Sens to SecDef: Not so fast on WestPac decisions

Sens to SecDef: Not so fast on WestPac decisions

Here’s something unusual: Three key Senate lawmakers getting out front of a defense announcement before it’s even been made.

The top leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain, penned a letter with Virginia Democrat Sen. Jim Webb on Tuesday urging the Pentagon to remember its obligations to Congress before it finalizes new basing agreements with Japan.

What new basing agreements? you ask. Why, ones that haven’t been rolled out yet, but are apparently set to be on Wednesday. Here’s what Levin, McCain and Webb wrote to Secretary Panetta on Tuesday:


We have been advised informally that the United States and Japan are preparing to announce an agreement regarding basing issues on Okinawa and Guam as early as this Wednesday, April 25, in advance of Prime Minister Noda’s coming visit to the United States. While we have been strongly encouraging a resolution of this complex and troubling issue, we feel compelled to emphasize that no new basing proposal can be considered final until it has the support of Congress, which has important oversight and funding responsibilities.

Quite. Levin, McCain and Webb say they’re invested in what happens with the disposition of American forces in Okinawa and Guam, and they reminded Panetta in their letter that DoD still owes them due diligence on the way forward:

As you know, we have been particularly interested in this matter and included in the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act provisions that relate directly to the plans for U.S. forces in Asia.  One provision, section 346, required an independent examination of the U.S. strategic posture in the Asia-Pacific region and submission of that assessment, with Defense Department review, to the congressional defense committees for our consideration; we understand that independent assessment will not be received until June 28, 2012.  Another provision, section 2207, prohibits the expenditure of funds for certain activities on Guam until various conditions are met; none of those conditions have yet been met.

Based on the information we have received about this emerging agreement, we have many questions that have not been fully addressed.  We require additional information regarding how this proposal relates to the broader strategic concept of operations in the region, the Marine Corps’ concept of operations, master plans, and alternatives to base realignments on Guam and Okinawa, as well as the positioning of U.S. Air Force units in the Asia-Pacific region.  We also remain concerned about the absence of firm cost estimates informed by basing plans, an analysis of logistical requirements, and environmental studies related to this new agreement.   Further, a recent visit by Senator Webb to Okinawa (his third visit in the past two years) was characterized by a less-than-forthcoming series of responses from U.S. government officials.

As you’ve read here before, there is only one transgression that the Hill will not abide: A snub or a slight. You can do almost anything else — breach Nunn-McCurdy; offer no date for initial operational capability; or have delay after delay. But you resist calls for information; deal less than forthrightly; or dissemble at your peril.

So conclude Levin, McCain and Webb, who make clear that they intend for Congress to have a say in what happens with Japan and Guam, no matter what the U.S. and Japan are prepared to announce coming up:

[F]or the reasons given above, it is our position that any announcement on this critical matter that goes beyond an agreement in principle at this time would be premature and could have the unintended consequences of creating more difficulties for our important alliance.

There you have it — all that’s left now is to wait and see whether the Pentagon does, in fact, make an announcement soon about new basing agreements.

Join the Conversation

sasebo — yakusouka — singapore — guam — okinawa — korea — American Samoa and Marianas all need to be shut down, the NAVY does not need them, When ships from pearl or diego or operating (west pac) thier ships stay in port most of the time because the patrol areas are being covered by the US deployed units. They are an unecessary cost and strain on the Navy/Marine budget. Shut them all down, keep ships foward deployed and set up Austrailia for staging as planned would free up billions for ship building and repairs, Diego Garcia could be shut down as well with basing in Australia. Dropping the so called territories would also free up funds with us not having to pay all thier citizens (who do not have to pay any US taxes) with the gambut of free social services and economic aid they now get.

Just about every conflict we’ve had in the last 20 years has involved flying a whole lot of aircraft out of Diego Garcia.

And Australia has been closer each time.

I still don’t see your point with all the possibilities of something going wrong out there…

Really Australia is closer to Iraq Afghanistan and Iran than Diego Garcia?

Um, no. Diego Garcia is immediately south of India halfway between Africa and Australia.

Politicians need to do what’s best for the country first. To hell with their little fiefdoms.

Some common distances from Diego Garcia and Australia to middle east. I used Perth because there has been recent talk of trying to base USN ships in Perth. As I understand it, it is also the most readily available deep draft port in Australia with the infrastructure available for some immediate basing. From reading on the net diego garcia it is a little crowded and maxed out for resources. I am sure you could get closer distances from a northern part of Australia but I do not know of any Air Bases already in existence to get distances from. I only know of the Army post in Darwin which is still farther from the middle east than diego garcia. The distances below are straight line distances just for quick use. Actual travel distance would most likely be a little longer by ship.

Diego Garcia to:
Kandahar 2715 miles
Qatar2646 miles
Bahrain2741 miles
Islamabad2823 miles
Kuwait City3000 miles
Tehran3260 miles
Perth Australia to:
Kandahar5485 miles
Qatar5788 miles
Bahrain 5873 miles
Islamabad5308 miles
Kuwait City6132 miles
Tehran6253 miles

I am fully aware you can not get to a land locked country by ship. So please do not POG out and state the obvious.

Thanks red. Great ans for those that think Australia is closer to places we’ve deployed to than Diego Garcia. Geography used to be taught in school :)

Australia less so, the Carl Vinson is in Fremantle at present, with entourage. NZ isn’t iffy, they re clear. Banned outright. Singapore is crucial, due to its location at the funnel point of world trade.

The Senate’s demand is summarized in an article at the G2mil website. Move half the Marines where they are needed and off Oki.

Japan has no right to kick US forces out since were the only thing stopping the Chinese from running Japan over. Overall be best to move some Navy and USAF units to Iwo Jima since its a airbase and has NO civilian population to complain about noise. Land forces can stay on Okinawa and Korea. Overall be best to open or find a way to get permanent bases back on the Philippines since its as close to China as Japan is.

Well folks, in a hundred years of less, due to the population decline in Japan — they will be asked the Chinese and Koreans to immigrate and become citizens of Japan.

Well Dont I look stupid — My comment above was actualy part 2 of a reply with part 1 being deleted, happened a lot yesterday. I know where garcia is due to being stationed there for a while and stoping by more than once. The part about Austalia being closer each time was in ref to our allies customs as compared to our own and being there to support us on the ground in almost every conflict unlike the rest, Austrailia has always been one of our closest allies. As far as DG goes it is too small and isolated for the budget it has, let the UK run it and just rent the airfield when needed.

Yep…I’d say this is mostly posturing. As the article says, you can do a lot of things to Congress, but you better not ignore them, especially Levin, McCain and Webb.

Diego Garcia was a CENTCOM asset — at least after CENTCOM was stood up — and always will be. Clearly, an Australian base straddles the West Pac and the Indian Ocean. I don’t think there is really a valid trade between Okinawa and Perth. One gives you balance. The other demonstrates commitment.

Rent an airfield when you need it? Do you own property that you rent? Think about the 2nd, 3rd order effects. Is the airfield available? Will it cost more? What capabilities do I give up not being there all the time? How do I train for contingencies where I could use that airfield and how do I convince my allies and enemies i’ll do it when I need to? What would I have to import, build and/or pay for by not being there all the time?

Don’t understand, “The part about Austalia being closer each time was in ref to our allies customs as compared to our own and being there to support us on the ground in almost every conflict unlike the rest,” What Aussie custom are you referring to?

Japan and Okinawa have every right to do whatever the hell they want — even if it’s not in their best interests.

Finally Our Congress has openly spoken about being left out of the “loop” with some of these agreements being made by Our Pentagon Folks (Sec of Defense). Actually any agreement with a foreign nation should be run by Our Congress prior to commitment, and NOT AFTER! Seems like all of the appointed talking heads are doing this under this current Administration???? Like copy cat operations iof the White House???? Justice Department, and a few Supreme Court folks of late???? Chain of Command applies to ALL of our government bodies, not just the military services. Not all in that exact order but still accountability.…

Good example of a country with leaders in power that resemble Chavez, of Valenzuela? SO THE US MILITARY IS BANNED, SURE ISN’T BECAUSE OF ANY SOCIAL DISEASES?

Not the military, it’s part of NZs nuclear free policy. Their military are currently in exercises with the US. And NZ host the ANG units that support the US operations in Antartica.

Just because you seem ignorant of the facts isn’t a reason to make false accusations and SHOUT

I believe you are thinking of Clark air force basE. While I agree that the Philippines were great logistically, Cubic bay is now a major shipping a d cargo lane. I remember our carrier task force pulling in for r&r in 1987. We were there for a week. The sailors pumped nearly one million dollars every day into that economy. Hmmm, I wonder if their shipping lanes are doing the same ?

Remember Pearl Harbor, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition …let Japan build an Imperial Navy to confront China. In a few years India will have a Navy to equal the Royal Navy, Korea (the good guys — South) are increasing their naval strength, and we are working on a sea going relationship with Vietnam. And do not forget the PI. Use to have a great shipyard at Subic. As for Iwo — very toxic climate, sulphur, no water, etc. Guam is the best bet. Of course we have no repair ships or destroyer tenders in commission so we currently need access to repair facilities. We currently can not maintain a fleet at sea and forward deployed like we did in WW2. The Navy is now between the rock and a hard place. The fleet is tied to ports with repair yards and a train of contractors. It, the Navy, better get back to being able to sustain itself w/o outside assistance. Of course most of it’s experienced tender sailors are gone.

MMCS(SS)(SW) USN Ret.

No doubt, cooping up a division of Marines on a small island is not the greatest place to forward deploy them. So how is that better if you move them to Guam ? So, Perth would be more livable, and the locals speak English. But is it so very unthinkable to expect our boys and girls overseas to treat their neighbors with dignity ? At some point, the Prefect of Okinawa is a very important person — or he’s the tail wagging the dog.

Old Navy,

I would agree with you if this was 1950. However, in that region of the world, the threat against ships are anti-access weapons like submarines, cruise missiles and long range fighters. The days of the modern U.S. navy are in twilight.

Yes, but…we would have to do something to counter the ballistic missle threat, or any base we built would be looking down the barrel of a gun. The PI is well within range of a hundreds of Chines ballistic missles and hundreds more cruise missles. Diego, is not…

It is ironic. We have no care of you keeping us safe and using nuclear carriers to do it. Just dont go in our waters.

Wait so a Conventional aircraft carrier burning tons and tons of Fuel and polluting the atmosphere is better?

LOL BS.

The reason you see so many Subs is because the US owns the blue water with its surface fleet and nuclear subs. The US needs ships like the absolon which can do Pretty good ASuW. We used to have the Viking S-3 but it was replaced by the LETS HAVE ONE PLANE FOR EVERYTHING EVEN IF IT ISNT VERY GOOD AT EVERYTHING people. However in the open area’s of the ocean the US still owns.

The problem is the littorals (where LCS was supposed to help– it cant) Diesel subs are harder to find and dont suffer the range limitations that they do in the deep. This requires the above.

Cruise missiles long range fighters? Ticonderoga and DDG’s (A absolon could also dent those numbers) litteraly were made for the threats of those weapons. Thats not even including the Aircraft on a carrier. The Soviets had all of these things.……IN enormous Numbers. We eveolved to fight that war.

The problem now is a navy that has been missmanaged and screwed over the past decade and ahalf or more.

Yes. The general populace are quite anti nuke, left and right. Don’t get me wrong, there would still be anti war machine protests with a conventional carrier too. But those in NZ who do support NZs defense commitment do so with pride.

I was stationed at diego in ’72-’73 SEABEES NMCB4

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.