Effort to realign military bases abroad seen as short-sighted

Former military leaders and diplomats expressed concern Tuesday that the Pentagon's plan to restructure forces abroad is driven too much by short-term tactical needs rather than long-term strategic thinking, and could disrupt delicate diplomatic relations in the near future.

Restructuring military bases abroad should be viewed as a central aspect of foreign and defense policy rather than a way to achieve immediate tactical military objectives, the officials told the Commission on Review of Overseas Military Facility Structure. The eight-member commission was created by Congress to assess what changes should be made to installations abroad, and is expected to issue a report in March 2005.

John Hamre, deputy Defense secretary during the Clinton administration and now president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the Defense Department has not thought enough about how realigning forces abroad can be used strategically to shape the international environment in the coming decades.

"It appears to me that the kinds of changes to U.S. military posture that DoD is contemplating today are driven primarily by operational expediency, rather than strategy," Hamre said in written testimony. "The problem with this is that, in order to be sustainable over the long-term, U.S. bases overseas must be part of an overall political, diplomatic and strategic framework."

He added: "So far, I don't believe we have established an enduring framework for the new bases that DoD is contemplating."

President Bush announced in August that about 70,000 troops, plus 100,000 family members and civilian workers, would be withdrawn from Europe and Asia during the next decade.

Robert Hunter, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, advised the commission to evaluate "total mission" requirements of the United States, as opposed to "total force" needs of the military. Next to actual warfighting, he said, shaping the international environment is the most important mission of bases and military deployments abroad.

For example, he said, the United States should evaluate how realigning forces in Asia will affect Russia as that country recovers from economic and political crises. "It's got to be seen in a corporate way," he said. "What are we trying to achieve and how can the military help do it?"

Hunter said the commission should consider several criteria in making recommendations for restructuring bases abroad, such as the efficiency and effectiveness of supporting foreign military operations from within the United States, the value of contingency basing overseas, the cost and needs of forces deployed abroad, and the ability of political and military organizations to work together to prevent conflicts.

Hamre noted, however, that problems could arise if countries that host U.S. forces do not share the same goals as those of the United States.

"While the so-called global war on terrorism is the strategic context for the United States, it is not widely shared by other countries," he said. "U.S. forces would not be in some of these new countries for the purpose of protecting that host from a hostile neighbor, but rather for the purpose of using those bases to operate elsewhere."

Hamre added that new basing agreements, called "status of forces agreements," could take five years to negotiate.

"Negotiating a whole new set of SOFA agreements will be challenging-indeed impossible-until we have reached an understanding with our new hosts about the nature of our relationship and rights and responsibilities of each party," he said.

Hamre noted that the United States has not yet been able to negotiate a SOFA with the interim Iraqi government.