While the US military grapples with the challenges of 'winning the peace' in Iraq, back in the Pentagon they have already shifted their attention to planning for the next generation of conflicts.

Although arguably they should have noticed a little sooner, it has occurred to the important people in the Department of Defence that the US's placement of foreign military bases is a little outdated now that the Cold War has ended. For example, it's hard to explain why there are still 70,000 US troops stationed in Germany, including the 1st Armoured Division and the 1st Infantry Division. Or more to the point, why most of the 100,000 odd troops that are stationed in Western Europe are still there. Who are they defending and against what threat? Meanwhile the 140,000 troops in Iraq, many of whom are reservists, are struggling to establish some sort of order, while some of the best-trained professional soldiers are living it up in Germany.

Not only would reallocating these troops to Iraq improve the average level of skills and training amongst US forces, but it would also help to alleviate the chronic shortage of 'trigger pullers' available for active deployment. Thanks to the RMA doctrine the US army has not only shrunk to its lowest level in roughly three-decades, but the remaining forces have been restructured to the needs of a truly global empire. As US military forces project influence further and further from home they require ever greater levels of logistical support - what military planners call the Army's "tail" to keep the combat forces, or "teeth" equipped and in communication with command. The US "tooth-to-tail" ratio, or the number of actual fighting men in relation to the number of non-fighting support staff that go with them to battlegrounds is 1:7. That's one 'trigger-puller' for every seven logistics, communications, transport (etc) staff that accompany them. That's the lowest ratio of any military in the world and getting progressively lower.

Another ratio that illustrates the level of crisis that currently confronts defence planners is the so-called (you knew I would mention it) "rule of threes". The rule of threes is the Army's model for peak combat efficiency during times of conflict. It states (quite logically really) that the military can only sustain deployments for extended periods if no more than 1/3 of the army is in active duty, while 1/3 are resting from being on active duty and a further 1/3 are training and preparing to enter active duty. With this triangle deployment structure the army can maintain its presence indefinitely (excluding issues like funding and significant casualties). At the moment more than 50% of all US soldiers are on active duty somewhere amongst the 120-odd US military installations worldwide. It doesn't take a genius to see that is unsustainable.

It doesn't help that the US's principle ally, Britain, is also militarily stretched to breaking point. Fully a quarter of the entire British military was involved in the invasion of Iraq, while at the same time there were Pommy troops in Afghanistan, the Balkans and Northern Ireland. To make matters worse the Blair government announced in August that it will cut 20,000 jobs from the military, including the lose of a fifth of all the Navy's surface ships, and a quarter of the Army's tanks. At present about 20% of the UK military is currently on active duty (counting the 9000 stationed in Iraq, which could rise) and unlike their US ally, this is considered the peak deployment rate. There are simply not enough troops or money in the budget to embark on any additional activities. The UK doesn't even rate amongst the world's largest ten militaries, so that gives you a sense of how limited its capacities are already.

In a move consistent with RMA, the British Ministry of Defence argues that with the cost savings that will come from sacking 20,000 people, the military can invest in new technologies that will enhance their capabilities. Although that may be true, very few pieces of advanced technology can conduct peace-keeping or restore security to the streets of Iraq.

This is not meant to suggest that all of the cold-war era bases/forces should be removed, although the DoD has hinted that up to half will be, because they do serve some useful purposes, but not as many as they used to.

Review, for example, the allocation of forces in North Asia. In Japan there are 47,000, about three quarters located in Okinawa and South Korea is home to 37,000 randy American boys and girls. Again the question needs to be asked, exactly who are they protecting and from whom?

In the case of South Korea the answer seems easy enough - those pesky, and slightly eccentric, North Koreans. True, North Korea is pretty threatening, and its million or so soldiers are just sitting around waiting for the order to slaughter their southern cousins. But what are 47,000 Americans gonna do about an invasion by the worlds fifth largest army? Firstly the real fear of North Korea stems from its nuclear arsenal, which isn't really going to be affected by ground forces. Secondly their missile and artillery forces are a massive threat to Seoul, but again, ground troops can't do a lot about that. So really they are there in the unlikely event of a full-scale ground assault by the north. OK lets examine that.

Although SK spends 'only' US$15 billion on defence its still a highly trained and effective military in its own right. It's worth recognising that although smaller then their northern neighbour, South Korea still ranks about 6th in terms of the world's largest armies, which is only slightly behind the technologically inferior North Korean military which ranks about 4th. Also as the world's 11th largest economy South Korea could well afford to increase its defence budget if that was deemed necessary.

Plus the US would retain the ability to offer substantial military assistance, at very short notice, from its forces in Japan and its Pacific fleet, including the USS Kitty Hawk carrier battle group. Following that US forces would be dispatched, most likely along with numerous other allied nations like Australia. In any event the initial assault by NK would be devastating. Some estimates by the DoD suggest that 300,000 or more SK soldiers would be killed in the first 90 days of an all-out attack by the North (not to mention the civilian deaths) but again, 47,000 Americans can't prevent that.

In Japan the calculations are done a little differently. Firstly Japan is notionally a pacifist state, due to the restrictions on the aggressive use, or threatened use, of military force under Article 9 of the MacArthurian constitution. Regardless of these (rapidly diminishing) limitations, Japan has built a truly formidable military, mostly equipped with weapons and technology from the US!

The Japanese air force has 46,000 personnel and around 360 combat aircraft (including 203 F-15 fighter-bombers, which are pretty cool in their own right). The Japanese army has 160,000 soldiers, plus 45,000 reserve troops. It is equipped with 1070 tanks, a similar number of artillery guns and about 90 attack helicopters. Not bad, ehm for a "Self Defence Force"!

The US is eager to see Japan take a more active military stance, to help stabilise the region in relation to the Taiwan Strait and North Korea, as well as in international peacekeeping. Since 1992 Japanese peacekeepers have been sent on missions to Cambodia, Namibia, Mozambique, Pakistan, Afghanistan, East Timor, Indonesia and Guam. Plus Japan sent Aegis destroyers to help enforce the naval blockade of Iraq.

In any event the US is not proposing to pull out of SK entirely. It has stated that a third of its troops, or 12,500 men will be reassigned, and remaining forces will be moved to a new base further south than Seoul. In Japan the moves are designed to consolidate the almost two-dozen bases into something more manageable. It appears that Japan is set to become the hub from which the US will secure its interests in North Asia, in particular with relation to Taiwan and China.