The US military is slowly scaling down its presence in Okinawa following decades of talks and delays colored by lingering animosity between US forces and local residents — in large part stemming from the 1995 scandal which saw three US servicemen abduct, assault and rape a 12-year-old Okinawan girl.
In 2006, Tokyo and Washington signed the US-Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative (DPRI), which included stipulations on reducing US presence in Okinawa for political reasons.
A 2012 plan foresaw the US relocating some 9,000 marines from the Japanese island, leaving behind around 10,000. The US forces were to be deployed to bases in Guam, Hawaii, South Korea and northern Australia.
By December 2024, US media reported the first contingent of just over 100 marines leaving Okinawa — the first ever drawdown of troops at the US base, originally established during World War II.
But some voices are now calling to abandon the process altogether in light of China’s military buildup in the region.
US troops buying time in case of major conflict
This month, the influential Atlantic Council think tank published a report warning that moving the marines from the Japanese island “risks undermining deterrence” against Beijing.
The authors, Lieutenant Colonel Caleb Eames and international affairs expert Amy Cowley, argue that “China continues its bid for dominance” with its military “projecting influence over critical sea lanes” as Beijing eyes the self-ruled island of Taiwan.
China views the island as a breakaway province and has not ruled out the use of force in its efforts to bring it under Beijing’s control.
The planned transfer of marines out of Okinawa would “give Chinese military planners exactly what they want,” according to the Atlantic Council writers.
Instead of reducing its presence in Okinawa, Washington should focus on “providing Okinawa with economic incentives, reaffirming US commitments to its allies and the region, and restructuring the US plan for the Marines’ future force posture in Japan and across the Pacific,” their report reads.
Highlighting the powerful US presence in Okinawa, to the north of Taiwan, and the Philippines, to the south, the paper says these forces would “delay enemy advances and buy time for US reinforcements” in case of a war.
Japanese government under pressure
Garren Mulloy, a professor of international relations at Daito Bunka University and a specialist in military issues, said the article could strike a note with many in in the US administration.
At the same time, Tokyo knows it would face a powerful backlash if it is seen to be reneging on its promise to cut US troops on Okinawa, he told DW.
“I do not think this is about stopping or reversing the shift of the Marines to Guam and elsewhere; I do think the US and Japan are going through a reconsideration of what units should be retained in Okinawa and which should be released,” he said.
The key will be to get better synergy between the US and Japanese units on the islands as Tokyo ramps up defense spending and shifts more of its own assets to the south, particularly naval and air units, to gain a better overall capability.
Okinawa could be placated, Mulloy suggested, by the transfer of a 500-man infantry unit to Guam, along with hundreds of dependents.
The US could then replace it with a specialist missile battery team with just 100 personnel. The concentration of personnel on the main island in the prefecture could also be ameliorated by dispatching units to some of the outlying islands.
Smaller US presence with bigger fighting capability
The result, he suggested, would be a smaller footprint but a more capable force, particularly through greater integration with expanding Japanese forces.
That would appeal to Tokyo, another analyst told DW. The analyst declined to be named due to his role as an adviser to the Japanese government on security issues.
However, the expert warned that even this plan would inevitably be resistance from Okinawans who want all US forces gone entirely.
“From Tokyo’s point of view, US forces are needed because the threat that is posed to Okinawa and southern Japan is existential,” said the analyst.
“Obviously the status quo would be preferable, but I do feel that it will be difficult to entirely go back on the promises that have been made to Okinawa,” he added.
“I predict the transfer may be smaller than previously suggested, it may be fewer front-line or specialist forces and plans will be put in place to get them back to Okinawa very quickly if they are needed.”
Edited by: Darko Janjevic