Rotational Deployments vs. Forward Stationing: How Can the Army Achieve Assurance and Deterrence Efficiently and Effectively?
Abstract
Over the last 2 decades, the Army has increasingly become a U.S.-stationed force; shifting most of its routinely forward-stationed forces back to the United States. For the most part, restationing was done in order to save money, under the expectation that it would be cheaper to base U.S. Army forces in the United States than overseas. Whether and how this has been an efficient and effective use of limited resources has been the subject of significant deliberation among practitioners and academics. Until very recently, though, there was little actual quantitative data available on the costs associated with a robust Army rotational presence model, the likes of which are seen today in East Asia and Europe. The forward posture of todays Army did not emerge suddenly or even over the course of a couple of years. Instead, todays Army posture is the product of a plan that was largely developed and put into motion over 15 years ago. In order to begin planning for what the Armys posture might be 15 years from now, military leaders must consider the relative merits of permanent forward presence versus rotational forward presence as tools for achieving a variety of U.S. national security objectives. For instance, the Department of Defense (DoD) needs to consider whether one or the other is better at achieving deterrence and of reassuring allies and partners. Fiscal costs must of course be considered, in addition to the impact on families and troops. Political-military factors also must be weighed in trying to discern which model of forward presence achieves broad U.S. objectives. In short, there are several variables that can influence assessments of what is better.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Aug 01, 2017
- Accession Number
- AD1056845
Entities
People
- John R. Deni
Organizations
- United States Army War College