|
US Army plan would cut soldiers in Europe by half
Under a broad plan to reconfigure US military forces in Europe, as few as three Army combat brigades, or about 35,000 soldiers, would remain there a major downsizing from the roughly 62,000 US soldiers stationed there as recently as 2005.
That, at least, will be the recommendation of an internal study conducted for the head of US European Command and NATO forces in Europe, Gen. Bantz John Craddock, who had asked for a "troop-to-task" assessment of forces in the European theater. The assessment is expected to recommend that a fourth brigade based in the United States be deployed to Europe on a "rotational" basis, for exercises and other operations. The reduction in the Army's presence in Europe is part of a broader reduction in forces that include Navy, Air Force, and Marine personnel.
The assessment has not even been made public yet, but critics already are charging that the recommended plan would leave the US shorthanded overseas. They want to see at least four combat brigades, or around 44,000 soldiers, left in Europe.
Unnamed critics, of course.| Oh of course. They're so much smarter than the Pentagon. |
Minimizing US troop levels in Europe sends the wrong message to other countries in Europe, and leaves those forces that remain there undermanned to do the jobs they're required to do, says one critic, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the negotiations.
| Also tells the Y'urp-peons that the free ride is over and that they're wealthy enough to defend themselves. Especially since the forces we leave there will be 'required' to do much less. |
In part, it's a question of dispersing US forces around the world where they can engage with other countries, not keeping them isolated inside the US, the official says. "The world we live in is a world of coalitions."
Uh huh. And the Army we have is reorganizing around the brigade as the deployable unit of action. Taken together with unit (vs. soldier) rotation, that means a need for training and refurbishment. Not to mention a message to the European hangers-on.
| The world we live in is a lot smaller now, especially for us since we have a real Air Transport Command and the Euros don't. We can move a brigade to a trouble spot in the world fairly quickly, complete with weapons, supplies and support. We can maintain that brigade in the field as long as necessary. Who in Europe can say that? |
There are other concerns about bringing US forces back to the US. As the Army and Marine Corps grow by thousands of personnel over the next several years, there may not be the room to bring existing forces back from Europe.
| I seem to recall we have some shuttered bases. We can expand existing bases. Tell Congress that you need a new base and there'll be blood knee-deep on the floor of the Military Appropriations Committee. I think we can find room. |
Defense Secretary Robert Gates will review the study presented by General Craddock in coming weeks, but it is unclear when a decision might be made as to how many forces are brought home from Europe. US European Command officials declined to comment on the Craddock plan.
The study's findings appear to be a compromise between a plan first unveiled in 2005 under then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who favored lighter, smaller forces, and critics of Rumsfeld's plan, who believe the US can't abandon its decades-old presence in Europe.
And why not? Let's have a public discussion of that point. Are the Euros worried about the Big Bear today? Are they concerned about Belarus or Serbia? What exactly is the threat to Europe that mandates any American military presence, let alone 50,000 plus troops?
Sure, there are benefits to us. We have established infrastructure that has been useful in the current WoT. But we could replace that, and liberating us from a large, cantakerous fixed base of operations has its plus side. Let's hear someone explain why we need 50,000 plus troops in Europe today. |
Posted by: lotp 2007-06-28 |
