Change Overseas Basing: Case Study

Running Head: WHAT OPTIONS MIGHT THE PENTAGON CONSIDER

What Options Might the Pentagon Consider When Discussing the Downsizing of the Services as Well as Change Overseas Basing
Richard Giadone
Columbia Southern University
MBA 5652 Research Methods

Running Head: WHAT OPTIONS MIGHT THE PENTAGON CONSIDER
Permanently stationing forces overseas gives the U.S. military a strategic advantage--but at a price. That price is paid not only in terms of budgetary cost but in terms of the personnel, units, and equipment needed to support forces stationed outside the United States. We will compare the U.S. forces stationed in Europe and East Asia against the monetary and personnel cost of keeping them there.
Forward Based Versus Forward Deployed
Very few defense analysts question the need to keep substantial U.S. forces based in South Korea to deter North Korea from invading or attacking its southern neighbor. Instead, their concerns relate to four main issues: the condition and location of U.S. bases in South Korea, the instability in Army units that results partly from supporting large numbers of one year tours in South Korea, the quality of life of soldiers assigned to those tours, and whether Army units based in South Korea should be made more available to respond to conflicts elsewhere in the
An enlisted soldier spending 10 years in the Army could, on average, expect to spend a total of .6 years on unaccompanied tours, according to CBO's calculations. Although that is a small percentage overall, some specialties and junior enlisted personnel are more heavily represented in South Korea than in the Army as a whole, so their numbers could be much higher. Serving on unaccompanied tours has been shown to decrease the likelihood that a soldier will reenlist, which means that maintaining forces in South Korea under current basing arrangements may have an adverse effect on