiming the development “will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it.”
But a top concern is the possibility of North Korea mounting bombs atop missiles aimed at Seoul, Tokyo or even parts of the United States.
Japan to reconsider?
While the North’s ability to accurately deliver a warhead toward its neighbors is in doubt, the communist nation shocked the world in 1998 by firing a long-range ballistic missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean.
In July it test-launched seven missiles, although a long-range rocket believed capable of reaching American shores exploded shortly after liftoff.
Abhorrence of nuclear weapons runs deep in Japan, where memories of the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are burned into the collective consciousness.
But just last month, a think tank run by former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone proposed in a policy paper that Japan “consider the nuclear option.”
Tokyo weighed atomic weapons back in 1995 to counter the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea. But the government ultimately rejected the idea because it might deprive Japan of U.S. military protection and alarm neighboring countries.
So far, Japan’s post-World War II pacifist Constitution keeps its overseas strike ability in check; it has no aircraft carriers, bombers or long-range missiles. But Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a staunch North Korea critic, wants to amend the Constitution to give Japan’s military greater leeway in international action.
If Japan decides to go nuclear, it wouldn’t take long to convert the nation’s huge stockpile of plutonium from the spent fuel of its nuclear power plants.
Domino effect
That would undoubtedly rattle China and South Korea, which have viewed Tokyo with suspicion since their neighbor invaded and colonized them in the early 20th century.
Both South Korea and Japan have largely relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as insurance against attack. But when faced with the verified presence of atomic bombs on the other side of the border, South Korea may consider arming itself.
In 1991, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea as part of arms reductions following the Cold War, according to South Korean defense experts. In the same year, the two Koreas signed an accord pledging not to deploy, develop or possess atomic bombs on the peninsula.
But back in the 1970s, Seoul was actively pursuing its own atomic program.
Fearful of a regional nuclear arms race, the United States forced then-dictator Park Chung-hee to drop the plan, partly by threatening economic penalties for a nation that was then poor and still recovering from the 1950-53 Korean War.
Shen Dingli, the executive deputy director of the Institute of International Issues at Fudan University in China, thinks Japan and South Korea are unlikely to seek nuclear arms now for many of the same reasons.
“This is bound to erode their alliance with the United States, thus subjecting the East Asian security situation headed by the U.S. to even greater challenges,” he wrote in a report on North Korea’s latest threat. “The chances of Japan and South Korea developing their own nuclear programs are not great.”
But other countries might still use North Korea’s test as an excuse to build atomic arsenals, says Ralph Cossa, president of the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum.
“If North Korea is ’justified’ because it faces a threat from a bully superpower, Taiwan can make the same argument,” Cossa said.
“Let’s not overlook Southeast Asia either. Burma is talking about obtaining a research reactor and both Indonesia and Vietnam are exploring nuclear energy options, although these dominos are a long way from falling,” he added.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Regional stability shaken as Pyongyang's neighbors feel threatened
AP
SEOUL, South Korea - The specter of an Asian atomic arms race loomed over the region Monday after communist North Korea shocked its neighbors by announcing it conducted its first-ever nuclear test.
Raising the nuclear stakes from Pyongyang to Tokyo would put some of the world’s biggest cities in the shadow of atomic weapons. It might also put nuclear arms in the hands of previously reluctant powers like South Korea or Taiwan.
On a wider scale, North Korea’s dabbling with atomic weapons could spur other nuclear powers, including the United States, India or China, to resume their own nuclear testing, a move that raises the risk of proliferation.
“If the test was true, it will severely endanger not only Northeast Asia but also the world stability,” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said.
Officials from Washington to Seoul had warned of an arms race even before North Korea said it fulfilled its threat to join the elite club of nuclear powers.
'No equalizer like the bomb'
South Korea fears Japan would be the first to go nuclear, triggering countermoves by suspicious Asian neighbors in a cascade that upends regional security.
“There’s no equalizer like the bomb,” said Peter Beck, head of the Seoul office of the International Crisis Group think tank. “It’s safe to say it will lead to an arms race — will push all the governments in the region to increase defense spending.”
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld warned Thursday that allowing North Korea to test a bomb would provoke far-reaching fallout.
“The lack of cohesion and the inability to marshal sufficient leverage to prevent North Korea from proceeding toward a nuclear program ... it will kind of lower the threshold, and other countries will step forward with it,” Rumsfeld said.
The current North Korean nuclear standoff dates to 2002, when the United States accused North Korea of conducting a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement.
North Korea announced Monday it had safely conducted an underground test, claiming the development “will contribute to defending the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the area around it.”
But a top concern is the possibility of North Korea mounting bombs atop missiles aimed at Seoul, Tokyo or even parts of the United States.
Japan to reconsider?
While the North’s ability to accurately deliver a warhead toward its neighbors is in doubt, the communist nation shocked the world in 1998 by firing a long-range ballistic missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean.
In July it test-launched seven missiles, although a long-range rocket believed capable of reaching American shores exploded shortly after liftoff.
Abhorrence of nuclear weapons runs deep in Japan, where memories of the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are burned into the collective consciousness.
But just last month, a think tank run by former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone proposed in a policy paper that Japan “consider the nuclear option.”
Tokyo weighed atomic weapons back in 1995 to counter the threat of a nuclear-armed North Korea. But the government ultimately rejected the idea because it might deprive Japan of U.S. military protection and alarm neighboring countries.
So far, Japan’s post-World War II pacifist Constitution keeps its overseas strike ability in check; it has no aircraft carriers, bombers or long-range missiles. But Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a staunch North Korea critic, wants to amend the Constitution to give Japan’s military greater leeway in international action.
If Japan decides to go nuclear, it wouldn’t take long to convert the nation’s huge stockpile of plutonium from the spent fuel of its nuclear power plants.
Domino effect
That would undoubtedly rattle China and South Korea, which have viewed Tokyo with suspicion since their neighbor invaded and colonized them in the early 20th century.
Both South Korea and Japan have largely relied on the U.S. nuclear umbrella as insurance against attack. But when faced with the verified presence of atomic bombs on the other side of the border, South Korea may consider arming itself.
In 1991, U.S. tactical nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea as part of arms reductions following the Cold War, according to South Korean defense experts. In the same year, the two Koreas signed an accord pledging not to deploy, develop or possess atomic bombs on the peninsula.
But back in the 1970s, Seoul was actively pursuing its own atomic program.
Fearful of a regional nuclear arms race, the United States forced then-dictator Park Chung-hee to drop the plan, partly by threatening economic penalties for a nation that was then poor and still recovering from the 1950-53 Korean War.
Shen Dingli, the executive deputy director of the Institute of International Issues at Fudan University in China, thinks Japan and South Korea are unlikely to seek nuclear arms now for many of the same reasons.
“This is bound to erode their alliance with the United States, thus subjecting the East Asian security situation headed by the U.S. to even greater challenges,” he wrote in a report on North Korea’s latest threat. “The chances of Japan and South Korea developing their own nuclear programs are not great.”
But other countries might still use North Korea’s test as an excuse to build atomic arsenals, says Ralph Cossa, president of the Honolulu-based Pacific Forum.
“If North Korea is ’justified’ because it faces a threat from a bully superpower, Taiwan can make the same argument,” Cossa said.
“Let’s not overlook Southeast Asia either. Burma is talking about obtaining a research reactor and both Indonesia and Vietnam are exploring nuclear energy options, although these dominos are a long way from falling,” he added.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Monday, October 09, 2006
A US Invasion of Korea
A US `invasion' of Korea
The Boston Globe
By Catherine Lutz October 8, 2006
In May, South Korean police and soldiers descended on a schoolhouse where rice farmers and their supporters were resisting eviction. The police bloodied heads, destroyed the school, and backhoed rice fields and irrigation systems to prevent spring planting. They were sent by the Korean Ministry of Defense, at the behest of the US government, to claim a large swath of land to expand Camp Humphrey . Already covering 2 square miles, the base is slated to swallow an additional 2,851 acres.
Part of a grand plan of global military base restructuring announced by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003, the Pyongtaek base is meant to take in soldiers and equipment from closing military installations near the de militarized zone and in Seoul. However, the bases' relocation to Pyongtaek is part of a plan to use the bases to strike at will anywhere in Asia and to contain China. It is this ``expeditionary" or aggressive role of the bases that is behind concurrent US negotiations with South Korea, seeking ``strategic flexibility" to use the forces based there throughout Asia. Such an agreement would change the original defensive purpose of the base. So it concerns people across the region, who see remilitarization, arms races, and intensified danger where the United States simply claims realignment. Recent US and allied military exercises off Guam, itself targeted for a massive US military buildup, were of unprecedented size, and North Korea's missile launch might be seen as a response to that provocation.
While the arguments for this restructuring suggest the United States and Korea are mutual and equal allies, Korea in fact remains a semi sovereign state under US control in many respects. Most strikingly, Korean troops come under the command of an American officer in wartime. US military plans in Asia, then, necessarily implicate the Koreans and draw them into conflict with their neighbors. Imagining China as the new national enemy is a process well underway in Washington, and the Koreans know all too well that their surgical twinning to US strategic plans will make them China's enemy as well.
All of this is playing out within the context of a difficult relationship between the more than 30,000 US soldiers based around Korea and the local citizens who see them as a source of prostitution, crime, and pollution. Koreans can point to two young girls crushed by US tanks in 2002, multiple rapes and rape-murders of Korean women, and a recent leaked report showing stratospheric levels of soil and water contamination at closing US bases.
In Daechuri, the farmers have been holding a candlelight vigil every night for the last two years in a Quonset hut on the school grounds, under the thunderous thut-thut-thut of US helicopters passing in and out of Camp Humphrey . Supporters have come in from around the country by the thousands, members of groups from across a wide range of Korea's civil society, still vibrant with an enthusiasm for the democracy they achieved only in 1987 after years of brutal dictatorship (armed and supported by the United States). While a majority of Koreans want to see the US military leave, powerful business interests, conservative Christians, and an older generation convinced of the value of the US presence continue to support Washington's military plans and Korean annual payments of at least $625 million toward their execution.
The justification for the US military buildup across Asia is the advance of political and economic freedom. The residents of Daechuri might be forgiven for being suspicious of such claims. Some of the village's oldest residents with whom I spoke last fall remember the Japanese evicting their parents for a military base during Korea's pre war annexation. The US Army took over and expanded the base in World War II, and now, for some, their third eviction in the name of a misconstrued vision of military rather than human security is imminent.
Halting the eviction of Daechuri's farmers would be a good first step toward demilitarizing the peninsula and the region. Their homes are being destroyed in the name of America 's citizens, and we have more power than anyone to reverse the escalating rhetoric and reality of arms in Asia by calling on the US government to halt its regarrisoning of Korea, Guam, and Asia-Pacific region.
Catherine Lutz, a professor of anthropology at Brown University and its Watson Institute for International Studies, is the author of ``Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century."
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
The Boston Globe
By Catherine Lutz October 8, 2006
In May, South Korean police and soldiers descended on a schoolhouse where rice farmers and their supporters were resisting eviction. The police bloodied heads, destroyed the school, and backhoed rice fields and irrigation systems to prevent spring planting. They were sent by the Korean Ministry of Defense, at the behest of the US government, to claim a large swath of land to expand Camp Humphrey . Already covering 2 square miles, the base is slated to swallow an additional 2,851 acres.
Part of a grand plan of global military base restructuring announced by US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in 2003, the Pyongtaek base is meant to take in soldiers and equipment from closing military installations near the de militarized zone and in Seoul. However, the bases' relocation to Pyongtaek is part of a plan to use the bases to strike at will anywhere in Asia and to contain China. It is this ``expeditionary" or aggressive role of the bases that is behind concurrent US negotiations with South Korea, seeking ``strategic flexibility" to use the forces based there throughout Asia. Such an agreement would change the original defensive purpose of the base. So it concerns people across the region, who see remilitarization, arms races, and intensified danger where the United States simply claims realignment. Recent US and allied military exercises off Guam, itself targeted for a massive US military buildup, were of unprecedented size, and North Korea's missile launch might be seen as a response to that provocation.
While the arguments for this restructuring suggest the United States and Korea are mutual and equal allies, Korea in fact remains a semi sovereign state under US control in many respects. Most strikingly, Korean troops come under the command of an American officer in wartime. US military plans in Asia, then, necessarily implicate the Koreans and draw them into conflict with their neighbors. Imagining China as the new national enemy is a process well underway in Washington, and the Koreans know all too well that their surgical twinning to US strategic plans will make them China's enemy as well.
All of this is playing out within the context of a difficult relationship between the more than 30,000 US soldiers based around Korea and the local citizens who see them as a source of prostitution, crime, and pollution. Koreans can point to two young girls crushed by US tanks in 2002, multiple rapes and rape-murders of Korean women, and a recent leaked report showing stratospheric levels of soil and water contamination at closing US bases.
In Daechuri, the farmers have been holding a candlelight vigil every night for the last two years in a Quonset hut on the school grounds, under the thunderous thut-thut-thut of US helicopters passing in and out of Camp Humphrey . Supporters have come in from around the country by the thousands, members of groups from across a wide range of Korea's civil society, still vibrant with an enthusiasm for the democracy they achieved only in 1987 after years of brutal dictatorship (armed and supported by the United States). While a majority of Koreans want to see the US military leave, powerful business interests, conservative Christians, and an older generation convinced of the value of the US presence continue to support Washington's military plans and Korean annual payments of at least $625 million toward their execution.
The justification for the US military buildup across Asia is the advance of political and economic freedom. The residents of Daechuri might be forgiven for being suspicious of such claims. Some of the village's oldest residents with whom I spoke last fall remember the Japanese evicting their parents for a military base during Korea's pre war annexation. The US Army took over and expanded the base in World War II, and now, for some, their third eviction in the name of a misconstrued vision of military rather than human security is imminent.
Halting the eviction of Daechuri's farmers would be a good first step toward demilitarizing the peninsula and the region. Their homes are being destroyed in the name of America 's citizens, and we have more power than anyone to reverse the escalating rhetoric and reality of arms in Asia by calling on the US government to halt its regarrisoning of Korea, Guam, and Asia-Pacific region.
Catherine Lutz, a professor of anthropology at Brown University and its Watson Institute for International Studies, is the author of ``Homefront: A Military City and the American 20th Century."
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The Question of Guam
United Nations Petitioners on the Question of Guam
GUAHU SI JULIAN AGUON, Chamoru Nation, said the indigenous people of Guam, the longest-colonized island in the Pacific Ocean, were preparing for the United States military realignment in the region that sought to homeport 60 per cent of its Pacific fleet in and around the island starting next year. With no input from the Chamoru people and as part of its realignment plan, the United States would flood Guam with 55,000 people. The Navy had recently suggested that six more nuclear submarines would be added to the three already stationed in Guam and there was talk of developing a global strike force. That build-up complemented the Air Force and Navy forces already occupying one third of the island and the influx would have devastating consequences on the Chamoru people, who comprised only 37 per cent of the 171,000 people living in Guam.
There had been no social or environmental impact study to assess the burdens of the build-up and it was reasonable to think that Guam would suffer similar problems of rape and violence as had Okinawa, he said. Guam officials were waiting with bated breath to learn whether any of the $10.3 billion settled upon would be spent on Guam's infrastructure as virtually every public sector in Guam was threatened with privatization. Public education was under duress and the burden on the school system was compounded by the United States' failure to compensate Guam for shouldering the costs of its free association compacts with Micronesian States. What was happening today was like an awful re-run of the Second World War. There was no free press on Guam and its people were not unified around the military build-up. The island needed help to attract international attention. The Committee should pass a resolution condemning the massive military transfer and build-up of Guam as a grave breach of duty on the part of the administering Power.
KERRI ANN NAPUTI BORJA, Organization of People for Indigenous Rights, said the aggressive campaign by the United States to institute political and military superiority in the Pacific after the Second World War had resulted in land confiscations that had claimed more than 50 per cent of the land and created reservations for the Chamorro people. The unilaterally passed congressional Guam Organic Act, which had made the island's inhabitants United States citizens in 1950, had also legitimized United States ownership of confiscated lands. It was a sad commentary that the administering Power, year after year, abstained from voting or voted against United Nations resolutions addressing the question of Guam.
She said a process of interim political status with limited internal self-government had been initiated after the locally mandated 1987 plebiscite, which had resulted in commonwealth status, a choice by registered United States voters. The resulting draft Guam Commonwealth Act had been rejected by the United States Congress in 1997 because of provisions on Chamorro self-determination, controls over local immigration and other aspects of United States control over the Territory. Military personnel and their families were eligible to vote in local elections.
Following the failure of the commonwealth proposal, the territorial Government had begun a decolonization process by enacting into law a Chamorro Registry that set the registration mechanism for the self-determination vote, she said. However, there had been little progress towards the exercise of Chamorro self-determination. The stated position that the term "non-self-governing" was inappropriate for those who could establish their own constitution did not reflect the reality. The right to elect a non-voting United States-paid delegate to the United States Congress did not equate with political freedom. A resolution was required by which the General Assembly would reaffirm that the Guam question was one of decolonization to be completed by the Territory's Chamorro people.
VICTORIA LOLA M. LEÓN GUERRERO, Guahan Indigenous Collective, said her homeland was in grave danger as young Chamoru doctors, teachers and future leaders left the island to be replaced by United States marines, military aircraft and submarines and foreign construction workers. The exodus could be ended by including in the draft resolution that the United States military build-up on Guahan was a direct impediment to decolonization and the right of indigenous Chamorus to decide their own future. The island's natural resources were its people's most precious asset. Every effort must be made to educate the people about community involvement in decision-making, which would impact on their survival.
She said the legacy of the Second World War had led to the toxic pollution of the land and surrounding waters by nuclear and other carcinogenic waste. There was a shortage of competitive jobs for young Chamoru people. The United States Department of Defence had unveiled its plan to move 8,000 marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa and Japan to Guahan, which would have a great impact on the island's current population and change its cultural, political, social and ecological environment. The draft resolution should therefore include a provision that military activities and arrangements by the colonial Power impeded the implementation of the decolonization declaration.
SABINA FLORES PÉREZ (Guam), speaking on behalf of the International People's Coalition against Military Pollution (IPCAMP), said the recent United States military build-up on Guam posed the latest threat to human rights. The estimated influx of 35,000 military personnel, dependents and administrative staff would alter the island's demographics and political atmosphere. The build-up would transform Guam into a forward base with the planned expansion of runways and wharf storage facilities and the establishment of a global strike force. Unilateral decisions about the island's future were being made primarily outside Guam, without the people's participation or consent, which signified the exploitation of its political status as a colony.
She noted that Guam's strategic interest had evolved since 1898 when its harbour represented a key nodal point linking United States mercantile interests with Oriental economic possibilities. Under that colonial context, water, land, culture and the spirit of the Chamoru people were being stripped away. The Fourth Committee should include in the draft resolution on the question of Guam encouragement to the administering Power to fund Guam's decolonization process and clean up toxic military sites among other things.
TIFFANY ROSE NAPUTI LACSADO, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), said United States cultural hegemony had created ripples throughout the Chamoru diaspora and did not allow for the survival of Chamoru language and traditions. An entire generation was living with the legacy of pillage that their parents and grandparents had faced in the Second World War, which had robbed generations of their most basic right: access to their language and traditions.
Erased from collective memory was the fact that the United States, by signing the United Nations Charter, was obligated to ensure Guam's self-determination and decolonization, she said. The psychosocial impact of the military was nothing less than total dependence. It plagued the Chamoru's land, bloodline, mind and spirit. The United Nations should become a more active participant in Guam's decolonization process and the Fourth Committee should take direct action to stop the military occupation of Guam by engaging directly with the Guam Commission on Decolonization office and grass roots groups. The sum effect of United States cultural hegemony and militarism was to permanently deny Chamoru people their right to self-determination.
FANAI CASTRO, Chamoru Cultural Development and Research Institute, quoting from a history of the Chamoru, said it was a testimony to how they had survived despite hundreds of years of colonization, genocide and war. However, that history was now threatened by the "worldwide western hegemony". The testimonies presented today were stories that had too often been kept out of sight. More than anything, the Chamoru sought an end to the chaos of war as they had been victimized for too long.
She recalled that the administering Power, the United States, had promised the United Nations that the self-determination of the Chamoru would not be denied. The Organization held the power of voice to break the cycle of colonialism and in that noble endeavour the indigenous voice must be an equal one because its heritage was being systematically destroyed for the sake of keeping colonial order.
GUAHU SI JULIAN AGUON, Chamoru Nation, said the indigenous people of Guam, the longest-colonized island in the Pacific Ocean, were preparing for the United States military realignment in the region that sought to homeport 60 per cent of its Pacific fleet in and around the island starting next year. With no input from the Chamoru people and as part of its realignment plan, the United States would flood Guam with 55,000 people. The Navy had recently suggested that six more nuclear submarines would be added to the three already stationed in Guam and there was talk of developing a global strike force. That build-up complemented the Air Force and Navy forces already occupying one third of the island and the influx would have devastating consequences on the Chamoru people, who comprised only 37 per cent of the 171,000 people living in Guam.
There had been no social or environmental impact study to assess the burdens of the build-up and it was reasonable to think that Guam would suffer similar problems of rape and violence as had Okinawa, he said. Guam officials were waiting with bated breath to learn whether any of the $10.3 billion settled upon would be spent on Guam's infrastructure as virtually every public sector in Guam was threatened with privatization. Public education was under duress and the burden on the school system was compounded by the United States' failure to compensate Guam for shouldering the costs of its free association compacts with Micronesian States. What was happening today was like an awful re-run of the Second World War. There was no free press on Guam and its people were not unified around the military build-up. The island needed help to attract international attention. The Committee should pass a resolution condemning the massive military transfer and build-up of Guam as a grave breach of duty on the part of the administering Power.
KERRI ANN NAPUTI BORJA, Organization of People for Indigenous Rights, said the aggressive campaign by the United States to institute political and military superiority in the Pacific after the Second World War had resulted in land confiscations that had claimed more than 50 per cent of the land and created reservations for the Chamorro people. The unilaterally passed congressional Guam Organic Act, which had made the island's inhabitants United States citizens in 1950, had also legitimized United States ownership of confiscated lands. It was a sad commentary that the administering Power, year after year, abstained from voting or voted against United Nations resolutions addressing the question of Guam.
She said a process of interim political status with limited internal self-government had been initiated after the locally mandated 1987 plebiscite, which had resulted in commonwealth status, a choice by registered United States voters. The resulting draft Guam Commonwealth Act had been rejected by the United States Congress in 1997 because of provisions on Chamorro self-determination, controls over local immigration and other aspects of United States control over the Territory. Military personnel and their families were eligible to vote in local elections.
Following the failure of the commonwealth proposal, the territorial Government had begun a decolonization process by enacting into law a Chamorro Registry that set the registration mechanism for the self-determination vote, she said. However, there had been little progress towards the exercise of Chamorro self-determination. The stated position that the term "non-self-governing" was inappropriate for those who could establish their own constitution did not reflect the reality. The right to elect a non-voting United States-paid delegate to the United States Congress did not equate with political freedom. A resolution was required by which the General Assembly would reaffirm that the Guam question was one of decolonization to be completed by the Territory's Chamorro people.
VICTORIA LOLA M. LEÓN GUERRERO, Guahan Indigenous Collective, said her homeland was in grave danger as young Chamoru doctors, teachers and future leaders left the island to be replaced by United States marines, military aircraft and submarines and foreign construction workers. The exodus could be ended by including in the draft resolution that the United States military build-up on Guahan was a direct impediment to decolonization and the right of indigenous Chamorus to decide their own future. The island's natural resources were its people's most precious asset. Every effort must be made to educate the people about community involvement in decision-making, which would impact on their survival.
She said the legacy of the Second World War had led to the toxic pollution of the land and surrounding waters by nuclear and other carcinogenic waste. There was a shortage of competitive jobs for young Chamoru people. The United States Department of Defence had unveiled its plan to move 8,000 marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa and Japan to Guahan, which would have a great impact on the island's current population and change its cultural, political, social and ecological environment. The draft resolution should therefore include a provision that military activities and arrangements by the colonial Power impeded the implementation of the decolonization declaration.
SABINA FLORES PÉREZ (Guam), speaking on behalf of the International People's Coalition against Military Pollution (IPCAMP), said the recent United States military build-up on Guam posed the latest threat to human rights. The estimated influx of 35,000 military personnel, dependents and administrative staff would alter the island's demographics and political atmosphere. The build-up would transform Guam into a forward base with the planned expansion of runways and wharf storage facilities and the establishment of a global strike force. Unilateral decisions about the island's future were being made primarily outside Guam, without the people's participation or consent, which signified the exploitation of its political status as a colony.
She noted that Guam's strategic interest had evolved since 1898 when its harbour represented a key nodal point linking United States mercantile interests with Oriental economic possibilities. Under that colonial context, water, land, culture and the spirit of the Chamoru people were being stripped away. The Fourth Committee should include in the draft resolution on the question of Guam encouragement to the administering Power to fund Guam's decolonization process and clean up toxic military sites among other things.
TIFFANY ROSE NAPUTI LACSADO, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), said United States cultural hegemony had created ripples throughout the Chamoru diaspora and did not allow for the survival of Chamoru language and traditions. An entire generation was living with the legacy of pillage that their parents and grandparents had faced in the Second World War, which had robbed generations of their most basic right: access to their language and traditions.
Erased from collective memory was the fact that the United States, by signing the United Nations Charter, was obligated to ensure Guam's self-determination and decolonization, she said. The psychosocial impact of the military was nothing less than total dependence. It plagued the Chamoru's land, bloodline, mind and spirit. The United Nations should become a more active participant in Guam's decolonization process and the Fourth Committee should take direct action to stop the military occupation of Guam by engaging directly with the Guam Commission on Decolonization office and grass roots groups. The sum effect of United States cultural hegemony and militarism was to permanently deny Chamoru people their right to self-determination.
FANAI CASTRO, Chamoru Cultural Development and Research Institute, quoting from a history of the Chamoru, said it was a testimony to how they had survived despite hundreds of years of colonization, genocide and war. However, that history was now threatened by the "worldwide western hegemony". The testimonies presented today were stories that had too often been kept out of sight. More than anything, the Chamoru sought an end to the chaos of war as they had been victimized for too long.
She recalled that the administering Power, the United States, had promised the United Nations that the self-determination of the Chamoru would not be denied. The Organization held the power of voice to break the cycle of colonialism and in that noble endeavour the indigenous voice must be an equal one because its heritage was being systematically destroyed for the sake of keeping colonial order.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Base Found Illegal in Hawai'i
Stryker base here is found illegal
Plaintiffs claim the Army must halt related work while preparing a supplemental study
» A look at the Stryker situation
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
A federal appellate court found yesterday that the Army had violated environmental laws by not considering all alternatives in establishing a Stryker Combat Brigade in Hawaii.
The 2-1 vote by a three-judge panel assigned to the San Francisco 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was seen as a victory for the nonprofit environmental group Earthjustice. Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said the federal appeals court ruling meant "the Army must cease all Stryker-related activities, including construction and Stryker training, until the court can rule on what activities, if any, will be allowed while a supplemental environmental impact statement is prepared."
Lt. Col. John Williams, Army spokesman, said the Army would continue to abide with "the last legal decision," an apparent reference to a decision made by U.S. District Judge David Ezra last year that allowed the Army to begin the transformation of the 25th Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team.
Although Williams said he did not dispute Henkin's interpretation, he said Army attorneys "will thoroughly review the court's decision and take action as appropriate."
Williams would not say what steps the Army would take next. However, the preparation of a supplemental EIS followed by public hearings could take several years, based on the Army's record in dealing with these types of environmental studies -- including the Stryker brigade and the continued used of Makua Valley as a firing range.
The ruling could place in limbo at least $693 million in 28 construction projects at Schofield Barracks and the Big Island's Pohakuloa Training Area.
That money does not include what already has been spent in bringing the 328 Stryker combat vehicles to Hawaii and retraining soldiers in the 25th Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team.
The cost of each of the Army's seven Stryker brigades has been placed at $1.5 billion.
The Army also agreed earlier this year to pay Parker Ranch $31.5 million for 2,400 acres near the Pohakuloa Training Area to accommodate training for the Strykers.
The federal appeals court decision means the Army has to prepare a second EIS. Moreover, it is two years delinquent on an EIS justifying the continued use of Makua Valley as a firing range that was supposed to have been completed in 2004.
The return of Makua has long been advocated by Hawaiian activists, many of whom were parties in the Stryker court appeal and have filed numerous lawsuits to stop all military training there.
The last time the military used live ammunition in the 4,190-acre valley was August 2004.
The Stryker supplemental EIS has to include a variety of locations for the 3,800-member combat brigade that is being established at Schofield Barracks, the appeals court said.
"The 9th Circuit's decision is not only right on the law," said Henkin, "but also makes Hawaiian organizations -- Ilioulaokalani Coalition, Na Imi Pono and Kipuka -- which have contended that the Army failed to consider other alternatives to stationing a Stryker brigade in Hawaii."
The Army "leaps to the assumption that transformation in Hawaii or no action are the only alternatives," the court said. "This is where the impermissible 'narrowing' takes place. The Army violated NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) by not considering alternatives that include transformation of the 2nd Brigade outside of Hawaii."
The federal appeals court also rejected the Army's arguments that Hawaii's strategic location was unique, since there are Stryker units in Alaska and Washington that could have supported the 2nd Brigade. In addition, federal appeals judges were not swayed by Army arguments that Hawaii's jungle terrain justified stationing Strykers in Hawaii, because the combat vehicles are best suited for urban combat.
The appeals judges reversed an April 2005 by Ezra, who sided with the Army.
The Army had hoped to be able to send the 2nd Brigade Stryker Combat Team into war duty next fall.
Plaintiffs claim the Army must halt related work while preparing a supplemental study
» A look at the Stryker situation
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
A federal appellate court found yesterday that the Army had violated environmental laws by not considering all alternatives in establishing a Stryker Combat Brigade in Hawaii.
The 2-1 vote by a three-judge panel assigned to the San Francisco 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was seen as a victory for the nonprofit environmental group Earthjustice. Earthjustice attorney David Henkin said the federal appeals court ruling meant "the Army must cease all Stryker-related activities, including construction and Stryker training, until the court can rule on what activities, if any, will be allowed while a supplemental environmental impact statement is prepared."
Lt. Col. John Williams, Army spokesman, said the Army would continue to abide with "the last legal decision," an apparent reference to a decision made by U.S. District Judge David Ezra last year that allowed the Army to begin the transformation of the 25th Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team.
Although Williams said he did not dispute Henkin's interpretation, he said Army attorneys "will thoroughly review the court's decision and take action as appropriate."
Williams would not say what steps the Army would take next. However, the preparation of a supplemental EIS followed by public hearings could take several years, based on the Army's record in dealing with these types of environmental studies -- including the Stryker brigade and the continued used of Makua Valley as a firing range.
The ruling could place in limbo at least $693 million in 28 construction projects at Schofield Barracks and the Big Island's Pohakuloa Training Area.
That money does not include what already has been spent in bringing the 328 Stryker combat vehicles to Hawaii and retraining soldiers in the 25th Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team.
The cost of each of the Army's seven Stryker brigades has been placed at $1.5 billion.
The Army also agreed earlier this year to pay Parker Ranch $31.5 million for 2,400 acres near the Pohakuloa Training Area to accommodate training for the Strykers.
The federal appeals court decision means the Army has to prepare a second EIS. Moreover, it is two years delinquent on an EIS justifying the continued use of Makua Valley as a firing range that was supposed to have been completed in 2004.
The return of Makua has long been advocated by Hawaiian activists, many of whom were parties in the Stryker court appeal and have filed numerous lawsuits to stop all military training there.
The last time the military used live ammunition in the 4,190-acre valley was August 2004.
The Stryker supplemental EIS has to include a variety of locations for the 3,800-member combat brigade that is being established at Schofield Barracks, the appeals court said.
"The 9th Circuit's decision is not only right on the law," said Henkin, "but also makes Hawaiian organizations -- Ilioulaokalani Coalition, Na Imi Pono and Kipuka -- which have contended that the Army failed to consider other alternatives to stationing a Stryker brigade in Hawaii."
The Army "leaps to the assumption that transformation in Hawaii or no action are the only alternatives," the court said. "This is where the impermissible 'narrowing' takes place. The Army violated NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act) by not considering alternatives that include transformation of the 2nd Brigade outside of Hawaii."
The federal appeals court also rejected the Army's arguments that Hawaii's strategic location was unique, since there are Stryker units in Alaska and Washington that could have supported the 2nd Brigade. In addition, federal appeals judges were not swayed by Army arguments that Hawaii's jungle terrain justified stationing Strykers in Hawaii, because the combat vehicles are best suited for urban combat.
The appeals judges reversed an April 2005 by Ezra, who sided with the Army.
The Army had hoped to be able to send the 2nd Brigade Stryker Combat Team into war duty next fall.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Military Will Take Land Based on Need (duh)
Land use depends on needs
By Steve Limtiaco
Pacific Daily News
slimtiaco@guampdn.com
The military development plan for Guam, made public recently by the U.S. Pacific Command, lays out two military training options for the Finegayan area of Dededo -- one that requires the use of non-military land for live-fire training and one that does not.
The non-military land in question is ancestral land located between the military's South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan properties. It currently is owned by two families and the Guam government's Ancestral Lands Commission.
When asked who will decide which option to use and when that will happen, PACOM public affairs spokesman Army Maj. David Doherty yesterday said the Joint Program Office, which will be set up under the Navy, will be responsible for further refining the military's plans for Guam.
"The Guam Integrated Military Development Plan is a planning document and not a program document," he said, adding that program documents will come from the Joint Program Office.
"This is an overall strategic plan," he said.
The development plan for Guam was approved by PACOM in July, but was released this month. In a September letter accompanying the plan, PACOM deputy commander Air Force Gen. Dan Leaf states, "This document contains the operational force laydown requirements for military development expected to occur on Guam over the next decade and beyond."
Leaf added that additional planning is needed to develop specific facility and infrastructure requirements here.
Governor's spokesman Shawn Gumataotao yesterday said military development plans are preliminary, noting that environmental assessments first must be completed during the next two years.
"In meetings with (Defense) Undersecretary Lawless, (Leaf), as well as Adm. (Joseph) Leidig, all three have committed to the governor that they would stay within the footprint of the current federal properties where Navy and Air Force activities are currently under way," he said.
According to the plan, the military currently holds 40,000 acres on Guam.
During an interview with the Pacific Daily News earlier this month, Leaf said each branch of the armed services normally handles its own construction projects, equipment and training requirements, but he said the scope of the work to be done on Guam required the creation of a program office to tie everything together and to address broader issues.
It is expected to cost the Japan and U.S. governments about $10 billion to transfer 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam -- a move that is not expected to happen for at least 6 years, but which first requires additional military facilities on Guam to accommodate the shift.
"The nuts and bolts of military development on Guam will be the responsibility and authority of the Joint Program Office," Leaf said. "They will provide a key interface and work with people in the government of Guam ... It will have representatives from all the services."
Population increase
According to the development plan, the military expects the current population of military personnel and dependents to increase from 14,190 to 40,380 -- an 185 percent increase. The Marines and their families would account for 18,250 of that increase.
To handle the additional personnel and their dependents, the Department of Defense would need to build more schools here, in addition to the new DODEA high school already being built at the Naval Hospital property, the plan states.
The Defense Department's school system on Guam would need two new elementary schools, a middle school, and a new northern Guam high school -- possibly at Finegayan -- to handle 4,160 school-age dependents.
The northern high school would be for students from military facilities in northern Guam, the plan states, and reduce the impact on the high school at Naval Hospital.
Originally Published September 30, 2006
By Steve Limtiaco
Pacific Daily News
slimtiaco@guampdn.com
The military development plan for Guam, made public recently by the U.S. Pacific Command, lays out two military training options for the Finegayan area of Dededo -- one that requires the use of non-military land for live-fire training and one that does not.
The non-military land in question is ancestral land located between the military's South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan properties. It currently is owned by two families and the Guam government's Ancestral Lands Commission.
When asked who will decide which option to use and when that will happen, PACOM public affairs spokesman Army Maj. David Doherty yesterday said the Joint Program Office, which will be set up under the Navy, will be responsible for further refining the military's plans for Guam.
"The Guam Integrated Military Development Plan is a planning document and not a program document," he said, adding that program documents will come from the Joint Program Office.
"This is an overall strategic plan," he said.
The development plan for Guam was approved by PACOM in July, but was released this month. In a September letter accompanying the plan, PACOM deputy commander Air Force Gen. Dan Leaf states, "This document contains the operational force laydown requirements for military development expected to occur on Guam over the next decade and beyond."
Leaf added that additional planning is needed to develop specific facility and infrastructure requirements here.
Governor's spokesman Shawn Gumataotao yesterday said military development plans are preliminary, noting that environmental assessments first must be completed during the next two years.
"In meetings with (Defense) Undersecretary Lawless, (Leaf), as well as Adm. (Joseph) Leidig, all three have committed to the governor that they would stay within the footprint of the current federal properties where Navy and Air Force activities are currently under way," he said.
According to the plan, the military currently holds 40,000 acres on Guam.
During an interview with the Pacific Daily News earlier this month, Leaf said each branch of the armed services normally handles its own construction projects, equipment and training requirements, but he said the scope of the work to be done on Guam required the creation of a program office to tie everything together and to address broader issues.
It is expected to cost the Japan and U.S. governments about $10 billion to transfer 8,000 Marines and their dependents from Okinawa to Guam -- a move that is not expected to happen for at least 6 years, but which first requires additional military facilities on Guam to accommodate the shift.
"The nuts and bolts of military development on Guam will be the responsibility and authority of the Joint Program Office," Leaf said. "They will provide a key interface and work with people in the government of Guam ... It will have representatives from all the services."
Population increase
According to the development plan, the military expects the current population of military personnel and dependents to increase from 14,190 to 40,380 -- an 185 percent increase. The Marines and their families would account for 18,250 of that increase.
To handle the additional personnel and their dependents, the Department of Defense would need to build more schools here, in addition to the new DODEA high school already being built at the Naval Hospital property, the plan states.
The Defense Department's school system on Guam would need two new elementary schools, a middle school, and a new northern Guam high school -- possibly at Finegayan -- to handle 4,160 school-age dependents.
The northern high school would be for students from military facilities in northern Guam, the plan states, and reduce the impact on the high school at Naval Hospital.
Originally Published September 30, 2006
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Militay May Retake Land
Military may retake land
Finegayan area to be used for firing ranges
By Steve Limtiaco
Pacific Daily News
slimtiaco@guampdn.com
The pending transfer of thousands of Marines from Okinawa to Guam means the military needs to create more live-fire ranges here for training, according to a 91-page military development plan from the U.S. Pacific Command.
Among other things, it could mean mortar rounds being launched at a target range in Naval Magazine and the creation of machine gun and rifle ranges in the Finegayan area of Dededo, where the 8,000 Marines would be relocated. Every Marine must be able to use a rifle well, and their skills are tested regularly on the range.
If the Marines want to conduct "fire and movement" training at Finegayan, it also could mean hundreds of acres of recently returned ancestral land between South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan would once again be needed by the military. Excess military and other federal land since 2002 has been returned to its original owners or their heirs as part of the Guam government's ancestral land process.
Two options
The Guam Integrated Military Development Plan spells out two options for military weapons training in the Finegayan area -- one that uses only existing military land in the area for target practice, and one that would require additional non-military land to provide a safe zone downrange of a "fire and maneuver range" and for additional housing and other quality-of-life development for the base.
The plan states that rifle and machine gun ranges are feasible without additional land between South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan. It states that the military would prefer most of the training on Guam to be available at home base, "within foot-marching distance." It rules out live artillery training on Guam, and states that the former Andersen South Housing area should be used for training with blank ammunition only.
Military officials in recent months have said that none of the plans for military expansion on Guam are official, and much of what happens here depends on the amount of funding made available for the transfer.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan Leaf, deputy commander of Pacific Command, earlier this month told Guam lawmakers "most, if not all," of the development will happen on land currently held by the military.
Caught in the middle
If the military decides it needs the land between South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan, caught in the middle would be ancestral landowner Jose Pangelinan, 82, and five siblings, who currently are having the property boundaries surveyed as part of the ancestral land return process.
Their land, as well as the ancestral land of the San Nicolas family, would be in the path of the military's "surface danger zone" for the "fire and movement" range, which according to the Marine Corps basic training manual for officers, is the area used when individuals, teams or squads provide cover fire while other individuals, teams or squads advance toward or assault an enemy position.
Most of the land between South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan is former Spanish "crown land" which means it was not privately held when it was condemned by the federal government and it is being held by the Ancestral Lands Commission to develop for the benefit of those whose family land cannot be returned.
'Injustice'
Pangelinan yesterday said it would be an "injustice" if the military decides to again condemn his family property, and said the military should use the property it already has farther north.
"The Navy took it for a long time -- for the last 50 years. They took a lot of our property. Why in the hell do we have to go through that trouble again when we're trying to build a place ourselves?" he asked.
"My father bought that (land) when he was a young man 80 years ago. The Navy came after the war and chased us out (of) there. They gave it (back) to us, part of it, then they want to use it again?"
He said his family has spent two years working on the land return, and, "I was looking forward to finish the job."
The plan also states that the military-held area at Naval Magazine in southern Guam could be used as a range for 60mm and 81mm mortars. The ability to use that area for a mortar range is limited by the nearby storage of munitions, the plan states, so it might be necessary to remove and relocate some storage facilities there.
Originally published September 29, 2006
Finegayan area to be used for firing ranges
By Steve Limtiaco
Pacific Daily News
slimtiaco@guampdn.com
The pending transfer of thousands of Marines from Okinawa to Guam means the military needs to create more live-fire ranges here for training, according to a 91-page military development plan from the U.S. Pacific Command.
Among other things, it could mean mortar rounds being launched at a target range in Naval Magazine and the creation of machine gun and rifle ranges in the Finegayan area of Dededo, where the 8,000 Marines would be relocated. Every Marine must be able to use a rifle well, and their skills are tested regularly on the range.
If the Marines want to conduct "fire and movement" training at Finegayan, it also could mean hundreds of acres of recently returned ancestral land between South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan would once again be needed by the military. Excess military and other federal land since 2002 has been returned to its original owners or their heirs as part of the Guam government's ancestral land process.
Two options
The Guam Integrated Military Development Plan spells out two options for military weapons training in the Finegayan area -- one that uses only existing military land in the area for target practice, and one that would require additional non-military land to provide a safe zone downrange of a "fire and maneuver range" and for additional housing and other quality-of-life development for the base.
The plan states that rifle and machine gun ranges are feasible without additional land between South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan. It states that the military would prefer most of the training on Guam to be available at home base, "within foot-marching distance." It rules out live artillery training on Guam, and states that the former Andersen South Housing area should be used for training with blank ammunition only.
Military officials in recent months have said that none of the plans for military expansion on Guam are official, and much of what happens here depends on the amount of funding made available for the transfer.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan Leaf, deputy commander of Pacific Command, earlier this month told Guam lawmakers "most, if not all," of the development will happen on land currently held by the military.
Caught in the middle
If the military decides it needs the land between South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan, caught in the middle would be ancestral landowner Jose Pangelinan, 82, and five siblings, who currently are having the property boundaries surveyed as part of the ancestral land return process.
Their land, as well as the ancestral land of the San Nicolas family, would be in the path of the military's "surface danger zone" for the "fire and movement" range, which according to the Marine Corps basic training manual for officers, is the area used when individuals, teams or squads provide cover fire while other individuals, teams or squads advance toward or assault an enemy position.
Most of the land between South Finegayan and NCTS Finegayan is former Spanish "crown land" which means it was not privately held when it was condemned by the federal government and it is being held by the Ancestral Lands Commission to develop for the benefit of those whose family land cannot be returned.
'Injustice'
Pangelinan yesterday said it would be an "injustice" if the military decides to again condemn his family property, and said the military should use the property it already has farther north.
"The Navy took it for a long time -- for the last 50 years. They took a lot of our property. Why in the hell do we have to go through that trouble again when we're trying to build a place ourselves?" he asked.
"My father bought that (land) when he was a young man 80 years ago. The Navy came after the war and chased us out (of) there. They gave it (back) to us, part of it, then they want to use it again?"
He said his family has spent two years working on the land return, and, "I was looking forward to finish the job."
The plan also states that the military-held area at Naval Magazine in southern Guam could be used as a range for 60mm and 81mm mortars. The ability to use that area for a mortar range is limited by the nearby storage of munitions, the plan states, so it might be necessary to remove and relocate some storage facilities there.
Originally published September 29, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Guam Coalition Pushes for War Reparations
Guam coalition presses for war reparation
By Mar-Vic Cagurangan
Variety News Staff
A coalition of local organizations is petitioning the U.S. and Japanese governments to compensate the wartime victims of the Japanese Imperial Army’s atrocities out of the $6 billion that Tokyo pledged to help defray the cost of the Marines’ relocation to Guam. The Coalition Group for War Reparation wants the U.S. and Japan “to bring closure to this tragic chapter in the history of Guam” before transferring the 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam.
“The $6 billion committed is not because Japan loves the U.S. On the contrary and what is very obvious is that Japan wants to relieve itself from the burden and problems associated with U.S. Marines occupying Japanese land,” said Dr. Jose T. Nededog, coalition organizer. “The coalition strongly feels that the Japanese government must recognize and accept responsibility for what it did to the peaceful indigenous Chamorro people of Guam during World War II and compensate them accordingly,” Nededog added.
The coalition’s petition is addressed to President Bush, members of the U.S. Congress including Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Attached to the petition and individual letters sent to U.S. and Japanese officials is a copy of Guam Legislature’s Resolution 127, adopted in March, asking the U.S. government to grant Guam $2.4 billion to fund the island‚s infrastructure development needs that the troops relocationentail.
The resolution also requests Bordallo “to propose full funding of Guam war reparations to be incorporated within or without the overall funding and financing of military base expansion on Guam as an appropriate opportunity to address the bring closure to this historic injustice.” Japanese troops invaded Guam on Dec. 8, 1941 and occupied the U.S. territory for 31 months, subjecting the natives to executions, torture, forced labor, forced march and internment in concentration camps.
The U.S. eventually recaptured the island, leading to the 1951 peace treaty that exonerated Japan and spared it from paying war reparations.
“It has been over 62 years since the end of World War II and where the people entitled to reparation were approximately 22,000, they now number approximately 5,000 as they are aging and dying daily. These are the victims or are surviving heirs of such victims,” the petition reads.
In a letter to Koizumi, Nededog said that despite the U.S.’s absolution of Japan, “the government of Japan is still morally and legally obligated” to compensate the people of Guam for the sufferings that they had gone through.
In a separate letter to Rumsfeld, Nededog said resolving the long overdue war reparation “can only bring better relationship between the people of Japan, the U.S. military forces and the people of Guam.”
Pending in the U.S. Congress is Bordallo’s H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, which would provide restitution to the people of Guam who suffered atrocities -- including personal injury, forced labor, forced marches, internment, and death -- during the Japanese occupation of Guam. If passed into law, the bill would grant $25,000 each for Guamanians (or their heirs) who were killed during the Japanese occupation and up to $15,000 for those who were seriously injured.
By Mar-Vic Cagurangan
Variety News Staff
A coalition of local organizations is petitioning the U.S. and Japanese governments to compensate the wartime victims of the Japanese Imperial Army’s atrocities out of the $6 billion that Tokyo pledged to help defray the cost of the Marines’ relocation to Guam. The Coalition Group for War Reparation wants the U.S. and Japan “to bring closure to this tragic chapter in the history of Guam” before transferring the 8,000 Marines and their 9,000 dependents from Okinawa to Guam.
“The $6 billion committed is not because Japan loves the U.S. On the contrary and what is very obvious is that Japan wants to relieve itself from the burden and problems associated with U.S. Marines occupying Japanese land,” said Dr. Jose T. Nededog, coalition organizer. “The coalition strongly feels that the Japanese government must recognize and accept responsibility for what it did to the peaceful indigenous Chamorro people of Guam during World War II and compensate them accordingly,” Nededog added.
The coalition’s petition is addressed to President Bush, members of the U.S. Congress including Guam Delegate Madeleine Bordallo, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi. Attached to the petition and individual letters sent to U.S. and Japanese officials is a copy of Guam Legislature’s Resolution 127, adopted in March, asking the U.S. government to grant Guam $2.4 billion to fund the island‚s infrastructure development needs that the troops relocationentail.
The resolution also requests Bordallo “to propose full funding of Guam war reparations to be incorporated within or without the overall funding and financing of military base expansion on Guam as an appropriate opportunity to address the bring closure to this historic injustice.” Japanese troops invaded Guam on Dec. 8, 1941 and occupied the U.S. territory for 31 months, subjecting the natives to executions, torture, forced labor, forced march and internment in concentration camps.
The U.S. eventually recaptured the island, leading to the 1951 peace treaty that exonerated Japan and spared it from paying war reparations.
“It has been over 62 years since the end of World War II and where the people entitled to reparation were approximately 22,000, they now number approximately 5,000 as they are aging and dying daily. These are the victims or are surviving heirs of such victims,” the petition reads.
In a letter to Koizumi, Nededog said that despite the U.S.’s absolution of Japan, “the government of Japan is still morally and legally obligated” to compensate the people of Guam for the sufferings that they had gone through.
In a separate letter to Rumsfeld, Nededog said resolving the long overdue war reparation “can only bring better relationship between the people of Japan, the U.S. military forces and the people of Guam.”
Pending in the U.S. Congress is Bordallo’s H.R. 1595, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, which would provide restitution to the people of Guam who suffered atrocities -- including personal injury, forced labor, forced marches, internment, and death -- during the Japanese occupation of Guam. If passed into law, the bill would grant $25,000 each for Guamanians (or their heirs) who were killed during the Japanese occupation and up to $15,000 for those who were seriously injured.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Army Budget Trouble
Published on Monday, September 25, 2006
by the Los Angeles Times
Army Warns Rumsfeld It's Billions Short
An extraordinary action by the chief of staff sends a message:
The Pentagon must increase the budget or reduce commitments in Iraq and elsewhere.
by Peter Spiegel
WASHINGTON — The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.
The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.
"This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.
Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.
According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels.
"It's incredibly huge," said the Army official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity when commenting on internal deliberations. "These are just incredible numbers."
Most funding for the fighting in Iraq has come from annual emergency spending bills, with the regular defense budget going to normal personnel, procurement and operational expenses, such as salaries and new weapons systems.
About $400 billion has been appropriated for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through emergency funding measures since Sept. 11, 2001, with the money divided among military branches and government agencies.
But in recent budget negotiations, Army officials argued that the service's expanding global role in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism — outlined in strategic plans issued this year — as well as fast-growing personnel and equipment costs tied to the Iraq war, have put intense pressure on its normal budget.
"It's kind of like the old rancher saying: 'I'm going to size the herd to the amount of hay that I have,' " said Lt. Gen. Jerry L. Sinn, the Army's top budget official. "[Schoomaker] can't size the herd to the size of the amount of hay that he has because he's got to maintain the herd to meet the current operating environment."
The Army, with an active-duty force of 504,000, has been stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. About 400,000 have done at least one tour of combat duty, and more than a third of those have been deployed twice. Commanders have increasingly complained of the strain, saying last week that sustaining current levels will require more help from the National Guard and Reserve or an increase in the active-duty force.
Schoomaker first raised alarms with Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in June after he received new Army budget outlines from Rumsfeld's office. Those outlines called for an Army budget of about $114 billion, a $2-billion cut from previous guidelines. The cuts would grow to $7 billion a year after six years, the senior Army official said.
After Schoomaker confronted Rumsfeld with the Army's own estimates for maintaining the current size and commitments — and the steps that would have to be taken to meet the lower figure, which included cutting four combat brigades and an entire division headquarters unit — Rumsfeld agreed to set up a task force to investigate Army funding.
Although no formal notification is required, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey, who has backed Schoomaker in his push for additional funding, wrote to Rumsfeld early last month to inform him that the Army would miss the Aug. 15 deadline for its budget plan. Harvey said the delay in submitting the plan, formally called a Program Objective Memorandum, was the result of the extended review by the task force.
The study group — which included three-star officers from the Army and Rumsfeld's office — has since agreed with the Army's initial assessment. Officials say negotiations have moved to higher levels of the Bush administration, involving top aides to Rumsfeld and White House Budget Director Rob Portman.
"Now the discussion is: Where are we going to go? Do we lower our strategy or do we raise our resources?" said the senior Pentagon official. "That's where we're at."
Pressure on the Army budget has been growing since late May, when the House and Senate appropriations committees proposed defense spending for 2007 of $4 billion to $9 billion below the White House's original request.
Funding was further complicated this summer, when rising sectarian violence in Baghdad forced the Pentagon to shelve plans to gradually reduce troops in Iraq.
Because of those pressures, the Army in July announced it was freezing civilian hiring and new weapons contract awards and was scaling back on personnel travel restrictions, among other cost cuts.
Schoomaker has been vocal in recent months about a need to expand war funding legislation to pay for repair of hundreds of tanks and armored fighting vehicles after heavy use in Iraq.
He has told congressional appropriators that he will need $17.1 billion next year for repairs, nearly double this year's appropriation — and more than quadruple the cost two years ago. According to an Army budget document obtained by The Times, Army officials are planning repair requests of $13 billion in 2008 and $13.5 billion in 2009.
In recent weeks, however, Schoomaker has become more publicly emphatic about budget shortfalls, saying funding is not enough to pay for Army commitments to the Iraq war and the global strategy outlined by the Pentagon.
"There's no sense in us submitting a budget that we can't execute, a broken budget," Schoomaker said in a recent Washington address.
Military budget expert Steven M. Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent Washington think tank, said that despite widespread recognition that the Army should be getting more resources because of war-related costs, its share of the Defense Department budget has been largely unchanged since the 2003 invasion.
However, a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, Kosiak cautioned, but rather to new weapons it wants — particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has.
"This isn't a problem one can totally pass off on current military operations," Kosiak said. "The FCS program is very ambitious — some would say overly ambitious."
Even with Rumsfeld's backing, any request for an increase could force a conflict with the White House Office of Management and Budget, which has repeatedly pushed the Pentagon to restrain its annual budget submission.
"Year after year there were attempts to raise the ceiling, but year after year OMB has refused," said a former Pentagon official familiar with the debate. "The difference this year is the Army has said that if a raise in the ceiling isn't going to be considered, they won't even play the game."
Added the senior Army official: "If you're Rob Portman advising the president of the United States and duking it out with the [secretary of Defense], it's a pretty sporting little event."
Army officials said that Schoomaker's failure to file his 2008 Program Objective Memorandum was not intended as a rebuke to Rumsfeld, and that the Defense secretary had backed Schoomaker since the chief of staff raised the issue with him directly.
Still, some Army officials said Schoomaker expressed concern about recent White House budget moves, such as the decision in May to use $1.9 billion out of the most recent emergency spending bill for border security, including deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops at the Mexican border.
Army officials said $1.2 billion of that money came out of funds originally intended for Army war expenses.
"The president has got to take care of his border mission; he needs to find a source of funds so he can play a zero-sum game — he takes it out of defense," the senior Army official said. "But when he takes it out of defense, the lion's share is coming out of the outfit that's really in extremis in the current operating environment in the war."
Rumsfeld has not set a new deadline for the Army to submit its budget plan. The Army official said staffers thought they could submit a revised plan by November, in time for President Bush to unveil his 2008 budget early next year.
Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times
###
by the Los Angeles Times
Army Warns Rumsfeld It's Billions Short
An extraordinary action by the chief of staff sends a message:
The Pentagon must increase the budget or reduce commitments in Iraq and elsewhere.
by Peter Spiegel
WASHINGTON — The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.
The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials.
"This is unusual, but hell, we're in unusual times," said a senior Pentagon official involved in the budget discussions.
Schoomaker failed to submit the budget plan by an Aug. 15 deadline. The protest followed a series of cuts in the service's funding requests by both the White House and Congress over the last four months.
According to a senior Army official involved in budget talks, Schoomaker is now seeking $138.8 billion in 2008, nearly $25 billion above budget limits originally set by Rumsfeld. The Army's budget this year is $98.2 billion, making Schoomaker's request a 41% increase over current levels.
"It's incredibly huge," said the Army official, who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity when commenting on internal deliberations. "These are just incredible numbers."
Most funding for the fighting in Iraq has come from annual emergency spending bills, with the regular defense budget going to normal personnel, procurement and operational expenses, such as salaries and new weapons systems.
About $400 billion has been appropriated for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through emergency funding measures since Sept. 11, 2001, with the money divided among military branches and government agencies.
But in recent budget negotiations, Army officials argued that the service's expanding global role in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism — outlined in strategic plans issued this year — as well as fast-growing personnel and equipment costs tied to the Iraq war, have put intense pressure on its normal budget.
"It's kind of like the old rancher saying: 'I'm going to size the herd to the amount of hay that I have,' " said Lt. Gen. Jerry L. Sinn, the Army's top budget official. "[Schoomaker] can't size the herd to the size of the amount of hay that he has because he's got to maintain the herd to meet the current operating environment."
The Army, with an active-duty force of 504,000, has been stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. About 400,000 have done at least one tour of combat duty, and more than a third of those have been deployed twice. Commanders have increasingly complained of the strain, saying last week that sustaining current levels will require more help from the National Guard and Reserve or an increase in the active-duty force.
Schoomaker first raised alarms with Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in June after he received new Army budget outlines from Rumsfeld's office. Those outlines called for an Army budget of about $114 billion, a $2-billion cut from previous guidelines. The cuts would grow to $7 billion a year after six years, the senior Army official said.
After Schoomaker confronted Rumsfeld with the Army's own estimates for maintaining the current size and commitments — and the steps that would have to be taken to meet the lower figure, which included cutting four combat brigades and an entire division headquarters unit — Rumsfeld agreed to set up a task force to investigate Army funding.
Although no formal notification is required, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey, who has backed Schoomaker in his push for additional funding, wrote to Rumsfeld early last month to inform him that the Army would miss the Aug. 15 deadline for its budget plan. Harvey said the delay in submitting the plan, formally called a Program Objective Memorandum, was the result of the extended review by the task force.
The study group — which included three-star officers from the Army and Rumsfeld's office — has since agreed with the Army's initial assessment. Officials say negotiations have moved to higher levels of the Bush administration, involving top aides to Rumsfeld and White House Budget Director Rob Portman.
"Now the discussion is: Where are we going to go? Do we lower our strategy or do we raise our resources?" said the senior Pentagon official. "That's where we're at."
Pressure on the Army budget has been growing since late May, when the House and Senate appropriations committees proposed defense spending for 2007 of $4 billion to $9 billion below the White House's original request.
Funding was further complicated this summer, when rising sectarian violence in Baghdad forced the Pentagon to shelve plans to gradually reduce troops in Iraq.
Because of those pressures, the Army in July announced it was freezing civilian hiring and new weapons contract awards and was scaling back on personnel travel restrictions, among other cost cuts.
Schoomaker has been vocal in recent months about a need to expand war funding legislation to pay for repair of hundreds of tanks and armored fighting vehicles after heavy use in Iraq.
He has told congressional appropriators that he will need $17.1 billion next year for repairs, nearly double this year's appropriation — and more than quadruple the cost two years ago. According to an Army budget document obtained by The Times, Army officials are planning repair requests of $13 billion in 2008 and $13.5 billion in 2009.
In recent weeks, however, Schoomaker has become more publicly emphatic about budget shortfalls, saying funding is not enough to pay for Army commitments to the Iraq war and the global strategy outlined by the Pentagon.
"There's no sense in us submitting a budget that we can't execute, a broken budget," Schoomaker said in a recent Washington address.
Military budget expert Steven M. Kosiak of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, an independent Washington think tank, said that despite widespread recognition that the Army should be getting more resources because of war-related costs, its share of the Defense Department budget has been largely unchanged since the 2003 invasion.
However, a good portion of the new money the Army seeks is not directly tied to the war, Kosiak cautioned, but rather to new weapons it wants — particularly the $200-billion Future Combat System, a family of armored vehicles that is eventually to replace nearly every tank and transporter the Army has.
"This isn't a problem one can totally pass off on current military operations," Kosiak said. "The FCS program is very ambitious — some would say overly ambitious."
Even with Rumsfeld's backing, any request for an increase could force a conflict with the White House Office of Management and Budget, which has repeatedly pushed the Pentagon to restrain its annual budget submission.
"Year after year there were attempts to raise the ceiling, but year after year OMB has refused," said a former Pentagon official familiar with the debate. "The difference this year is the Army has said that if a raise in the ceiling isn't going to be considered, they won't even play the game."
Added the senior Army official: "If you're Rob Portman advising the president of the United States and duking it out with the [secretary of Defense], it's a pretty sporting little event."
Army officials said that Schoomaker's failure to file his 2008 Program Objective Memorandum was not intended as a rebuke to Rumsfeld, and that the Defense secretary had backed Schoomaker since the chief of staff raised the issue with him directly.
Still, some Army officials said Schoomaker expressed concern about recent White House budget moves, such as the decision in May to use $1.9 billion out of the most recent emergency spending bill for border security, including deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops at the Mexican border.
Army officials said $1.2 billion of that money came out of funds originally intended for Army war expenses.
"The president has got to take care of his border mission; he needs to find a source of funds so he can play a zero-sum game — he takes it out of defense," the senior Army official said. "But when he takes it out of defense, the lion's share is coming out of the outfit that's really in extremis in the current operating environment in the war."
Rumsfeld has not set a new deadline for the Army to submit its budget plan. The Army official said staffers thought they could submit a revised plan by November, in time for President Bush to unveil his 2008 budget early next year.
Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times
###
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Nuclear Sub News For Guam
Nuclear sub bound for GuamUSS Buffalo will replace USS San Francisco
By Steve Limtiaco
Pacific Daily News
slimtiaco@guampdn.com
Originally Published September 25, 2006
The nuclear submarine USS Buffalo, which will replace the damaged USS San Francisco as the third submarine homeported on Guam, is scheduled to come here next spring, according to local Navy spokesman Lt. Donnell Evans.
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo's office last November announced that the Los Angeles-class submarine was expected to be here by this month.
Evans on Friday said April 1, 2007, has been slated as the official date for the USS Buffalo to call Guam home, but said the submarine itself likely will not arrive here until after that date. The Buffalo, which has been homeported at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, since 1984, has a crew of 143, and will join the USS City of Corpus Christi and the USS Houston here. The USS San Francisco left Guam after it was damaged when it crashed into an undersea mountain in January 2005.
The House Armed Services Committee earlier this year received a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, which states that homeporting eight submarines on Guam, in addition to the submarines already here, could reduce the need for submarines because Guam is a more efficient location.
The report, prepared by defense specialist Ronald O'Rourke, and presented to the committee on March 28, 2006, draws much of its information from earlier congressional and Navy studies.
According to the report, the Navy determined that a single submarine based on Guam is worth about 2.3 submarines based in Hawaii or San Diego, in terms of the amount of time it would be able to operate.
"Guam-homeported attack submarines can generate significantly more days on station in Pacific Fleet attack submarine operating areas than can attack submarines homeported in the other two locations," the report states.
And Guam-based submarines could operate even longer, the report states, if submarines were manned in shifts, with three crews for every two submarines.
According to Pacific Daily News files, the Navy intends to shift 60 percent of its submarine fleet to the Pacific Ocean by 2010.
The United States hopes to keep a robust military presence in a region that is home to a growing share of the world's trade and to potential security flashpoints on the Korean peninsula and Taiwan.
By Steve Limtiaco
Pacific Daily News
slimtiaco@guampdn.com
Originally Published September 25, 2006
The nuclear submarine USS Buffalo, which will replace the damaged USS San Francisco as the third submarine homeported on Guam, is scheduled to come here next spring, according to local Navy spokesman Lt. Donnell Evans.
Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo's office last November announced that the Los Angeles-class submarine was expected to be here by this month.
Evans on Friday said April 1, 2007, has been slated as the official date for the USS Buffalo to call Guam home, but said the submarine itself likely will not arrive here until after that date. The Buffalo, which has been homeported at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, since 1984, has a crew of 143, and will join the USS City of Corpus Christi and the USS Houston here. The USS San Francisco left Guam after it was damaged when it crashed into an undersea mountain in January 2005.
The House Armed Services Committee earlier this year received a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service, which states that homeporting eight submarines on Guam, in addition to the submarines already here, could reduce the need for submarines because Guam is a more efficient location.
The report, prepared by defense specialist Ronald O'Rourke, and presented to the committee on March 28, 2006, draws much of its information from earlier congressional and Navy studies.
According to the report, the Navy determined that a single submarine based on Guam is worth about 2.3 submarines based in Hawaii or San Diego, in terms of the amount of time it would be able to operate.
"Guam-homeported attack submarines can generate significantly more days on station in Pacific Fleet attack submarine operating areas than can attack submarines homeported in the other two locations," the report states.
And Guam-based submarines could operate even longer, the report states, if submarines were manned in shifts, with three crews for every two submarines.
According to Pacific Daily News files, the Navy intends to shift 60 percent of its submarine fleet to the Pacific Ocean by 2010.
The United States hopes to keep a robust military presence in a region that is home to a growing share of the world's trade and to potential security flashpoints on the Korean peninsula and Taiwan.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
"Several women?"
Several women dissatisfied with Leaf's discussion
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
http://www.kuam.com/news/19011.aspx
Senator Judi Won Pat's (D) women's group met today with PACCOMM deputy commander Lieutenant General Daniel Leaf to discuss cultural and social impacts that will occur with the influx of military personnel on Guam. Some of the women present during today's meeting were not satisfied with the amount of time they were allowed to meet with General Leaf.
Former senator Hope Cristobal summarized the session by saying, "I was hoping that he would be able to expound a little bit more about the military's views about some of the issues that we presented today, so generally speaking, I wasn't happy about his responses."
Although Lisa Natividad of the Organization for the Protection of Indigenous Rights was happy that the general took time out of his busy schedule to meet with the women's group, she was not entirely satisfied with the results of the meeting. "I think today's meeting was a good first step in terms of opening the dialogue with the U.S. military regarding the relocation of these Marines to our island," she said, "however I don't feel there was enough detail that was discussed and in terms of the commitments of what our needs are it seems that the general wasn't in the position to make those commitments. And so to a large degree I think that maybe the right players need to be on the table because there's lots of concerns that we need to have addressed that aren't going to be able to be touched it seems."
by Clynt Ridgell, KUAM News
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
http://www.kuam.com/news/19011.aspx
Senator Judi Won Pat's (D) women's group met today with PACCOMM deputy commander Lieutenant General Daniel Leaf to discuss cultural and social impacts that will occur with the influx of military personnel on Guam. Some of the women present during today's meeting were not satisfied with the amount of time they were allowed to meet with General Leaf.
Former senator Hope Cristobal summarized the session by saying, "I was hoping that he would be able to expound a little bit more about the military's views about some of the issues that we presented today, so generally speaking, I wasn't happy about his responses."
Although Lisa Natividad of the Organization for the Protection of Indigenous Rights was happy that the general took time out of his busy schedule to meet with the women's group, she was not entirely satisfied with the results of the meeting. "I think today's meeting was a good first step in terms of opening the dialogue with the U.S. military regarding the relocation of these Marines to our island," she said, "however I don't feel there was enough detail that was discussed and in terms of the commitments of what our needs are it seems that the general wasn't in the position to make those commitments. And so to a large degree I think that maybe the right players need to be on the table because there's lots of concerns that we need to have addressed that aren't going to be able to be touched it seems."
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Guam to Receive More than Just Marines
Combat Communications Squadron to move to Guam
BY Josh Rogin
Published on Aug. 16, 2006
From http://www.FCW.com
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The 607th Combat Communications Squadron will leave in the coming weeks and move equipment and personnel to Guam, an Air Force official said today.
As part of the 607th Air Support Operations Group based at Camp Humphreys, South Korea, the squadron is responsible for rapid mobile communications deployment for wartime contingencies or natural disasters in the entire Korea area of operations.
“That leaves us short now of a combat [communications] capability that can go anywhere within the theater,” Col. Vincent Valdespino, director of communications and information at Pacific Air Forces headquarters, told an audience at the Air Force Information Technology Conference at the Auburn University campus.
A limited presence will remain to maintain the Korean Air Operations Center in Osan. But overall command, control and communications functions will be moved to the United States and its territories in the next few years, he said.
About 150 members of the 607th combat communications team will be relocated to Guam, beginning this year. A new squad will be deployed there with its completion expected in 2009. Military construction and operations and maintenance funding has already been secured, Valdespino said.
The move is part of an overall reorientation of command and control in the Pacific theater. Known as the strategic triangle concept, Hawaii, Alaska and Guam will form the base of operations for Pacific Command. The strategy aims to position critical resources on U.S.-controlled soil, while also allowing forces to be deployed to Asia or to the United States to assist in homeland defense missions.
Guam will receive the largest amount of equipment as part of this initiative. The island is set to host continuous, permanent Stryker, tanker, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance presence in the form of Global Hawk long-range unmanned aerial vehicles.
The move is also part of an overall decrease of U.S. forces in South Korea. In mid-2004, the United States and South Korea agreed to the phased withdrawal of 12,500 U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula to be completed by 2008.
President Bush has pledged to move 70,000 U.S. service members and 100,000 family members and civilian employees to the United States in the next decade.
BY Josh Rogin
Published on Aug. 16, 2006
From http://www.FCW.com
MONTGOMERY, Ala. - The 607th Combat Communications Squadron will leave in the coming weeks and move equipment and personnel to Guam, an Air Force official said today.
As part of the 607th Air Support Operations Group based at Camp Humphreys, South Korea, the squadron is responsible for rapid mobile communications deployment for wartime contingencies or natural disasters in the entire Korea area of operations.
“That leaves us short now of a combat [communications] capability that can go anywhere within the theater,” Col. Vincent Valdespino, director of communications and information at Pacific Air Forces headquarters, told an audience at the Air Force Information Technology Conference at the Auburn University campus.
A limited presence will remain to maintain the Korean Air Operations Center in Osan. But overall command, control and communications functions will be moved to the United States and its territories in the next few years, he said.
About 150 members of the 607th combat communications team will be relocated to Guam, beginning this year. A new squad will be deployed there with its completion expected in 2009. Military construction and operations and maintenance funding has already been secured, Valdespino said.
The move is part of an overall reorientation of command and control in the Pacific theater. Known as the strategic triangle concept, Hawaii, Alaska and Guam will form the base of operations for Pacific Command. The strategy aims to position critical resources on U.S.-controlled soil, while also allowing forces to be deployed to Asia or to the United States to assist in homeland defense missions.
Guam will receive the largest amount of equipment as part of this initiative. The island is set to host continuous, permanent Stryker, tanker, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance presence in the form of Global Hawk long-range unmanned aerial vehicles.
The move is also part of an overall decrease of U.S. forces in South Korea. In mid-2004, the United States and South Korea agreed to the phased withdrawal of 12,500 U.S. troops from the Korean peninsula to be completed by 2008.
President Bush has pledged to move 70,000 U.S. service members and 100,000 family members and civilian employees to the United States in the next decade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)