The Bush team plans to put U.S. military assets in better position to take on threats.

The Kremlin was quick off the mark. Within hours of Washington acknowledging in late November that it had begun formal negotiations to take over several Polish military bases, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov warned during a trip to Warsaw that any reconfiguration of the U.S. military presence in Europe must consider his country's national-security interests.

According to a Russian official, "The Kremlin is not concealing from the Americans or the Poles its negative attitude toward Polish-American discussions about relocating bases in Germany." But in the weeks to come the Russians won't be the only ones jittery about a long-touted repositioning of U.S. forces and bases. For different reasons allies and foes across the globe are exercised about ambitious Bush administration plans to shift and reshuffle tens of thousands of GIs posted around the world.

The Polish talks are just the start of the biggest U.S. military realignment since the end of World War II. With the war on terrorism in mind, and the need to rethink overseas base locations in the light of the military commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq, Pentagon planners have been working for months on what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calls a "readjustment to fit the 21st century."

In November, President George W. Bush himself addressed the issue of a major realignment, saying in a statement: "The once-familiar threats facing our nation, our friends and our allies have given way to the less predictable dangers associated with rogue nations, global terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It remains for us to realign the global posture of our forces to better address these new challenges."

Informal talks have been under way for weeks with old allies such as Japan, South Korea and Germany about a possible reduction of U.S. troops in their countries, and there have been negotiations, too, about establishing new bases in the former East Bloc countries of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. Last summer Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy U.S. defense secretary, held talks in Bucharest on establishing U.S. bases in Romania. For the Germans and the South Koreans, slated troop and base reductions spell economic loss. There also are concerns in Seoul at any moves that would reduce the U.S. military commitment on the peninsula. Pentagon sources say that changes being discussed include moving U.S. soldiers away from the Korean Demilitarized Zone.

Elsewhere in Asia, troops currently based in Japan could find themselves shifted to Australia. A healthy spin-off from that might be a reduction in hostility from locals toward the large presence of U.S. troops in Okinawa. And smaller bases are envisaged for several other countries in the region.

And in the Balkans, sources say, the Pentagon is keen to build an air base at Camp Sarafovo in Bulgaria and to establish U.S. facilities at the air base of Mihail Kogalniceanu in Romania. There also is a good chance that U.S. facilities at the Black Sea port of Constanta will be upgraded. So quickly is the Pentagon working now that some troops currently serving in Iraq could learn that their home bases have shifted before their tours of duty are completed, among them the 1st Armored Division, which is scheduled to leave Iraq in January and return to Germany.

As far as Pentagon planners are concerned, the logistical problems they encountered in deploying units such as the 1st Armored to Iraq confirm the need for the repositioning of U.S. forces based overseas. The Pentagon was frustrated in the run-up to the Iraq War with the time it took to move equipment for U.S. armored divisions out of Germany and to deliver them to the Persian Gulf.

But even before the Iraq War, Rumsfeld and his top aides were sketching out plans for realignment. For them too much of the U.S. global military posture was outdated and designed to fight an adversary that no longer was on the battlefield - namely, the Soviet Union. They wanted more forward, but smaller, bases and lighter and more mobile forces that could react quickly, be deployed fast against enemies and project power. Rumsfeld and his aides thought advanced U.S. military technology and air power would reduce the need for the kind of expensive and large foreign outposts required during the Cold War.

Since 9/11 the Pentagon hasn't confined itself to planning. Away from the public gaze, the United States has been securing air bases and landing rights and signing military agreements with a series of countries located in what military planners call the "arc of instability" - namely, troubled and failing nations in parts of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans and Central Asia. Military bases have been upgraded or established in Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bulgaria, Romania, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Georgia, Djibouti and the Philippines.

Ahead of final agreement with the Poles, millions of dollars already have been spent on repairing runways, improving infrastructure and building roads at the Krzesiny air base near Poznan in western Poland.

The U.S. military has been pressing for dispersal of its assets in Europe for some years. The amount of money invested in bases in Germany acted as a political deterrent. So, too, did German opposition. But Bonn no longer is in favor because of its opposition to the war in Iraq, and two of the U.S. Army's six heavy divisions remain based in Germany. "That's a huge fraction of our army for a theater that doesn't plausibly offer any operations to use those forces," writes Michael O'Hanlon, a military strategist at the Brookings Institution.

So long, Ramstein!

Some experts, though, worry that pulling U.S. assets out of "old Europe" might make the Germans and the French even more reluctant to agree to U.S. requests. On the other hand, say Pentagon hard-liners, what does it matter? As far as Rumsfeld is concerned, there is no need for the kind of large, expensive and permanent overseas bases that predominated during the Cold War. Speaking at a news conference, Rumsfeld remarked: "We're moving worldwide from a static defense to a different footprint." Overall he wants larger and quicker naval and airlift capacity able to exploit equipment stockpiles located overseas and to utilize harbors and air bases abroad for replenishment and as temporary strike bases.

Many critics say the Pentagon is out to create a new military empire spanning the globe. They worry also that a military presence in so many far-flung places might encourage U.S. adventurism and intervention when national-security interests really aren't at stake.

Supporters of the Rumsfeld plan maintain that what is being planned isn't an old-fashioned imperial vision but a program that will cut costs and allow U.S. forces to strike fast and quickly on the global battlefield against terrorism. Furthermore, they argue that by having a lot more options from which to launch strikes the United States won't be so reliant on a handful of allies. According to Celeste Johnson Ward of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, this vision in some ways is born out of American distrust of some of its oldest allies, including Germany, which opposed the war in Iraq.

Jamie Dettmer is a senior editor for Insight Magazine.