미육군해외기지전환을위한 옵션 이시우 2005/10/11 446

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=6&from=0

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=6&from=0

Options for Changing
the Army’s Overseas Basing

May 2004

Notes

Unless otherwise indicated, all years referred to in this study are fiscal years and all dollar amounts are in 2004 dollars.

Numbers in the text and tables may not add up to totals because of rounding.

Preface

The Department of Defense is currently reevaluating how many forces it should continue to base overseas and where it should station them. Changes under consideration include moving troops now based overseas back to the United States and using periodic rotations to maintain a presence in Europe and South Korea. Also under consideration is establishing bases in Eastern Europe, which the Administration believes might be better suited than current bases to act as staging areas for deploying forces to contingencies outside Europe.
This Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study–prepared at the request of the Senate Budget Committee–examines several alternatives for changing the overseas basing of U.S. forces, focusing on Army units in Europe and South Korea. The alternatives cover a wide range of options, including ideas that have been discussed by the Administration. This analysis estimates the costs and savings associated with the alternatives as well as their effects on Army units and personnel. In keeping with CBO’s mandate to provide objective, impartial analysis, the report makes no recommendations.
Frances M. Lussier of CBO’s National Security Division prepared this study under the general supervision of J. Michael Gilmore. Adam Talaber provided valuable assistance in analyzing the time needed to deploy Army forces around the globe and the availability of Army forces for contingencies. Matthew Schmit estimated the costs of the various alternatives and wrote Appendix B. Allison Percy and Chad Goldberg made important contributions to research and fact-checking. Perry Beider, Robert Dennis, Arlene Holen, Elizabeth Robinson, Christopher Williams, and Dennis Zimmerman offered thoughtful comments on an earlier draft, as did W. Michael Hix of the RAND Corporation. (The assistance of an external reviewer implies no responsibility for the final product, which rests solely with CBO.)
Christian Spoor edited the study and prepared it for publication; Christine Bogusz and Juyne Linger proofread it. Cindy Cleveland prepared numerous drafts of the text and tables, and Maureen Costantino produced the cover and maps. Annette Kalicki prepared the electronic versions of the report for CBO’s Web site.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin
Director
May 2004

CONTENTS

Summary

1
Introduction

Changes in U.S. Overseas Basing in the Past 25 Years

Reasons to Change Overseas Basing Further

2
Current Basing of U.S. Forces Overseas

Forward-Based Versus Forward-Deployed Forces

U.S. Forces Based in Europe

U.S. Forces Based in East Asia and the Pacific

Concerns About the Current Basing of U.S. Forces Overseas

3
Alternative Basing Schemes for Army Forces

Policy Choices and Their Implications

Measures for Evaluating the Effects of Changes in Overseas Basing

Alternatives That Would Change the Army’s Overseas Basing While Maintaining Current Force Levels

Alternatives That Would Cut the Level of Army Forces Stationed Overseas in Half

Alternatives That Would Remove Almost All Army Forces Stationed Overseas

Conclusions

A
Current Basing of Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Forces Overseas

B
How CBO Estimated the Costs of the Alternatives in This Report

C
Deployment Tempo and Rotation Ratios for Active Army Forces

Tables

S-1.
Permanent Basing of U.S. Active-Duty Military Forces, by Region
S-2.
Comparison of Alternatives with the Current Basing of Army Forces
1-1.
The U.S. Military’s Overseas Infrastructure
1-2.
The Share of the U.S. Military’s Overseas Infrastructure in Germany and South Korea
2-1.
U.S. Bases and Forces Stationed in Europe and Asia
3-1.
Attributes of the Overseas Basing of Army Forces
3-2.
Location of Permanent Army Forces Under Current Basing and Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C
3-3.
Costs and Savings of Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C Relative to Current Basing
3-4.
Family Separation and Unit Turnover for Enlisted Personnel Under Current Basing and Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C
3-5.
Time Needed to Deploy a Heavy Brigade Combat Team by Sea
3-6.
Effect of Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C on the Time Needed to Deploy a Heavy Brigade Combat Team by Sea
3-7.
Location of Permanent Army Forces Under Current Basing and Alternatives 2A and 2B
3-8.
Costs and Savings of Alternatives 2A and 2B Relative to Current Basing
3-9.
Time Needed to Deploy a Division Base by Sea
3-10.
Effect of Alternatives 2A and 2B on the Time Needed to Deploy Army Units by Sea
3-11.
Family Separation and Unit Turnover for Enlisted Personnel Under Current Basing and Alternatives 2A and 2B
3-12.
Location of Permanent Army Forces Under Current Basing and Alternatives 3A and 3B
3-13.
Costs and Savings of Alternatives 3A and 3B Relative to Current Basing
3-14.
Effect of Alternatives 3A and 3B on the Time Needed to Deploy Army Units by Sea
3-15.
Family Separation and Unit Turnover for Enlisted Personnel Under Current Basing and Alternatives 3A and 3B
3-16.
Comparison of All of the Alternatives with Current Basing
A-1.
U.S. Bases and Forces Stationed in Europe, by Service
A-2.
U.S. Bases and Forces Stationed in East Asia and the Pacific, by Service
B-1.
Summary of Cost Factors Used in the Estimates
B-2.
Categories of Potential Costs or Savings for Each Alternative
B-3.
One-Time Costs or Savings of the Alternatives
B-4.
Annual Costs or Savings of the Alternatives
C-1.
Effect of Various Deployment Tempos on Rotation Ratios for Active-Component Units

Figures

S-1
Countries That Host Permanent Bases for Major U.S. Military Forces
1-1.
U.S. Military Forces Permanently Stationed Overseas, by Region, 1980 to 2002
1-2.
U.S. Military Forces Permanently Stationed Overseas, by Service, 1980 to 2002
3-1.
Locations with the Fastest Deployment by Sea to Potential Areas of Conflict
3-2.
Army Personnel Available for Sustained Deployment to Overseas Operations Under Alternatives 1A, 1B, and 1C
3-3.
Changes to U.S. Installations in South Korea Under the Land Partnership Plan
3-4.
Army Personnel Available for Sustained Deployment to Overseas Operations Under Alternatives 2A and 2B
3-5.
Army Personnel Available for Sustained Deployment to Overseas Operations Under Alternatives 3A and 3B
3-6.
Army Personnel Available for Sustained Deployment to Overseas Operations Under All of the Alternatives
C-1.
Average Share of Time That a Soldier in an Average Unit Would Spend Deployed Under Various Deployment Tempos

Box

3-1.
The Options for Overseas Basing Analyzed in This Report