Nearly two decades have passed since the United States and Japan began a plan to reduce Marine presence on Okinawa. Under the US Japan Defense Policy Review Initiative, about 9,000 Marines would be moved to Guam, Hawaii, and other locations in the Pacific, while roughly 10,000 would remain on the island.
The change is not just a personnel issue; it is a test of whether America can deter and, if necessary, defeat China in a region that now dominates global attention.
Atlantic Council experts warn that the strategic landscape in the Indo Pacific has evolved dramatically since the agreement was first crafted. They argue that Marines based on Okinawa would play a critical role if a war with China were to begin.
They write that the Marines could delay enemy advances and buy time for US reinforcements as key elements of the stand in force by holding combatant ships and maneuver elements at risk as the rest of the US military moves into place. This is not a minor matter for a nation that prides itself on decisive action under pressure.
Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement
The analysis notes that the III Marine Expeditionary Force and its Littoral Regiments are designed to operate from remote bases within the range of Chinese missiles.
Units such as the 12th Littoral Combat Team, currently based on Okinawa, can strike back with anti ship missile batteries that reach targets up to 115 miles away.
Okinawa sits within the First Island Chain, a strategic line that defense planners rely on to slow a Chinese advance and buy critical time for a broader response if conflict erupts.
Unfortunately, if fully implemented, the DPRI would give Chinese military planners exactly what they want—a removal of US forces from the locations where they would be most essential in a First Island Chain conflict.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
The authors argue that such an outcome would weaken a rapid response and complicate the United States ability to project power in a crisis near Taiwan and the wider region.
Despite ongoing U.S. efforts to bolster bases on Guam, the distance remains a hurdle. Guam sits about 1,500 miles from Okinawa and would require three days for ships to close the gap, a journey that would unfold under the threat of enemy fire.
The shift would move critical rapid response forces away from the area where they are most needed in a potential stand up against China.
Relocating Marines from Okinawa would pull vital forces out of the theater at a moment when China views reunification with Taiwan as a core interest. Having a ready force so close to China is precisely the intent of a Stand In Force, the analysis emphasizes.
Eames and Cowley argue that it is time for the United States and Japan to revisit their earlier agreement and offer Okinawans economic incentives to support maintaining a large Marine presence on the island.
Gen. Eric Smith, the Marine Corps Commandant, has voiced similar concerns. He told reporters last year that moving Marines from Okinawa to Guam would put them far from where they are most needed. Frankly, Guam puts us going the wrong way, he said. Guam puts us on the other side of the International Date Line, but it puts us a long way from the crisis theater.
He added that he was not certain the move to Guam was in the United States best national security interests, but the Marine Corps would comply with the agreement unless, and until, it changes.
For now, the agreement remains in effect. The United States Marine Corps maintains a steadfast commitment to honoring our nation’s obligations in the defense of Japan, said a Marine Corps spokesman.
The Marine Corps is continuing to implement the realignment of U.S. forces in accordance with the DPRI Program of Record. The men and women who serve abroad deserve a plan that puts homeland security first and keeps the balance of power in the Pacific credible and ready.
This is not a debate about sentiment or constraints alone. It is a debate about whether leadership at the highest levels will demand the posture that guarantees deterrence and readiness.
A President who values strength and a secretary who knows how to wield power abroad would insist on options that preserve and strengthen the First Island Chain.
They would demand a posture that ensures the United States remains ahead of any adversary and ready to respond decisively, not merely able to react in hindsight.
The question before us is whether policy makers will embrace a strategy that matches the scale of today’s challenge or settle for the convenience of shorter logistical timelines that leave critical lines of defense exposed.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.