U.S. Pacific Troop Strength May Be Cut, Admiral Says

In a disclosure that could raise concern among Pacific allies, a top Defense Department official said Monday that the Pentagon is considering scaling back the 100,000-troop deployment in Asia that has been a symbol of American commitment to the region.

Adm. Joseph A. Prueher, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said Defense Secretary William S. Cohen has made it clear that the size of the deployment is “on the table” in the wholesale review of American military forces now underway.

Prueher reported that Cohen made his views known in a meeting with Pentagon officials last week.

American allies in the region have watched with concern in recent years as U.S. forces have retrenched around the world while Chinese assertiveness and military strength have grown.

To calm allies in such nations as Japan, South Korea, Australia and Taiwan, U.S. officials have cited the continued troop strength as proof of American commitment.

Only last December, Clinton mentioned it in a speech to the Australian Parliament in Canberra, when he declared: “We will maintain about 100,000 troops across the Pacific, just as we maintain about 100,000 troops in Europe. . . . We share the view of almost every nation in Asia that a strong American security presence is a bedrock for regional stability.”

And in a trip to Japan that same month, Prueher said, former Defense Secretary William J. Perry said the Asian force contingent was “not even on the table.”

Prueher joked that he “lit up” when he heard Perry declare the Asian complement was not at risk in the review. “But he left [his Cabinet post] a little bit later,” the admiral added.

While some sources have speculated that the Navy could lose 20,000 positions when the review is completed in the spring, the Pentagon’s consideration of the troop strength does not necessarily mean the military will end up trimming the Asian deployment.

In congressional testimony and other public comments recently, Cohen has stressed his view that American strategic and economic interests are growing rapidly in Asia. While he has talked of the need to review troop strength, he also has talked of the need to maintain large contingents overseas to prepare for war.

Kenneth Bacon, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said it was his guess that Cohen would not end up trimming forces in the Pacific. “But I don’t think he has been willing to fence anything off at this stage [of the review]. It’s just that he went in with an open mind,” Bacon said.

Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington think tank, said the 100,000 troop number has “gained a level of political significance. People in places like Japan and Australia believe that while the U.S. military has drawn down, the drawdown ends at 100,000 troops. . . . If troops were withdrawn, they could conclude that America is retreating into its old isolationism.”

In fact, the figure may no longer make the most sense for the United States, given improvements in military technology and changes in strategic needs, he said.

“But since there’s a political significance to it, you’ve got to be careful about how you transition away,” Krepinevich said.

*

Prueher’s comments come at a time when the military services have been arguing behind the scenes and, in some cases, in public, that they need to hold onto the personnel and materiel they have.

Army officials have been pointing out how the continuing threat of large regional conflicts makes it risky to reduce troop strength by much; Air Force officials, in contrast, have been arguing that there may be less threat of such a “major regional conflict” and more need for investing in new air power.

The U.S. military forces in the Pacific include portions of the Second Army Division stationed in South Korea, the Third Marine Division in Okinawa and the Army’s 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii. In addition, the Navy has major bases in Japan. The Navy and Air Force also each maintain an air wing in Asia.