Japan Today
national

U.S. Marines' transfer to Guam from Okinawa to start in December

32 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

The Uncle Sam squeeze.

The cost of the Guam transfer is estimated at $8.7 billion, of which up to $2.8 billion will be shouldered by the Japanese government.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

Great, less problem need to be deal by locals.

https://japantoday.com/category/crime/u.s.-marine-arrested-for-drunk-driving-in-okinawa

.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2018/04/13/okinawa-based-marine-sentenced-to-four-years-in-prison-and-hard-labor-over-drunk-driving-death/

-15 ( +6 / -21 )

Less trouble, yes. But also less jobs, lower spending in the community etc…. for the Okinawan economy.

Double edged knife.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Great news. Those jobs will soon be replaced with tourism sector employment for Chinese and other Asian tourists.

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

BigPToday  07:39 am JST

Less trouble, yes. But also less jobs, lower spending in the community etc…. for the Okinawan economy.

Double edged knife.

Possibly not, the reason I don't visit there is because of that base. If it is downsized or gone completely it would be a twice yearly week away for me.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

return here as tourists.

They already feel unwelcome as it is. Don't wish that upon them.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

“The cost of the Guam transfer is estimated at $8.7 billion, of which up to $2.8 billion will be shouldered by the Japanese government.”

Why?

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Possibly not, the reason I don't visit there is because of that base. If it is downsized or gone completely it would be a twice yearly week away for me.

Exactly which “base,” Kadena AB?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The whole thing is a double edged knife. The extraordinary burden on Okinawa in hosting US forces is a fact. But Okinawa's strategic location in support of a Taiwan or Korean Penninsula crisis is also a fact.

Japan absolutely needs "some" USMC at close hand as they can be deployed very quickly if needed. Probably much faster than Japan could get the GSDF moving. Not to mention that the US does not have constitutional contraints that may hinder or delay action. If reducing the Marines in Okinawa by 50% is an acceptable number, so be it.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

“Less trouble, yes. But also less jobs, lower spending in the community etc…. for the Okinawan economy. 

Double edged knife.”

We are talking about marines, right?

A lot of them don't have a lot to spend and they rarely leave the bases. Just after the war, US bases provided an economic boost, but Okinawa has come a long way since then. It won't make any difference with these guys gone.

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

Considering the potential and real threats on Taiwan and Japan I wonder how that makes any sense, militarily and geographically. Any convincing points for this relocation decisions?

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Considering the potential and real threats on Taiwan and Japan I wonder how that makes any sense, militarily and geographically. Any convincing points for this relocation decisions?

It is mostly a logistics based decision, as the Corps is downsizing legacy regiments to form Littoral Combat Regiments, and dispersing manpower.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I am not an American, I am European. I like the international feel of Okinawa, which is also based on the Americans present. I live in southern Kyushu, there are times when I don't see any Westerner for weeks. That's why American-influenced Okinawa is a good place for me to travel to sometimes.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Less trouble, yes. But also less jobs, lower spending in the community etc…. for the Okinawan economy.

Double edged knife.

Hmm, truly an ignorant comment made by someone who doesnt actually know the facts.

The Marines leaving here will hardly be a blip on the local economy. Currently the US military accounts for less than 5% of the total GDP of Okinawa, and 5,000 Marines will mean little to nothing in the overall scheme of things.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

A lot of them don't have a lot to spend and they rarely leave the bases.

On this you are wrong on two fronts, one the Marines that are scheduled to leave are the exact one's who actually DO leave the bases.

2nd, they have a hell of a lot more money than you do to spend!

Just after the war, US bases provided an economic boost, but Okinawa has come a long way since then.

This is a truly ignorant statement, the US was 100% responsible for the economy of Okinawa.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

For years those protesting of US occupying forces has good effects pay off. Fewer crimes will be committed in Okinawa and that means a safer security,so that is a good news as well. The locals should kick up more protesting to pressure that occupying forces totally withdrawn from Okinawa, a safer place will attract more tourists!

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Good luck.

If you don’t speak chinese yet, start learning.

You only need look elsewhere on this web site to see the next stepping stone for china, especially since they already harass Japanese boats on a daily basis.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

 Fewer crimes will be committed in Okinawa and that means a safer security,so that is a good news as well.

Why? I mean really now, Japanese on Okinawa commit literally a thousand times more crimes than the military or sofa status people here on island.

Should we start sending Japanese off the island to reduce the crime too?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

OssanAmericaToday  08:50 am JST

The whole thing is a double edged knife. The extraordinary burden on Okinawa in hosting US forces is a fact. But Okinawa's strategic location in support of a Taiwan or Korean Penninsula crisis is also a fact.

Japan absolutely needs "some" USMC at close hand as they can be deployed very quickly if needed. Probably much faster than Japan could get the GSDF moving. Not to mention that the US does not have constitutional contraints that may hinder or delay action. If reducing the Marines in Okinawa by 50% is an acceptable number, so be it.

There will be some armchair generals who never served and never left the WW2 era who will bellyache about America's 'less standing' status because of those 'damn J' and 'damn liberals' in the USA - because the news media (did somebody say, 'Faux News'?) told them so! ***

There has always been redeployments and consolidations throughout the past 30-odd years. There was talk of that even when I served 40 years ago. What the Pentagon says, goes. And change is inevitable.

There's been some radical realignments since the Cold War ended in 1989. And great advances in technology too. Has anybody noticed how so many wars the US has fought since 1989 didn't involve ground forces? Yugoslavia (both times), Libya again, ISIS (for the most part), and now the war with the Houthi hooligans. And cyberwar too has become a new method.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This is a great move by both nations. Considering all the recent saber rattling by China, the time is way past due for Japan to stop relying so heavily on America and let the GSDF members do the job protecting their borders.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Great!!..

Transfer all of them to US..

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

This is wonderful news. Good job Japan in negotiating this.

Make college education affordable and you’ll see fewer of these guys in the military.

Making the poor serve in the US military is a travesty.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Great!!.. 

Transfer all of them to US..

Guam is the US.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@Chuck Guam is a colonial territory secured from a Spanish colonial power. 'Grats I guess.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Guam is a colonial territory secured from a Spanish colonial power. 

In a bloodless takeover. Because the Spanish garrison at Guam had not yet received word that Spain was at war with the US, the coastal defense gun crews thought the USS Charleston was delivering a gun salute, when really they were registering the firing distance for a naval bombardment.

The Spanish sent out an envoy to request for gunpowder so they could return salute, when they learned they were at war and promptly surrendered.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Great, less problem need to be deal by locals.

Less problems for whom?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It was decided in 2012 to move these Marines. Would the same decision be made today?

Might be a little controversial, but I bet Taiwan would welcome a US base.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Might be a little controversial, but I bet Taiwan would welcome a US base.

Taiwan had military bases including nuclear missiles. Mao told the US to remove them and the US did as they were told. Talk about leverage!

The U.S. can’t even see just a few decades ahead. No policies and projects for 2050.

Regret NOT helping China to defeat the Communist China

Regret helping Communist China to surpass the U.S.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Next, transfer the troops out of the Kuril islands

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If 4 thousand Marines deployed to Okinawa can be transferred to Guam, all the rest of them can be. The two governments have already signed an agreement to the effect that JSDF, and not USFJ, has primary responsibility to defend Japan's own territory should a contingency over the Senkakus ever occur.  

So, there is no legitimate reason why U.S. Marines must be stationed in Okinawa., whereby the construction of a new Marine air base in Henoko, Nago City, Okinawa, for Ospreys to transport Marines has become sheer nonsense. No use to build a new base for the U.S. Marines anymore. Period.

How would Washington and Tokyo respond to such a voice?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites