A recent report by the influential think tank Atlantic Council recommends that the 5,000 U.S. Marines currently stationed in Okinawa, along with their 1,300 dependents, remain there instead of relocating to Guam. The report, released on February 2, 2024, argues that moving the Marines to Guam would hinder U.S. deterrence capabilities in the event of a conflict with China over Taiwan.
According to the report, co-authored by a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps, the $6.2 billion Marine facilities under construction in Guam could potentially be reallocated for Army use. The authors assert that the Marines positioned in Okinawa are strategically vital, as they are closer to potential conflict zones in the Western Pacific.
The Atlantic Council has played a significant role in shaping U.S. foreign policy and reported receiving nearly a quarter of its $66 million revenue from government grants in 2024. Key donors include the Department of War and the Department of State.
The report also calls for a reassessment of the U.S.-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), which initiated the Marine relocation effort that has been underway since 2006. This initiative aimed to reduce the number of U.S. service members in Okinawa due to longstanding political sensitivities. The authors express concern that fully executing the DPRI would align with Chinese military objectives by removing U.S. forces from critical locations in the region.
The report emphasizes that relocating the Marines from Okinawa would compromise deterrence against potential conflicts regarding Taiwan. The authors state, “Fast-moving Marine Corps troops are better located in Japan, part of the ‘First Island Chain.’” They further argue that the current geopolitical climate, marked by China’s growing military assertiveness, necessitates maintaining a U.S. presence in Okinawa.
The complexities of the Marine relocation are compounded by ongoing negotiations in Okinawa. The Atlantic Council suggests that increasing economic incentives for Okinawan residents, such as exemptions from certain tariffs, could facilitate negotiations. It also highlights the need to address local political opposition to U.S. military presence in Okinawa.
The report touches on the future of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, which has faced calls for closure due to safety and noise concerns. The authors argue that the base should remain operational, allowing both U.S. and Japanese Self-Defense Force troops to utilize the facility. Historical context is provided, noting that past incidents involving U.S. service members have fueled local opposition to military bases.
In terms of troop deployment, the report suggests that the Army could occupy the facilities already established in Guam. The Army is reportedly seeking to enhance its presence in the Pacific, which would position larger units strategically in the Marianas, an area less exposed to Chinese missile threats.
Local reactions to the report vary. Robert Underwood, chairman of the Pacific Center for Island Security and a former delegate to Congress from Guam, expressed skepticism about the feasibility of relocating the Marines to Guam. He noted that the considerations reflected in the report indicate a serious evaluation in Washington regarding the future of Marines in Okinawa.
Underwood remarked, “Some people may think it’s just a trial balloon, just to see what the response is. But it wouldn’t even get to that level of being floated out there if there wasn’t a serious consideration.” He highlighted that the ongoing controversy surrounding U.S. military presence in Okinawa complicates the likelihood of a permanent relocation.
Concerns about the environmental and cultural implications of military installations in Guam also emerged during discussions. Underwood pointed out that the site of Camp Blaz, where new facilities are being developed, is culturally significant and has faced scrutiny for its impact on local heritage. He called for greater transparency and community engagement regarding the Marine relocation plans, emphasizing the need for local leaders to advocate for accurate information.
As discussions progress, the future of the Marine presence in Okinawa and the implications for Guam remain uncertain. The Atlantic Council report underscores the intricate balance of military strategy, local sentiment, and international relations, making it clear that the debate over U.S. forces in the Pacific is far from resolved.
