Hearing of the Senate Committee on Armed Services - Global Posture Review of United States Military Forces Stationed Overseas
Federal News Service
HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
SUBJECT: GLOBAL POSTURE REVIEW OF UNITED STATES MILITARY FORCES STATIONED OVERSEAS
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR JOHN WARNER (R-VA)
WITNESSES: DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE;
GENERAL RICHARD B. MYERS, USAF, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF;
GENERAL JAMES L. JONES, JR., USMC, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND AND SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, EUROPE;
ADMIRAL THOMAS B. FARGO, USN, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES PACIFIC COMMAND;
GENERAL LEON J. LAPORTE, USA, COMMANDER, UNITED NATIONS COMMAND, REPUBLIC OF KOREA/UNITED STATES COMBINED FORCES COMMAND, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES FORCES KOREA
LOCATION: 216 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D-CT): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary; gentlemen, thanks for being here.
Mr. Secretary, I applaud you for going forward with the Global Posture Review and committing to implementing it. In a lot of ways it's long overdue. It makes sense as part of a general transformation of our military.
I noted, I believe in response to Senator Allard, that you said there was a lot of work to be done with many countries and many committees of Congress. I wonder which was harder work. (Laughter.)
SEC. RUMSFELD: (Laughs.)
SEN. LIEBERMAN: You don't have to answer that question!
I wanted to ask you about what the fiscal implications of this Global Posture Review will be, both short term and longer term, insofar as you're able. In other words, I assume that in the shorter term there's some significant costs associated with moving the personnel around, and I'd like to hear something about that. But then, what about the longer term? Are there savings potentially involved here or not?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, there are. If one thinks-I don't know what the average cost of a permanent change of station is, but if you think of the reduction in the total number of permanent changes of stations and moving vans and dependents -- 100,000 dependents back in the U.S., it's significant savings.
Now, the cost is greater than the savings during the immediate period, which is always true; same true with BRAC. We don't know the number because we don't know which of the options we'll end up landing on. But there's been a wild guess-and I think it's in the material that's been given to you, and I'd rather not say it because I'm sure it will be wrong. But it is a very, very, very modest percentage-or percentage of a percentage of the Forward Year Defense Plan. Now, the Forward Year Defense Plan is very big, so I'm not suggesting it's a small amount of money-it's in the billions. But part of it will depend on how much other countries will pay, and part of it will depend on-the other advantage, of course, is we'll be filling bases that would then not be BRAC-ed.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right. Let me come back to another one of Senator Allard's questions. The total number redeployed is 70,000. Obviously not all, I presume, are coming back to the U.S.; a number will be deployed elsewhere.
SEC. RUMSFELD: To U.S. or U.S. possessions.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right.
SEC. RUMSFELD: That's a net number worldwide.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: So that net will not just be redeployed-the 70,000 is a number that will go to U.S. or U.S. possessions, not to other foreign countries?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Exactly. There will also be moves among foreign countries, but that's additional to the 70,000.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Okay. I appreciate that clarification.
In terms of calculating the cost, and considering the agility that-as you describe and have been committed to that we need in our military forces, is there a concern that we should have that it will cost more in a time of crisis to deploy forces from the U.S. as opposed to forward-deployed positions around the world closer to potential crisis spots?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Let me say two things in that regard. First, let me go back to the first question. We always have to look at what it will cost to do it. We also want to look at what the costs would be if we didn't do it. And the cost if we didn't do it would be that we would continue for another 50 years malarranged in the world, arranged for the last century not the current century --
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Right.
SEC. RUMSFELD: -- and have a considerably greater stress on our force. And that cost is significant. Sep 23, 2004 16:44 ET .EOF
And-I'm sorry, I lost your --
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, my question is, isn't there a concern that if we move that many net numbers back to the U.S. --
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, yes, in terms deployment.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: -- that it'll cost more to deploy them in a crisis?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Our people don't think so. For example, if you've got to go from Germany up north, and then around, into the Atlantic Ocean, and then down into the Mediterranean, and then over to the Middle East, it's about the same distance as from the United States. Second, we don't know where we're going to have to use these forces to fight, and therefore, you can't know what the cost would be unless you know where it is you're going to be going. And that's, as I've said, something that is difficult to nail down at any given time.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: General LaPorte, I want to ask you a question, because I have a question about Korea, but I also want to ask you a question because Senator Reed loves to hear you speak because you're from Rhode Island. (Laughter.) The question is this: There have been concerns, as the secretary and I think you may have said, about moving approximately 12,500 of our troops out of South Korea when the North Koreans, Kim Jung Il, seem to be in an aggressive, certainly unpredictable posture. I wonder, to the extent you're able to describe to us why we should not have those concerns. In other words, what will we continue to have on the ground on the ground in the region that if there is some aggressive action, hostile action by the North Koreans, that we should not worry that we've got 12,000 fewer boots on the ground there?
GEN. LAPORTE: Senator, that's a very fair question. In Korea, I often use a translator, and Senator Reed thought I might need a translator for this committee. (Laughter.) There is tremendous capabilities resident to the Korean Peninsula. As I mentioned, the Republic of Korea military is over 600,000 strong. They are a very capable military-well led; well equipped; highly motivated. We should never forget that.
In terms of the reduction of 12,500, the capabilities that are resident in the region that are provided by Pacific Command, there are seven United Nation (sic) bases for example in Japan. Those bases have tremendous capabilities, rapid reinforcement capabilities to the peninsula, as well as our strategic deployment capability.
So I am very confident that this reduction will not increase risk. Kim Jung Il has always had a strategy of provocation. For years, that's what he does. And he'll continue to do that, irregardless of the number of forces that are resident in the peninsula.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: And let me be specific on this one. Moving troops away from the DMZ and Seoul, south 50 miles, what are the pluses and minuses of doing that.
GEN. LAPORTE: The pluses are, we couldn't be tactically fixed by North Koreans' artillery, first of all, because we'd be out of the range of the artillery, and we'd have the operational agility to go where we need to go.
Secondly, it gives us better training opportunities. We went to ground 50 years ago, and we stayed there for 50 years. And where we used to be at the end of dusty trails, today, those camps are surrounded by urban development, and we become and irritant to the Korean people when crank our helicopters, fire our tanks. So we need to move to an area that's less intrusive and gives us an opportunity to train better.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: So moving south is not only not a diminishing of our capacity to stop a potential North Korean move on the ground south, it actually puts us in a better position to respond to it.
GEN. LAPORTE: That's correct, Senator.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Thanks. Thank you all.