A key U.S. air base in Japan's southern island prefecture of Okinawa should be retained even after a replacement facility is completed, and used jointly for American and Japanese forces, a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel argued in a co-authored article recently posted on a U.S. think tank website.
"The decision to close the still-active Marine Corps Air Station Futenma...deserves reassessment," the article in the Atlantic Council said, which also called for renegotiation of a plan to move thousands of Marines from Okinawa to Guam out of concerns that the agreement "risks undermining deterrence" against China.
The article, dated Feb 3, was written by Lt Col Caleb Eames, Marine Corps fellow at the council, and Amy Cowley, assistant director at the council's Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Their views "do not represent the policy of the Marine Corps, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government," it said.
Japan and the United States agreed on the return of the land used for the Futenma base in 1996 and announced in 2006 a road map for realigning the U.S. military presence in Japan, which included the airfield's relocation from a crowded residential area in Ginowan to the less populated Henoko coastal area of Nago, both in Okinawa.
The relocation plan has met with strong opposition from people in Okinawa, with many demanding that the Futenma base be moved out of the prefecture. The Japanese government has said the relocation to the site adjacent to the Marines' Camp Schwab is "the only solution" to addressing the noise pollution and the risk of accidents posed by the base while maintaining the deterrence provided by the Japan-U.S. alliance.
In the Atlantic Council article, the two writers said Futenma is "a superbly capable, safe" airfield while "the replacement ocean-front runway under construction at Camp Schwab isn't nearly as long or capable."
"Washington and Tokyo should keep both Futenma and the replacement facility in Schwab," they said, adding that the move would "maximize operational flexibility and preserve a vital logistics hub for responses to regional crises."
They also said the shifting of Marines from Okinawa to Guam, also included in the 2006 road map, "undermines deterrence by pulling critical rapid-response forces from the First Island Chain, the first line of major islands running north to south along Asia."
Noting that the realignment plan had been worked out in "very different political and security environments," the article emphasized that "China is accelerating its bid for dominance in the Western Pacific and pressing its claim on Taiwan."
The full implementation of the realignment plan "would give Chinese military planners exactly what they want -- a removal of U.S. forces from the locations where they would be most essential in a First Island Chain conflict," it added.
Due to the legacy of the U.S. occupation after World War II and Okinawa's strategic importance, owing to its relative proximity to China and the Korean Peninsula, Okinawa has hosted the bulk of U.S. military facilities in Japan.
In a statement to Kyodo News, the Marine Corps said it is "continuing to implement the realignment of U.S. forces" and noted that the views expressed by Eames in the article are his own.
© KYODO
13 Comments
Login to comment
sakurasuki
Does he have any voting right in Japan? Does he Japanese passport?
Japanese especially Okinawan who should decide that.
BigP
With Chinese behavior lately and their endless grabbing of islands, an American presence in Okinawa is a good thing. Either that or start studying Chinese.
GuruMick
Probably got a favorite bar nearby where he is currently stationed.
dbsaiya
If Hegseth and Trump push for it, Takaichi will oblige. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Okinawa overwhelmingly voted LDP in this past election, you vote LDP, you get LDP, too late to start crying.
lincolnman
A lot of what this guy says is correct, but that's just his military opinion - Futenma long ago transitioned from a military to a political issue...
Futenma could have been closed years ago and the property turned over to the local Okinawan government, but the so-called "anti-base" politicians kept throwing up roadblocks. The "dirty little secret" is that the anti-base politicians really want the bases to stay - it's their only campaign issue - once it goes away they'll have to campaign in real issues like jobs, affordability, etc.
The Futenma closure will go forward, absent some stupid Chinese move like a landing on the Senkakus or a blockade of Taiwan...
Agent_Neo
Japan must protect its own country with its own strength.
Of course we should cooperate, but the US military should relocate from Okinawa to Guam.
The crime rate in Okinawa is just too high for the US military.
BeerDeliveryGuy
Don’t forget about the millions of dollars land owners are receiving for land lease fees.
The original issue in the late 90’s was if the Govt would subsidize or guarantee the commercialization of the returned land. The Govt answer was basically, “we will pay for the removal of facilities, but after that, it is your land to do with as you please.”
That’s when it snowballed into protests to delay relocation. Then the communist party hijacked the band wagon and steered it to their agenda.
Cephus
Think in terms of logistics in a war and it's apparently clear military personnel are still needed in Okinawa however painful it may be.
OssanAmerica
It's true that the US presence is needed in Okinawa.
But Futenma is smack in he middle of a city. It must be closed as was agreed 30 years ago. And an alternative location is needed. Maybe if those who object to a new location would stand down maybe then the move can be completed.
In those last 30 years the need for US military presence in Okinawa has only increased, not decreased.
Gaijinjland
OssanAmerica,
The base was there long before the city that was built around it.
okinawarides
But Futenma is smack in he middle of a city. It must be closed as was agreed 30 years ago.
Indeed, the agreement has to be honored.
"The decision to close the still-active Marine Corps Air Station Futenma...deserves reassessment,"
No it doesn't and is being relocated not closed.
quercetum
Washington talks about deterrence; Okinawa talks about exhaustion. One side wants to modernize; the other wants to downsize.
However China in 2026 is not the China of 1996, and Tokyo knows it. That’s the awkward center of this whole debate. It’s a chance to reduce the U.S. Marine presence on Japanese soil without looking strategically reckless but their reduced presence might be read as a thinning of the U.S. security guarantee.
Japan finds itself in the worst of both worlds: politically exhausted by hosting the Marines, yet strategically nervous about what their departure would signal.
quercetum
The entire justification for keeping a large Marine footprint in Okinawa still leans on a scenario that belongs to another era: a land invasion, an amphibious assault, something out of a Cold War field manual. All the Private Ryans here still imagine the PLA in Okinawa like D-day in Normandy. Meanwhile, the region has moved on to missiles, drones, and stand‑off capabilities—forms of warfare in which the Marines’ physical location on Okinawa is less decisive than ever.
Japan is caught between a political desire to shrink the footprint and a strategic fear of appearing exposed. The U.S., for its part, continues to argue for the relevance of a posture designed for a world that no longer exists.