Keeping Options Open

“Guam is no longer on the downward spiral. Over the last couple of years there has been an increase in the U.S. presence here.” —Rear Adm. Arthur J. Johnson Photo: Frank Whitman

Pacific Magazine: Has there been a change in Guam's significance to the Navy in recent years?

Adm. Arthur J. Johnson: What's changed is our approach to Guam. There was a time when Guam was on the downslide. Then we had 9/11 and the War on Terrorism. The world geopolitical landscape has changed significantly.

There's a major assessment ongoing right now to find the optimal array for U.S. forces around the world. Guam is no longer on the downward spiral. Over the last couple of years there has been an increase in the U.S. presence here. Our footprint is growing, as evidenced by - just last month -the new bomber presence up at Andersen Air Force Base. The complete assessment is not finished, so we can't say what the final answer is, but certainly I see some movement.

PM: Isn't it about Guam being about as far forward as you can get in this direction and still be on friendly, stable, secure soil?

Johnson: Part of the sea change that came about actually started back during Desert Storm, and we saw it with the new War on Terrorism. That is the complications associated with diplomatic access. In the past, we invested huge sums in facilities in foreign countries - that goes back to the days when we built air bases in Libya. Investing in U.S. sovereign territory or in instruments that do not require diplomatic cooperation give us great flexibility to use and capitalize on our investment. So one thing that adds to the value of Guam is that it is U.S. sovereign territory that's reaching into the Pacific. With any investment here, we don't have to worry about complications later on - whether we'll be able to gain access and use them in a response scenario. That's part of the strategic value of Guam.

PM: Is Guam seen as a potential fallback if U.S. troops in Asia need to relocate?

Johnson: Let me answer your question this way - the assessment that's taking place is going to answer that question and a lot more. I can't tell you that we're going to pull our forces off the Korean peninsula or we'll reduce the Marine presence in Okinawa. But I know that all of those things and more are being considered. Once it's all distilled down to the ultimate laydown for U.S. forces we'll see reductions in some areas and buildups in other areas. But it's a little early in the assessment to say Guam will increase its footprint significantly due to reductions in other areas.

PM: Over the years there's been talk about basing troops in the Northern Marianas, a U.S. commonwealth. Is that still on the planning board?

Johnson: There is no significant planning, no new initiatives. We'll retain that flexibility. Who knows, the global basing study that comes out may dictate that we may have to look and investigate further some initiatives along those lines. One thing that we try to collectively do is maintain access and keep our flexibility high.

PM: A recent issue of Pacific Magazine has an interview with Australian Prime Minister Howard in which he talks about their increased involvement with places like the Solomon Islands and PNG. He talks about how they're concerned about criminal organizations and ultimately terrorist organizations coming in. Those are much larger and more chaotic places, but does the U.S. have the same type of concerns about Micronesia?

Johnson: There are similar concerns. We have staff talks with a lot of compact members - the Federated States. We're in coordination with them all the time to help them with any issues that may visit them. As we work the global War on Terrorism and we're addressing problems in other areas, the problems tend to migrate. So we need to be concerned about fledgling countries and make sure that we lend as much assistance as possible so that they can be successful. Because ultimately if they're not successful, it will be an area that will need to be addressed later.

We work closely with the Republic of Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia to lend assistance. One area that we're working right now is to help some of our regional partners with their border control - providing resources, providing intelligence, cooperating when we have assets in the area.

PM: As I understand it, a decision has been made to move a carrier out into the Pacific, either Guam or Honolulu. Is that accurate?

Johnson: There is a concerted effort to place a second carrier in the Pacific. What's going on right now is an assessment to find out where the optimum location for the carrier would be. Guam is one of the locations under consideration. To talk in general terms, we have areas that we could place a carrier that have great ports and piers and shipyards that are important for a carrier. There are other places with great training ranges, unencumbered air space, things of that nature that are ideal for an air wing - those 80 or 90 airplanes that are associated with that carrier. Of the places that we're considering, there's no place that has everything. So now the analysis is being done to find out how much it is going to cost to mitigate what we don't have in a particular area. Those answers are going to be needed before the Navy leadership - and it probably will go higher than the Navy leadership for the ultimate answer - can make the decision about where to place that carrier.

Guam is under consideration; the analysis is ongoing and I can't begin to tell you when that decision might be made. But we can look at the string of Department of Defense, the Department of Navy key decision makers that have come in to get first hand data points (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England visited Guam within the past six months), on the true state of the place. We'll just have to support that effort by giving them the ground truth.