Is price tag for carrier wharf worth it?
Posted: Dec 03, 2009 2:54 PM
Updated: Dec 03, 2009 6:53 PM
by Heather Hauswirth
GUAM - In the name of national security, the environment will likely take a back seat if JGPO green lights its plans to construct a pier, called a berthing, for a nuclear transient aircraft carrier in either Apra harbor or the ship repair facility located on Big Navy.
You've heard it time and time again, Guam is the tip of the spear. The draft EIS revealed by the Joint Guam Program Office just two weeks ago includes the hypothetical blueprint for the way millions of dollars in construction projects could be spent on land and on sea. The ranking Naval Officer for naval facilities, captain Scott Galbreaith says the navy would like a greater air craft carrier presence on U.S. soil.
"It's a very potable and potent striking force and engagement force for the U.S. Being out here – forward deployed in the Western Pacific where the aircraft carriers often operate. This transient pier would give them flexibility in having a place to come and do maintenance and a little bit more training."
What is to become of the habitat with increased sedimentation, and permanent damage to the coral reefs?
Shawn Wusstig co–leads the Guam sea turtle recovery program for the Department of Agriculture.
According to Wusstig, "Here on Guam one of the greatest threats we have to sea turtles both hawksbill and green is habitat loss. What was once suitable for nesting may no longer be suitable and that would also depend on what type of best management practices that are in place that will keep that shore in tact."
Yet Captain Galbreaith says the threats from the neighboring Philippine sea, the People's Republic of China, and North Korea all make it necessary for the U.S. to establish an aircraft carrier pier in the Pacific.
"It is a floating air station really and it carries about 70 aircraft many of them capable of performing strike missions, refueling airborne, early warning and helicopter asw and other multi–mission capabilities," Galbreaith elaborates.
The Guam Shipyard and Polaris Point are the two proposed locations for an aircraft carrier pier. This would provide the Navy with a third location for an aircraft carrier pier in addition to the ones that exist in Hawaii and Japan.
Building this wharf requires
• up to 1,325 ft in length
• deck height of + 12 ft
• pier strength: 800 lbs per sq. Ft.
• mobile crane load: 2,140 ton
"The nuclear carriers are deeper than Kitty Hawk so in the past when we brought in nuclear carriers they had gone to our kilo wharf out by Orote Point, but that is really a wharf meant for ammunition movement so whenever we brought a carrier in that meant we couldn't do our job of ammunition movement so we want a dedicated wharf for the carrier," Galbreaith explains.
although not yet factored into the military budget for this next fiscal year, Captain Galbreaith says it is likely to be included in Fiscal Year 2012 at which time it will be up to Congress to approve or amend this project.
Carrier berthing carries huge costs
Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Security. Show all posts
Friday, December 04, 2009
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Sifting through the Draft EIS
Sifting through the Draft EIS
Posted: Dec 01, 2009 10:04 PM PST
by John Davis
Guam - As I continue to read and review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I continue to find unclear language that is a cause for concern. Today, let's talk about the DEIS VOLUME 4. Volume 4 explains the need, purpose and impacts of constructing a deep-draft wharf to support an aircraft carrier and Carrier Strike Group.
The purpose and need for the deep-draft wharf is to allow the Navy the ability to locate military forces to meet international agreements and treaty requirements to fulfill U.S. National security requirements to provide mutual defense, deter aggression and dissuade coercion in the Western pacific Region. Satisfying those requirements also include positioning forces to defend the homeland, including U.S. Territories and provide a location with a timely response range. This is probably why Guam is referred to by the Federal Government as the "Tip of the spear." However; I have a different opinion to why our island is referred to as the U.S. Military's Tip of the spear in the region. For example, if the Department of defense were as business and it was looking to branch out in our region, despite the fact they have satellite offices (military bases) all over the globe, Guam would be the best location to engage, show presence and deter aggression in the western pacific region.
With the prime location for the increase in U.S. Military presence already determined, let's focus on more DEIS language that raises more cause for concern. Allowing visiting and transient aircraft carriers and carrier strike groups to move freely through Guam and international waters throughout the region attempts to maintain regional stability, peace and security. Another goal of being able to support aircraft carriers and CSG's is to provide a powerful U.S. presence within the Western Pacific Region. Will the military only focus on beefing up the Western Pacific region? If the U.S. Military will only focus on increasing strength in the western pacific region with a population of billions of people, what about the millions of people living in the Atlantic Region?
According to DOD, the global perspective is to have aircraft carriers deployed world wide to support U.S. interests and commitments. On the other hand, I say DOD's DEIS is full of non-commitment. We have not received any guarantees related to cost sharing measures to fund the military buildup. In fact, the only commitment Guam has received from the U.S. military is that there will be 8 thousand Marines and about 72 thousand other support personnel on Guam by 2014. What OTHER U.S. interest requires a deep-berthing wharf for an aircraft carrier and strike group other than the war on terror? Is Guam under threat from China, North Korea, Russia, Malaysia or the Republic of the Philippines? I'm sure our people would like to know what kind of ride they're in for.
Furthermore, the DEIS states the employment of a CSG is integral to supporting U.S. interests and meeting treaty and alliance requirements globally and nationally. More gray area if you ask me. What the DEIS doesn't spell out is whether or not there is a risk for the U.S. to be in violation of a particular treaty? What about an alliance internationally or is the U.S. at risk of violating national interests? If not, why not build up Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or American Samoa? With respect to global interests, why not have this buildup somewhere else around the globe, why does it have to be Guam? Is it because we as a people have not determined our political status? I think so, but it would be nice if the DOD admitted it.
After the construction of a deep-berthing wharf, the DEIS indicates the Aircraft Carriers mission will be to provide credible, sustainable, independent presence and conventional deterrence during peace time. What I would like the DOD to indicate is whether or not the Western Pacific Region is at peace now. There are several ongoing conflicts ongoing right now in the Western Pacific Region and other regions around the world. According to information in the DEIS the aircraft carriers mission is to provide a sustainable, credible presence. Are there any projections to this buildup ever being downsized? That would be nice to know too. Aircraft carriers and CSG's will operate as the cornerstone of JOINT/ALLIED maritime expeditionary forces in times of crisis. A time of crisis would be now considering the ongoing war on terror. If the aircraft carriers will serve as the cornerstone of JOINT/ALLIED expeditionary forces, what role will Guam play other than playing host to the U.S. war machine on our native lands?
Aircraft carriers and CSG's will launch and support attacks on enemies, protect friendly forces and engage in sustained independent operations of war. Who exactly are the "enemies" and what are independent operations of war?
When all is said and done, after all the construction and migration of U.S. military forces to Guam, the navy plans to adjust its force posture and basing to position at least 6 operationally sustainable carriers and 60 percent of its submarines in the pacific to support engagement, presence and deterrence. I understand these 6 carriers will be able to move around the Western pacific region, pulling in and out of port whenever they please, but can DOD or the navy confirm whether or not at least one aircraft carrier and CSG will call Guam its home port? If so, then I'm looking forward to an increase in Section 30 Revenues. On the other hand, aircraft carriers are deemed a sovereign U.S. Territory, which is why I think this is a potential out for DOD not to increase section 30 funding to GovGuam. I would also like to know if any nuclear submarines will call Guam their home port as well. If this is true, then how will the Navy or DOD ensure there isn't another radioactive material leak?
When the DOD says "support engagement, presence and deterrence, it that the order of priority? Does the DOD plan to engage enemies before showing presence and deterring engagement? I would like to think the humanitarian way would be to first show presence, second deter and third and lastly engagement.
Not to worry readers, I'm not quite done reviewing the 400 pages of volume 4, if you've read volume 4 or any other part of the DEIS, chime in, I'd like to read your comments.
Posted: Dec 01, 2009 10:04 PM PST
by John Davis
Guam - As I continue to read and review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I continue to find unclear language that is a cause for concern. Today, let's talk about the DEIS VOLUME 4. Volume 4 explains the need, purpose and impacts of constructing a deep-draft wharf to support an aircraft carrier and Carrier Strike Group.
The purpose and need for the deep-draft wharf is to allow the Navy the ability to locate military forces to meet international agreements and treaty requirements to fulfill U.S. National security requirements to provide mutual defense, deter aggression and dissuade coercion in the Western pacific Region. Satisfying those requirements also include positioning forces to defend the homeland, including U.S. Territories and provide a location with a timely response range. This is probably why Guam is referred to by the Federal Government as the "Tip of the spear." However; I have a different opinion to why our island is referred to as the U.S. Military's Tip of the spear in the region. For example, if the Department of defense were as business and it was looking to branch out in our region, despite the fact they have satellite offices (military bases) all over the globe, Guam would be the best location to engage, show presence and deter aggression in the western pacific region.
With the prime location for the increase in U.S. Military presence already determined, let's focus on more DEIS language that raises more cause for concern. Allowing visiting and transient aircraft carriers and carrier strike groups to move freely through Guam and international waters throughout the region attempts to maintain regional stability, peace and security. Another goal of being able to support aircraft carriers and CSG's is to provide a powerful U.S. presence within the Western Pacific Region. Will the military only focus on beefing up the Western Pacific region? If the U.S. Military will only focus on increasing strength in the western pacific region with a population of billions of people, what about the millions of people living in the Atlantic Region?
According to DOD, the global perspective is to have aircraft carriers deployed world wide to support U.S. interests and commitments. On the other hand, I say DOD's DEIS is full of non-commitment. We have not received any guarantees related to cost sharing measures to fund the military buildup. In fact, the only commitment Guam has received from the U.S. military is that there will be 8 thousand Marines and about 72 thousand other support personnel on Guam by 2014. What OTHER U.S. interest requires a deep-berthing wharf for an aircraft carrier and strike group other than the war on terror? Is Guam under threat from China, North Korea, Russia, Malaysia or the Republic of the Philippines? I'm sure our people would like to know what kind of ride they're in for.
Furthermore, the DEIS states the employment of a CSG is integral to supporting U.S. interests and meeting treaty and alliance requirements globally and nationally. More gray area if you ask me. What the DEIS doesn't spell out is whether or not there is a risk for the U.S. to be in violation of a particular treaty? What about an alliance internationally or is the U.S. at risk of violating national interests? If not, why not build up Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands or American Samoa? With respect to global interests, why not have this buildup somewhere else around the globe, why does it have to be Guam? Is it because we as a people have not determined our political status? I think so, but it would be nice if the DOD admitted it.
After the construction of a deep-berthing wharf, the DEIS indicates the Aircraft Carriers mission will be to provide credible, sustainable, independent presence and conventional deterrence during peace time. What I would like the DOD to indicate is whether or not the Western Pacific Region is at peace now. There are several ongoing conflicts ongoing right now in the Western Pacific Region and other regions around the world. According to information in the DEIS the aircraft carriers mission is to provide a sustainable, credible presence. Are there any projections to this buildup ever being downsized? That would be nice to know too. Aircraft carriers and CSG's will operate as the cornerstone of JOINT/ALLIED maritime expeditionary forces in times of crisis. A time of crisis would be now considering the ongoing war on terror. If the aircraft carriers will serve as the cornerstone of JOINT/ALLIED expeditionary forces, what role will Guam play other than playing host to the U.S. war machine on our native lands?
Aircraft carriers and CSG's will launch and support attacks on enemies, protect friendly forces and engage in sustained independent operations of war. Who exactly are the "enemies" and what are independent operations of war?
When all is said and done, after all the construction and migration of U.S. military forces to Guam, the navy plans to adjust its force posture and basing to position at least 6 operationally sustainable carriers and 60 percent of its submarines in the pacific to support engagement, presence and deterrence. I understand these 6 carriers will be able to move around the Western pacific region, pulling in and out of port whenever they please, but can DOD or the navy confirm whether or not at least one aircraft carrier and CSG will call Guam its home port? If so, then I'm looking forward to an increase in Section 30 Revenues. On the other hand, aircraft carriers are deemed a sovereign U.S. Territory, which is why I think this is a potential out for DOD not to increase section 30 funding to GovGuam. I would also like to know if any nuclear submarines will call Guam their home port as well. If this is true, then how will the Navy or DOD ensure there isn't another radioactive material leak?
When the DOD says "support engagement, presence and deterrence, it that the order of priority? Does the DOD plan to engage enemies before showing presence and deterring engagement? I would like to think the humanitarian way would be to first show presence, second deter and third and lastly engagement.
Not to worry readers, I'm not quite done reviewing the 400 pages of volume 4, if you've read volume 4 or any other part of the DEIS, chime in, I'd like to read your comments.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Japan Probes 1960s Nuclear Agreements With U.S.
Japan Probes 1960s Nuclear Agreements With U.S.
* ASIA NEWS
* OCTOBER 23, 2009
Tokyo Leadership, Seeking Break With Past, Holds Fact-Finding Mission Into Once-Secret Pacts; Gates Warns of Damage to Ties
By YUKA HAYASHI
TOKYO -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned Japan this week against letting a fact-finding mission into decades-old secret nuclear-weapons agreements affect relations between the two countries, according to an official familiar with the matter.
In a meeting with Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa on Wednesday, Mr. Gates said Japan also should avoid letting the probe hurt the U.S.'s antinuclear-proliferation efforts, the official said. Mr. Kitazawa said the government would handle confidential information sensitively, said the official.
Japan, the only nation that has endured nuclear attacks, forbids making, possessing and storing nuclear weapons on its soil. But under an understanding reached in the early 1960s, Japan agreed to look the other way when nuclear-armed U.S. ships used Japanese ports. A 1969 agreement allowed nuclear weapons to be stationed in emergency cases on U.S. bases on the island of Okinawa, after it was returned to Japanese control in 1972.
Many elements of the agreements have been disclosed previously. Both governments say the agreements no longer have teeth because nuclear-armed U.S. vessels no longer stop in Japan.
But Japan's new government, now controlled by the Democratic Party of Japan after August elections, has launched a fact-finding investigation to make the agreements public and show how they were kept secret.
"In the past, prime ministers and foreign ministers of this country repeatedly denied the existence of the secret agreements and that eroded the public's trust in the government's foreign policy," said Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada.
Political analysts say the investigation is a largely symbolic move to show a change from governments run by the Liberal Democratic Party, which dominated Japanese politics for more than half a century, until last month.
"The DPJ wants to send a message to people that they have a new government with a different political style," said Norihiko Narita, president of Surugadai University and an informal political adviser to the DPJ.
The LDP said some secrecy was necessary. "Full disclosure of information on diplomatic negotiations doesn't necessarily guarantee the protection of national interest," the party's Policy Research Council said in a statement. "In conducting foreign policy, we always made our national interest and the well-being of our citizens the top priority, and disclosed what we could."
The investigation comes as the DPJ reviews Japan's overall foreign policy with a goal of giving Tokyo an equal role in its close bilateral ties with the U.S. Some experts say the probe seeks to discredit Japanese officials who had worked closely with Washington.
U.S. officials play down the potential impact of the investigation, saying the agreements are now out in the open and it is a domestic matter. "It is up to the Japanese government how they want to explore this," said Kurt Campbell, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs.
The investigation has created a buzz in Japan, where the secret agreements were long discussed but always officially denied. "I am very much looking forward to the DPJ showing us what we couldn't see before," said Masaaki Ota, a 42-year-old Tokyo flower-shop owner who supports the DPJ.
While the agreements have been something of an open secret in Japan, U.S. government documents concerning them have been gradually declassified for years. After the DPJ began the fact-finding mission, George Washington University Professor Robert Wampler posted online a package of relevant documents from university archives.
One 1969 memorandum by Jeanne Davis of the National Security Council to members of the Nixon administration discusses nuclear-weapons policy in Okinawa after the handover back to Japan. One option: "Japn [sic] now acquiesces in transit by naval vessels armed with nuclear weapons. This right would extend automatically to Okinawa. (This is sensitive and closely held information)."
Another 1969 memo, by U.S. Ambassador to Japan Alexis Johnson, describes an exchange with Japanese Foreign Minister Kiichi Aichi regarding the deployment and storage of nuclear weapons in Okinawa. "He said that [then Prime Minister Eisaku] Sato and we were, in event of renewal of hostilities in Korea, absolutely determined to implement this secret understanding and give full support to our actions in Korea," Ambassador Johnson quoted the foreign minister as saying.
* ASIA NEWS
* OCTOBER 23, 2009
Tokyo Leadership, Seeking Break With Past, Holds Fact-Finding Mission Into Once-Secret Pacts; Gates Warns of Damage to Ties
By YUKA HAYASHI
TOKYO -- U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned Japan this week against letting a fact-finding mission into decades-old secret nuclear-weapons agreements affect relations between the two countries, according to an official familiar with the matter.
In a meeting with Japanese Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa on Wednesday, Mr. Gates said Japan also should avoid letting the probe hurt the U.S.'s antinuclear-proliferation efforts, the official said. Mr. Kitazawa said the government would handle confidential information sensitively, said the official.
Japan, the only nation that has endured nuclear attacks, forbids making, possessing and storing nuclear weapons on its soil. But under an understanding reached in the early 1960s, Japan agreed to look the other way when nuclear-armed U.S. ships used Japanese ports. A 1969 agreement allowed nuclear weapons to be stationed in emergency cases on U.S. bases on the island of Okinawa, after it was returned to Japanese control in 1972.
Many elements of the agreements have been disclosed previously. Both governments say the agreements no longer have teeth because nuclear-armed U.S. vessels no longer stop in Japan.
But Japan's new government, now controlled by the Democratic Party of Japan after August elections, has launched a fact-finding investigation to make the agreements public and show how they were kept secret.
"In the past, prime ministers and foreign ministers of this country repeatedly denied the existence of the secret agreements and that eroded the public's trust in the government's foreign policy," said Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada.
Political analysts say the investigation is a largely symbolic move to show a change from governments run by the Liberal Democratic Party, which dominated Japanese politics for more than half a century, until last month.
"The DPJ wants to send a message to people that they have a new government with a different political style," said Norihiko Narita, president of Surugadai University and an informal political adviser to the DPJ.
The LDP said some secrecy was necessary. "Full disclosure of information on diplomatic negotiations doesn't necessarily guarantee the protection of national interest," the party's Policy Research Council said in a statement. "In conducting foreign policy, we always made our national interest and the well-being of our citizens the top priority, and disclosed what we could."
The investigation comes as the DPJ reviews Japan's overall foreign policy with a goal of giving Tokyo an equal role in its close bilateral ties with the U.S. Some experts say the probe seeks to discredit Japanese officials who had worked closely with Washington.
U.S. officials play down the potential impact of the investigation, saying the agreements are now out in the open and it is a domestic matter. "It is up to the Japanese government how they want to explore this," said Kurt Campbell, U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asia and Pacific affairs.
The investigation has created a buzz in Japan, where the secret agreements were long discussed but always officially denied. "I am very much looking forward to the DPJ showing us what we couldn't see before," said Masaaki Ota, a 42-year-old Tokyo flower-shop owner who supports the DPJ.
While the agreements have been something of an open secret in Japan, U.S. government documents concerning them have been gradually declassified for years. After the DPJ began the fact-finding mission, George Washington University Professor Robert Wampler posted online a package of relevant documents from university archives.
One 1969 memorandum by Jeanne Davis of the National Security Council to members of the Nixon administration discusses nuclear-weapons policy in Okinawa after the handover back to Japan. One option: "Japn [sic] now acquiesces in transit by naval vessels armed with nuclear weapons. This right would extend automatically to Okinawa. (This is sensitive and closely held information)."
Another 1969 memo, by U.S. Ambassador to Japan Alexis Johnson, describes an exchange with Japanese Foreign Minister Kiichi Aichi regarding the deployment and storage of nuclear weapons in Okinawa. "He said that [then Prime Minister Eisaku] Sato and we were, in event of renewal of hostilities in Korea, absolutely determined to implement this secret understanding and give full support to our actions in Korea," Ambassador Johnson quoted the foreign minister as saying.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
America needs to live up to its motto
BY TONY ARTERO • SEPTEMBER 10, 2009
After World War II, America's elected representatives did a "professional misconduct," a crime that had resulted in a horrific miscarriage of justice and started spendthrift. That legal fiasco destroyed democracy on U.S. soil and caused a people who were without a voice then, and still without a voice today, to be grossly mistreated.
The issues are:
The forceful land takings after World War II, under the guise of "national security." That action only transformed Guam from self-sufficiency into dependency. America has gained neither "advantage in global trade" nor "national security" by denying Americans on Guam fundamental economic freedoms and justice. Damn the deficit, full speed ahead. The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what was going on today.
The long-awaited war reparations from the havoc of a war the natives of Guam were thrown into, occupied by a totally without conscience and extremely brutal enemy for three years. The people of Guam faced, among other cruelty, such treatment as torture, rape and gruesome death. But the people of Guam remained loyal to America throughout the entire horrific ordeal because they believed then, as we believe today, that nothing can replace freedom and justice on earth, which is what we were made to believe America is all about.
The humiliating handout existence under the 1950 Organic Act of Guam ever since. People on Guam are constantly being assaulted psychologically and financially day and night, which is its own unthinkable kind of terrorist violence. It adversely affects lives, which limits what people will become. Peoples' future has been compromised for five generations.
America is a federal Constitutional republic with 50 states united, "one nation under God with liberty and justice for all." America also possesses several territories in the Caribbean and Pacific. The symbol and motto is "E Pluribus Unum" -- to represent hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
Foreigners come to America for freedom and justice. America's elected representatives took an oath to uphold its Constitution and laws, but something went crazy.
The nature of man took hold. America started drifting away from the mission of "unity, freedoms, and justice" and the symbol of unity began to fade. Protecting the rights and freedoms of all shifted to protecting those who are in power.
The reason for the staggering federal deficit is because America has lost the balance between wealth generated and consumed. The career politicians made a mockery of the oath of office and paralyzed the Department of Justice.
As opposed to the immigrants, America came to Guam in 1898 and suppresses the economic freedoms of the people of Guam and denies justice to this day. America's counterproductive colonial powers remain the status quo on Guam in the new millennium.
America has become a threat unto itself and must reform to rediscover its symbol and motto.
Tony Artero is principal broker for Artero Realty, a retired Navy submariner, and a resident of Agana Heights.
After World War II, America's elected representatives did a "professional misconduct," a crime that had resulted in a horrific miscarriage of justice and started spendthrift. That legal fiasco destroyed democracy on U.S. soil and caused a people who were without a voice then, and still without a voice today, to be grossly mistreated.
The issues are:
The forceful land takings after World War II, under the guise of "national security." That action only transformed Guam from self-sufficiency into dependency. America has gained neither "advantage in global trade" nor "national security" by denying Americans on Guam fundamental economic freedoms and justice. Damn the deficit, full speed ahead. The founding fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew what was going on today.
The long-awaited war reparations from the havoc of a war the natives of Guam were thrown into, occupied by a totally without conscience and extremely brutal enemy for three years. The people of Guam faced, among other cruelty, such treatment as torture, rape and gruesome death. But the people of Guam remained loyal to America throughout the entire horrific ordeal because they believed then, as we believe today, that nothing can replace freedom and justice on earth, which is what we were made to believe America is all about.
The humiliating handout existence under the 1950 Organic Act of Guam ever since. People on Guam are constantly being assaulted psychologically and financially day and night, which is its own unthinkable kind of terrorist violence. It adversely affects lives, which limits what people will become. Peoples' future has been compromised for five generations.
America is a federal Constitutional republic with 50 states united, "one nation under God with liberty and justice for all." America also possesses several territories in the Caribbean and Pacific. The symbol and motto is "E Pluribus Unum" -- to represent hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
Foreigners come to America for freedom and justice. America's elected representatives took an oath to uphold its Constitution and laws, but something went crazy.
The nature of man took hold. America started drifting away from the mission of "unity, freedoms, and justice" and the symbol of unity began to fade. Protecting the rights and freedoms of all shifted to protecting those who are in power.
The reason for the staggering federal deficit is because America has lost the balance between wealth generated and consumed. The career politicians made a mockery of the oath of office and paralyzed the Department of Justice.
As opposed to the immigrants, America came to Guam in 1898 and suppresses the economic freedoms of the people of Guam and denies justice to this day. America's counterproductive colonial powers remain the status quo on Guam in the new millennium.
America has become a threat unto itself and must reform to rediscover its symbol and motto.
Tony Artero is principal broker for Artero Realty, a retired Navy submariner, and a resident of Agana Heights.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Think tank proposes Guam as Iraqi refugee center
TUESDAY, 13 JANUARY 2009 22:31
BY GERARDO R. PARTIDO | VARIETY NEWS STAFF
An American think tank specializing in national security has released a study naming Guam as a possible relocation site for tens of thousands of Iraqis serving with the U.S. military and other U.S.-affiliated organizations.
The Center for American Progress or CAP, is a think tank headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and professor at the Georgetown University Center of Law.
Its study, entitled "Operation Safe Haven Iraq 2009: An Action Plan for Airlifting Endangered Iraqis Linked to the United States," warned that extremists and militia groups are now targeting the estimated 30,000 to 100,000 U.S.-affiliated Iraqis, describing them as traitors for working with Americans.
"In many cases, the lives of these Iraqis and their families are in imminent danger and many have become refugees or internally displaced persons within Iraq," CAP said.
The study concluded that these Iraqis urgently need and deserve America's help, and the Obama administration should act quickly to remove them from harm's way.
Guam
CAP said one possible location for processing these Iraqis is Guam, which already possesses pre-existing infrastructure and has status as a U.S. territory.
The study also pointed out that Guam already has experience in housing refugees during the aftermath of the Vietnam war as well as Operation Pacific Haven.
In 1996, the U.S. military set up a safe haven area in the Kurdish area of Iraq to protect civilians during the First Gulf War in 1991. The United States worked quickly to repatriate 6,600 Iraqi Kurds who first crossed the border into Turkey and were held briefly before being transported to Guam, with security screenings taking place prior to the airlift.
The Turkish government did not want this large number of Kurds in their territory, prompting the rapid U.S. airlift response. Operation Pacific Haven ran from September 16, 1996 to April 16, 1997.
Waves
The study recalled that the military flew three groups of refugees to Guam in successive waves. Once in Guam, Iraqis lived on an annex of Andersen Air Force Base.
The United States provided food, housing, clothing, medical care, and assimilation classes. The asylum processing took place in Guam in an expedited fashion and involved lawyers, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Screening consisted of background checks, medical examinations, and the designation of sponsors.
According to the study, the whole process took an average of 90 to 120 days and the cost of the Guam portion of the operation was approximately $10 million.
"A small caseload of approximately 80-90 Iraqis were problematic and thought to be double-agents. They were the last to be airlifted from Turkey and were stuck in Guam and/or kept in detention for a lengthy period of time before their cases were resolved," CAP said.
Steps
For the current proposed refugee operation, CAP proposes the following six-step course of action for 2009 as modeled after current airlifts by coalition partners and best practices from past airlifts:
Step 1: Appoint a White House coordinator for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. President-elect Obama should appoint a White House coordinator for Iraqi refugees and IDPs as outlined in the Kennedy-Biden-Durbin-Hagel-Smith legislation—a bill to develop a policy to address the critical needs of Iraqi refugees. The coordinator's responsibilities would include overseeing the airlift;
Step 2: Conduct an audit and review of current efforts. Full-time, dedicated embassy staff throughout the region from various U.S. government agencies must conduct a thorough audit and create a comprehensive list of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis through the SIV and traditional refugee assistance programs;
Step 3: Finalize security background checks. U.S. agencies should increase resources and personnel to conduct in-country security background checks of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis in Iraq and throughout the region;
Step 4: Order the commencement of the airlift. Once Iraqis are identified, the military should fly Iraqis in small, staggered groups to a third location;
Step 5: Implement and follow up on third-country expedited processing for Iraqi refugees. The White House coordinator should convene agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Health and Human Services, which would be engaged in the expedited processing of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis and oversee smooth coordination between U.S. government agencies and the military; and
Step 6: Facilitate relocation and placement in the United States. U.S.-affiliated Iraqis should be flown to the United States, where some can be funneled into Arabic language-critical jobs. Once the situation in Iraq has improved and U.S.-affiliated Iraqis feel confident about their safety, the expectation is that some of them will return to Iraq.
BY GERARDO R. PARTIDO | VARIETY NEWS STAFF
An American think tank specializing in national security has released a study naming Guam as a possible relocation site for tens of thousands of Iraqis serving with the U.S. military and other U.S.-affiliated organizations.
The Center for American Progress or CAP, is a think tank headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton and professor at the Georgetown University Center of Law.
Its study, entitled "Operation Safe Haven Iraq 2009: An Action Plan for Airlifting Endangered Iraqis Linked to the United States," warned that extremists and militia groups are now targeting the estimated 30,000 to 100,000 U.S.-affiliated Iraqis, describing them as traitors for working with Americans.
"In many cases, the lives of these Iraqis and their families are in imminent danger and many have become refugees or internally displaced persons within Iraq," CAP said.
The study concluded that these Iraqis urgently need and deserve America's help, and the Obama administration should act quickly to remove them from harm's way.
Guam
CAP said one possible location for processing these Iraqis is Guam, which already possesses pre-existing infrastructure and has status as a U.S. territory.
The study also pointed out that Guam already has experience in housing refugees during the aftermath of the Vietnam war as well as Operation Pacific Haven.
In 1996, the U.S. military set up a safe haven area in the Kurdish area of Iraq to protect civilians during the First Gulf War in 1991. The United States worked quickly to repatriate 6,600 Iraqi Kurds who first crossed the border into Turkey and were held briefly before being transported to Guam, with security screenings taking place prior to the airlift.
The Turkish government did not want this large number of Kurds in their territory, prompting the rapid U.S. airlift response. Operation Pacific Haven ran from September 16, 1996 to April 16, 1997.
Waves
The study recalled that the military flew three groups of refugees to Guam in successive waves. Once in Guam, Iraqis lived on an annex of Andersen Air Force Base.
The United States provided food, housing, clothing, medical care, and assimilation classes. The asylum processing took place in Guam in an expedited fashion and involved lawyers, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the State Department, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Screening consisted of background checks, medical examinations, and the designation of sponsors.
According to the study, the whole process took an average of 90 to 120 days and the cost of the Guam portion of the operation was approximately $10 million.
"A small caseload of approximately 80-90 Iraqis were problematic and thought to be double-agents. They were the last to be airlifted from Turkey and were stuck in Guam and/or kept in detention for a lengthy period of time before their cases were resolved," CAP said.
Steps
For the current proposed refugee operation, CAP proposes the following six-step course of action for 2009 as modeled after current airlifts by coalition partners and best practices from past airlifts:
Step 1: Appoint a White House coordinator for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. President-elect Obama should appoint a White House coordinator for Iraqi refugees and IDPs as outlined in the Kennedy-Biden-Durbin-Hagel-Smith legislation—a bill to develop a policy to address the critical needs of Iraqi refugees. The coordinator's responsibilities would include overseeing the airlift;
Step 2: Conduct an audit and review of current efforts. Full-time, dedicated embassy staff throughout the region from various U.S. government agencies must conduct a thorough audit and create a comprehensive list of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis through the SIV and traditional refugee assistance programs;
Step 3: Finalize security background checks. U.S. agencies should increase resources and personnel to conduct in-country security background checks of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis in Iraq and throughout the region;
Step 4: Order the commencement of the airlift. Once Iraqis are identified, the military should fly Iraqis in small, staggered groups to a third location;
Step 5: Implement and follow up on third-country expedited processing for Iraqi refugees. The White House coordinator should convene agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Health and Human Services, which would be engaged in the expedited processing of U.S.-affiliated Iraqis and oversee smooth coordination between U.S. government agencies and the military; and
Step 6: Facilitate relocation and placement in the United States. U.S.-affiliated Iraqis should be flown to the United States, where some can be funneled into Arabic language-critical jobs. Once the situation in Iraq has improved and U.S.-affiliated Iraqis feel confident about their safety, the expectation is that some of them will return to Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)