THE news a couple of weeks ago about the cancelation of the multi-billion dollar Mamizu contracts for Guam seemed to be the last nail in the coffin of the Guam buildup.

For the remaining believers out there, the news this week – that a new environmental impact statement may be needed and the whole cumbersome EIS process will start back from scratch – all but guarantees that whatever is left of the Guam buildup will at the very least face several years’ delay.

This is apparently in line with the U.S. strategy of delaying the release of funds for the Guam buildup until more details about the buildup’s “master plan” is known or until the U.S. generates enough cash to afford it.

Under the Obama administration's new austere defense strategy, some $487 billion in defense funding will be cut over the next 10 years. And while it aims for a more “agile and flexible” military, it also calls for a “smaller and leaner” U.S. force.

So what does that mean for the Guam buildup?

Well, we already know that because of the austerity measures, the total number of Marines going to Guam has been reduced by half. In addition, funding for the Guam buildup has been drastically trimmed down by the U.S. Congress, further resulting in a similar funding cut from Japan.

The question is whether this funding cut is just temporary or whether the new policy has bigger strategic implications for Guam.

Sen. John McCain, one of those who led the initiative to reduce funding for Guam, said recently at a foreign policy briefing that by a more “agile and flexible” military, DOD was referring to joint basing agreements such as the ones with the Philippines, Singapore, or the latest agreement signed with Australia. Under that model, the U.S. doesn’t “have to build the hospital, the school, the family housing, but you go in and you have joint operations.”

The idea is to have smaller and more widely scattered U.S. forces around the region that would have fewer personnel and military families. Economically, this would cost less and would be in line with the Pentagon's new austerity plan. Strategically, this would also diffuse U.S. forces and present the enemy with more American bases to contend with.

This new doctrine of decentralized operations runs counter to the original plan for the military buildup on Guam. With Guam now within range of Chinese and North Korean missiles, U.S. strategists are thinking that concentrating forces on Guam might not be a good idea after all. Remember, China’s “assassin’s mace” strategy calls for a first strike against the U.S. wherein a single jab would paralyze U.S. forces in the region.

Besides, however one looks at it, Guam is still relatively far, thousands of miles away in fact, from potential flash points in the region, and yet within range of Chinese and North Korean missiles. For many U.S. strategists, this equation is far too risky.

As for the planned relocation of Okinawa-based U.S. Marines to Guam, the current delay is actually more advantageous to the United States. Remember, it wasn't the U.S. military which pushed for the realignment, it was the Japanese government who did so in a desire to alleviate the burden of the Okinawan people. As far as the U.S. military is concerned, the current U.S. military posture in Okinawa is just fine the way it is because it places them closer to the potential flashpoints in the area.

Financially, the Guam relocation plan is also a far more expensive option for both the U.S., which is recovering from its recent recession, and Japan, which is still coping with disaster-related costs. For the U.S., keeping the status quo in Okinawa is actually a bargain since Japan foots most of the bill anyway in hosting the U.S. forces there.

Strategically, maintaining the status quo in Okinawa favors the U.S. because its Japan bases are truly “forward deployed” with North Korea, Taiwan, and even China itself within the U.S. Air Force's flying radius and the U.S. Navy's range.

This doesn't mean the military will no longer build up Guam, it just means the nature of the Guam buildup will change. The new U.S. defense strategy spells out the difference. Instead of spending and maintaining expensive military personnel, the Pentagon's funds will instead flow to high-tech weaponry.

Under such a scenario, expect the military to build up its Guam capabilities, but not through an increase in personnel, but through the deployment of more high-tech assets like advanced aircraft, possibly more submarines, more aircraft carrier visits, and more pre-positioned ships.

This would still help boost Guam's economy without the feared social costs that an increase in military personnel to the island would cause.