politics

Okinawa-based U.S. Marines may start moving to Guam in Oct 2024

53 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments
Login to comment

The two countries have agreed to decouple the Marines' Guam relocation from progress in the base relocation on Okinawa and start relocating Okinawa-based Marines to the U.S. territory in the first half of the 2020s.

Sorry but there are few that believed this when it was first reported. Kind of a "believe it when I see it" attitude, and by the following quote by Suga, it just goes to show that the PM, no matter who he is, is quite adept at talking out of the both sides of their mouth at the same time on this issue of the base relocation and Marine move to Guam!

But Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga acknowledged in October that the two projects are "consequently linked," suggesting that the United States would not proceed with the Guam relocation unless the base relocation happens in Okinawa.

Can we call you a liar now? Or did you just "misspoke" ? In my book, they are one and the same!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

So Japan doesn't want US Marines on it's land but close enough to help protect it. Move them to main land USA.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

We will have to increase sales tax to 10% to pay for this.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

We will have to increase sales tax to 10% to pay for this.

We can always leave them where they are.

It's good that they have a date. That means work is being done on it. The Okinawan people deserve this relief.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So Japan doesn't want US Marines on it's land but close enough to help protect it. Move them to main land USA.

I have a feeling this was mutually beneficial to both Japan and the U.S. and, in fact, relocating them to Guam was the basis for the U.S. agreeing to the reduction in force in Okinawa.

I just worry about Guam and the impact of the increase in military personnel and the ripple effect it will have. With so many additional people on the island, it could just tip over!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

.

And why is is taking so long to pursue this option ?

Really !

Okinawans made it clear for years, they want the bases GONE!

.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I am sure Governor Denny will be over the moon at this news. But will US forces still be able to defend Japanese citizens as quickly as before, in the event of an attack? I really hope so.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Guam- An annexed territory. One of many annexed by the US. So, why the fuss about Crimea?

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Only 1700 marines are leaving while the others will be at least part time on Okinawa. Another American deception, they can not stop lying!

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Only 1700 marines are leaving while the others will be at least part time on Okinawa. Another American deception, they can not stop lying!

The article clearly states 5,000 will be leaving Okinawa. 1,700 will be permanently stationed in Guam while the remain 3,300 will be rotational forces.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Move them to main land USA

Why? They do the world no good on the continental US. It’s much more efficient and effective to respond to contingencies where they happen

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why stop there? Relocate all the U.S. military forces out of Japan. Time has come and gone for that country to defend itself.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Crucial, the number of marines leaving Okinawa was suppose to be a lot higher! Why did Japan pay the USA so much money? Billions of yen per US marine!

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Oh yea another thing it is "may leave", it is not even a sure thing!

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

5,000 is right on par with what was agreed upon. You may be mixing it up with 9,000 when is the inclusion of dependent and civil employees.

Well, the move is contingent upon Camp Schwab extension to replace Futenma and the completion of Camp Blaz in Guam. Camp Blaz hasn’t been a big issues but a certain other place seems to want to hold up the redeployment of the Marines here.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Why stop there? Relocate all the U.S. military forces out of Japan. Time has come and gone for that country to defend itself.

And let China control our interests in the West Pacific.... top 10 awful ideas.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Clue 5,000 troops are not leaving Okinawa but 1700! It is not even a done deal it is "may" which in US military lingo means negative! The American troops are going nowhere! I bet the US government will bring in more troops and there is a rumor of the US bringing in tactical nuclear weapons to Okinawa.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Okinawans made it clear for years, they want the bases GONE!

Too bad it's not their decision to make.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Why stop there? Relocate all the U.S. military forces out of Japan. Time has come and gone for that country to defend itself.

A Trumpophile wanting to cede American influence to China and Russia?! What a shocker.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

This is contingent on the US base also being relocated to northern Okinawa

0 ( +1 / -1 )

lostrune, what the Americans are doing is nothing as short as blackmail. Also it is more than the new airfield but replacements for the depot in Camp Kinser and more family housing. The Americans live so much better than their Okinawa counterparts. Americans would refuse to live in my house in Okinawa.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I forgot to add the Americans are also demanding a new American port! Countless of billions of yen to move 1300 Americans.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Americans live so much better than their Okinawa counterparts. Americans would refuse to live in my house in Okinawa.

You expect them to be on hand to defend Japan and live in Japanese housing? No offense to you personally, but housing kngjks country leaves much to be desired.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There are also more marines being stationed in northern Queensland here in Australia. It is not only the Japanese government that is a lapdog to Washington, but the Australian government, seeking permission from the US to be the Pacific Deputy, has also given up its independence and is making Australia a target for future US military adventures.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

There are also more marines being stationed in northern Queensland here in Australia. It is not only the Japanese government that is a lapdog to Washington, but the Australian government, seeking permission from the US to be the Pacific Deputy, has also given up its independence and is making Australia a target for future US military adventures

Adventure? Hardly. We are all in this together and as part of the Pacific fleet it helps Australia as well. China, NK and Russia don’t really see a difference in the free nations. Get used to it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

CrucialS: "Why? They do the world no good on the continental US. It’s much more efficient and effective to respond to contingencies where they happen".

Any nation "hosting" US military basis are, in effect. promoting US domination and as such making themselves a target. This is another reason NOT to have US military basis on foreign shores; it makes them targets when the US decides to invade other nations, as it is preparing to do now (NK, Iran).

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Any nation "hosting" US military basis are, in effect. promoting US domination and as such making themselves a target.

Either you have friends or you don’t. Australia has been for a very, very long time.

This is another reason NOT to have US military basis on foreign shores; it makes them targets when the US decides to invade other nations, as it is preparing to do now (NK, Iran).

Well, that won’t change.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

bass4funk: "Either you have friends or you don’t. Australia has been for a very, very long time."

The US has no friends, only subservient subjects, who are bullied, coerced and bullied.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The US has no friends,

Imagine if we would have said that of the first and second WW.

only subservient subjects, who are bullied, coerced and bullied

They try the same in so many ways

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yuri, 5,000 are leaving Okinawa as stated in the article.

The current plan will relocate approximately 5,000 Marines, of whom about 1,700 will be permanently based on Guam and the remainder rotated every half year, [in Guam not Okinawa] according to Tina Rose Muna Barnes, speaker of the island's legislature.

Riperez’s post tend to lack fact and popular belief so it’s not really worth a response, Base.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

may start as early as October 2024' This is so messed up, why even print the article when it says 'may' not even a definite plan. And October 2024 is another five and a half years away! I am sure the end of the world as we know it will have come by then .

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Riperez’s post tend to lack fact and popular belief so it’s not really worth a response, Base.

I definitely understand, but the emotion attachments never convince or win arguments and in reality when the chips are down the US for the most part back its allies and imagine if you were to have China or Russia as the sole superpower, China is not going to risk its neck or lives of its people for any conflict or Russia for that matter. No one in the free world wants to experience that.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The US bases make Okinawa a target of the Chinese. How many Okinawa people will be killed in Steel Typhoon 2? If it is a nuclear strike 500,000 to 1,000,000? The US nuclear umbrella is just a sick joke as they would not use nuclear weapons in return and have US cities threatened. Even if the Chinese do not use nuclear weapons it will be a high death count. The US bases are not to protect Okinawa but project American power!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Projection of US power protects Okinawa.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The US bases are not to protect Okinawa but project American power!

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Categorically, since 1945 and especially after 1989, there hasn't been a more prosperous and stable time in human history. Since the US hegemony, we've seen the world's economy grow exponentially, quality of life improve significantly, and unprecedented scientific advancement. Much of where we see the world today has been a result of US influence and projection.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Oh, and Okinawa's location makes Okinawa a target. Whether is be an American base, a Japanese base, or a Ryukyuan base there will always be an adversary that wants to take it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Wasn't it agreed in April 2014 that 9,000 Okinawa-based Marines would relocate to Guam and elsewhere? The Marine units subject to this relocation were said to be the most active elements, leaving command and support groups in Okinawa.

Now, they say about 5,000 Marines will relocate to Guam, but 1,700 will be the number permanently to be stationed there, with the remainder, 3,300, being rotated every half year between it and somewhere else (Okinawa included).

This means that, substantially, only 1,700 Marines are to be reduced from Okinawa. An off-the-cuff change of policy, indeed.

And yet, when we ask the Henoko relocation plan be reconsidered, they say it's already been bilaterally agreed and can't be changed at all

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The US bases make Okinawa a target of the Chinese. 

In other words, you are saying that removing U.S. bases on Okinawa and Okinawa will not be a target. That makes about as much sense as saying "police presence in cities makes cities a target for crime; remove the police presence and crime will disappear."  

The US bases are not to protect Okinawa but project American power!

Look at a map and you'll see Okinawa's proximity to the East China Seas region and Japan and why Okinawa is of strategic importance to both U.S. and Japan. It is in both Japan and U.S. interest to keep that region stable. To keep the region stable, there has to be military presence on Okinawa, whether it's all-U.S. , joint U.S.-Japan or all-Japan. (It remains to be seen whether Japan's Article 9 limitation will allow increased Japanese military occupation on Okinawa.)

China hasn't made any aggressive moves (yet) in that region because the US bases on Okinawa are keeping them in check.   

At the moment, the anti-base protests are directed against the U.S. Marines. After the successful removal of the U.S. Marines, then there will be anti-base protests against the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. It is Gov. Tamaki's goal to remove ALL U.S. military presence as he believes the U.S. military threatens Okinawa's peace.

Remove all U.S. military presence from Okinawa and you can be sure China will begin aggressive actions in the region.  China will attack and annex Taiwan. They will probably claim the Senkaku Islands and build military bases there.  They may even renew claims on the Ryukyu Islands. In the meantime, how will Japan react? Appeasement in order to avoid direct war? Most likely yes, given the absence of U.S. military umbrella protection.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

For starters, do the marines have any legitimate right to be stationed in Okinawa? For Article 6 of the Japan-US Security Treaty says that only the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force can use facilities and areas (bases) in Japan. 

You know, the Marines are a military service independent of the Navy. So here's another blatant breach of an agreement on the part of the U.S. .

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Halwick,

As far as the Marines are concerned, your argument that Okinawa is strategically important for its proximity to potential powder kegs doesn't hold water. You must realize their days are over in this era of missiles and electronic wars.

You know, your argument is basically a strawman argument. Confine your subject to the Marines or the Futenma issue only and you'll realize all your seemingly convincing argument overturns from its bottom.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You know, the Marines are a military service independent of the Navy. So here's another blatant breach of an agreement on the part of the U.S.

The Department of Defense is the executive body which governs the United States Armed Forces. It is comprised of the Department of the Army, Department of the Air Force, and the Department of the Navy.

Find me the Department of the Marine Corps and your argument of the Marines being independent of the Navy will have legitimacy. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger

All these departments you mention are administrative, bureaucratic bodies; they are not armed services. The U.S. military services: Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, are all subsumed under these departments headed by civilian secretaries . The fact that the Navy and the Marine Corps are subsumed under the Department of the Navy doesn't mean the Marine Corps must report to the Navy admiral.

The very fact that two Marine generals participate in the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff together with a Navy admiral shows the Marines are not under the Navy. They are different services on a par with each other.

Ranks are also called differently between the two services. For example, the Navy's admiral, rear admirals and lieutenants are called a' general, major general and captain by the Marines.

(1) and (2) of Section 5001 of the U.S. Code 10 clarify the demarcation between the two. No doubt, they are independent, different services.  It boils down, then, that their stationing in Okinawa blatantly violates Article 6 of  the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Okinawa Police are not a threat to China. American bases can be used to launch stealth bombers for a US first strike on China with atomic weapons. Clearly the US bases on Okinawa are a threat to Chinese security.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okinawa Police are not a threat to China. American bases can be used to launch stealth bombers for a US first strike on China with atomic weapons. Clearly the US bases on Okinawa are a threat to Chinese security.

Careful there agent Yuri. Your true colors are shining through. And the US does need bombers or a presence in Asia to nuke China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

darknuts, I want to protect Okinawa from being a nuclear target of the Chinese. The people of Okinawa have no quarrels with the Chinese. I have no argument with the Chinese. Let the USA use their carriers to launch their first strike. Then again if the USA nukes China, all of the people of Okinawa will perish from radioactive fallout.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichi, the Chinese can knock out all of the American bases on Okinawa without nukes in minutes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Voice, I've actually served in the military and don't need lectures from someone who never has. I have first hand and professional knowledge on the intricacies of the authorities and responsibilities of each branch. Flat out, you're incorrect the Marine Corps is a part of the Naval Services and per the treaty is legitimately in Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CyburneticTiger:

The fact that you served in the U.S. military doesn't count much to prove you claim to be true that the Marine Corps is subsumed under the Navy. You must prove the facts I listed as the evidence that the Marines aren’t subsumed under the Navy. I know there are two conflicting opinions as regards this problem even among persons concerned -- ex-marines.

On an Internet Q&A site, a former Marine Officer offers an answer to the question whether the Marines are subsumed under the Navy of not, as follows;

"The US Marine Corps ceased being a branch of the US Navy 70 years ago. Both the US Marine Corps and US Navy are “Naval services” under the Civilian Secretary of the Navy. But each Service head (Commandant and Chief of Naval Operations) is an equal 4 Star General/Admiral that represents their respective service as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.".

The Department of Defense also offers an answer. In its official document penned by Claudette Roulo, "Why are Marines part of the Navy". In it the author recounts the history of a naval infantry in the world, saying the U.S. Marine Corps was modeled after the British Royal Marines. 

But his conclusion is very interesting. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are "sister services", both attached to the Department of the Navy, he writes. He never says, though, that a top Marine general answers to a top Navy admiral. 

In other words, the Pentagon's official document can't deny the fact that today's U.S. Marine Corps is independent of the regular Navy, each having its own chain of command, the Marines' two generals representing the corps at the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff on a par with a Navy admiral, two Army generals and three Air Force generals.

Note also that the Department of the Navy is not a military service but an administrative, bureaucratic organization headed by a civilian secretary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Addendum:

If the description of Wikipedia is correct, the U.S. Navy consists of four main sections: (1) the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, (2) the Office of he Chief of Naval Operations, (3) the operatin forces, and (4) the Shore Establishment. Nowhere in this structutral description is mentioned about the Marine Corps.

On the other hand, the Marine Corps is organized into four principal subdivisions: (1) Headquarters Marine Corps, (2) the Operating Forces, (3) the Supporting Establishment, and (4) the Marine Forces Reserve.

Both tops of the Navy and the Marine Corps answer to the Secretary of the Navy as equal partners. The Marine Corps as a service is thus never subumed under the arm of the the Navy, another independent naval service.

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