EFL. Just another stupid kneejerk poli-reaction to BusHitler's diabolical plans. Is there a Rantburg Category for elites/pundits/hasbeens that have no friggin' clue?
Fifth Column is just about right.
Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave. The planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe and Asia that President Bush announced this week, if allowed to stand, could lead to the demise of the United States' key alliances across the globe, including the one that Truman considered his greatest foreign policy accomplishment: NATO.
The president proposes something that generations of U.S. diplomats and soldiers fought to prevent and that our adversaries sought unsuccessfully to achieve: radical reduction of U.S. political and military influence on the European and Asian continents. The Bush message, delivered at a campaign rally, also smells of political opportunism. Under pressure but unable to withdraw troops from Iraq, the president has instead reached for what his advisers hope is the next best thing politically -- a pledge to bring the boys home from Europe and Asia...
The writer, Ronald D. Asmus, is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, served as deputy assistant secretary of state for European affairs from 1997 to 2000. The views here are talking points for somebody opposed to the Bush Administration his own.
The only "spinning" here is from Bush's opposition. Harry Truman was a smart man who wasn't afraid to make tough decisions when America was in danger. I believe that he would absolutely be willing to enter the dabate over the future of NATO and the disposition of American troops across the globe.
Posted by: Anon4021 ||
08/18/2004 12:33:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Who's the blue guy commenting? Like the colour, btw.
Posted by: Rafael ||
08/18/2004 2:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Let's see.
1)NATO was formed to stop the Soviet Union from conquering Europe.Mission accomplished.Time to disband NATO,and negotiate a new defense pact.Esp.as Europe is trying to decide if Europe is a nation.
2)There is no ground threast toward Europe.So why is US keeping 2 divisions in Europe?There's nothing to defend against.
3)Note that the assorted support elements are in the main being left in Europe.In other words,if a threat did materialise,the combat elements could arrive from CONUS and be ready to fight immediately as support structure is in place.The US is not abandoning Europe/NATO,just withdrawing elements not needed.
4)The argument Gen.Clark made about losing forward-deployed troops doesn't hold water.To get to Mid-East from camps in Germany requires getting permission for overflights from several countries.The heavy equipment would either have to go thru Suez Canal or around Africa.And lets ignore long train trip to Med ports again requiring permission or sailing all the way around Europe from German ports.Not to mention all the airlift elements are based in US.
5)There will be far fewer joint troop exercises,less cross-posting.The ranges in Germany will be missed,unless US can somehow make a deal w/Canada.However,the increasing divergence between US and European capabilities,as well as any potential political differences makes major joint expeditionary-type combat operations highly unlikely in future.A while back there was talk of Nato countries specializing in one area so the member countries wouldn't each have to spend for Army,Navy,AF.We are rapidly approaching point where US handles combat operations and leaving peacekeeping and cleaning up afterwards to Europeans.
6)Whether or not any money will ever be saved,the money will be spent in the US,which is better deal for US.
7)This has been under review for several years in Bush Administration.Arguments against the redeployment should have been made much earlier.This is typical Demo,"If George is for it,I'm against it".
Posted by: Stephen ||
08/18/2004 3:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'm still stunned that the folks that make a living by calling the US Imperialists are the same ones who disapprove of the US pulling our troops out of places they are no longer needed.
To some US troops should be personal bodyguards that pay for the privlige of protecting them.
#7
John Podhoretz in the NY Post had it right:
Kerry and the LLL see Bush has trumped their "bring our troops home from Iraq" propaganda
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/18/2004 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Yank: Hell, if America takes a crap on Tuesday, the world whines that we didn't wait 'til Wednesday. F* 'em and their enablers here in the US.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
08/18/2004 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I suspect that the withdrawl of that many US forces from Europe will cause a major recession with few parallels. It will actually be worse than if an equal number of working age German men died, because at least someone would have inherited their assets.
It will not cause a dip in unemployment, opening jobs that need to be filled, and will cause long term unemployment with businesses cutting back.
I guess the overall hit to their economy could be between $30-200 billion dollars a year.
#10
a 10-yr plan won't cause that much of a hit unless they refuse to learn and adapt. TGA assures us that will be the case, and I, for one, believe he'll be right...for the most part. If they don't, F*&k em - we're not their financiers
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/18/2004 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
That's Seafarious. A new editor.
Thanks GK.
Posted by: Rafael ||
08/18/2004 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Vodkapundit delivered a well deserved fisking to this former Clowntonite.
Posted by: Tibor ||
08/18/2004 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#13
At the height of the Cold War, the United States had more than 375,000 troops in GERMANY. There were two CORPS, plus an independent Brigade in Berlin. They were opposed by almost eleven ARMIES of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. They were there as a tripwire - just enough troops to slow the Russians down enough to get major reinforcements in from the States. We've already cut those numbers in half. What's still left in Germany are two heavy-hitters - an armored division and a heavy-weapons infantry division. Those troops are slow to move, because they're primarily equipped with heavy vehicles. President Bush proposes to replace the two divisions with a smaller force equipped with more easily deployable equipment, capable of being deployed faster, easier, and to more locations. Such a force would also find training in the close environment of Germany easier and less costly than division-strength units with lots of heavy armor. In the meantime, the United States will have two additional divisions back in the States it can use to relieve combat units currently deployed elsewhere around the world, possibly even freeing up some National Guard and Reserve units that could be released from Active Duty. These units could also be used as primary combat-indoctrination units for newly recruited soldiers entering the Army in droves at the moment. If anything, the timeline needs to be speeded up.
The draw-down in Asia appears to be mainly aimed at South Korea and Okinawa, with some units being reassigned to the Japanese northern island of Hokkaido and possible new bases elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Only about a third of those being discussed would actually be WITHDRAWN TOTALLY from Asia. Of course, the looney left wants to stir up as much trouble and controversy as possible, so getting it right isn't essential.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/18/2004 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Yank:
No contradiction there. They support US troops being in useless places (Kosovo, Germany) and not in useful places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, ...
And yes, the far left is as much our enemy as the Islamists. They just don't have any strength.
Sorry. Got a little carried away there. The point is that our enemies would like us to have our forces diverted from the tasks at hand.
#17
The author of that ridiculous editorial is a desperate young State Dept weenie who's devoted all of his brief career to the expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe.
Unlike the older diplomats he doesn't have enough business contacts to be remotely useful to Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs. This is a man who is now realizing that he has wasted most of his professional life and is now facing long-term unemployment.
#18
Democrats seem to think that the US military exists to provide military welfare to dependents across the globe - especially those countries that turn around and spit in our faces - rather than to protect Americans and American interests. GWB is now taking a sledgehammer to that dreamy worldview. Allies are countries that decide to line up alongside us, not the ones that spit in our faces and strengthen our enemies.
#20
Truman Love! LOL!
He damn near destroyed the US military. He was a proto-Carter. Perhaps JarHead has a few kind words for the Marine Hating, Navy Fearing, Regular Army Contemptuous Ex-President. A fine product of yet another Democrat machine.
I highly recommend The Forgotten War.
PS. He was in France during WWI... Artillery I believe. Meuse-Argonne, yep. Battery Command. France WW1. Now that was a war. Did I mention Truman was in that war?
#22
Boiled down, I think I have John Kerry's current position as of this morning's speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
1) We simply MUST remove the troops from where they ARE actively confronting danger (e.g. Iraq)
2a) We must NOT remove the troops from where they cannot impact a situation (e.g. North Korea's nuclear threat), except, perhaps very indirectly (and that relies on rational thought on the part of Li'l Kim to know that vaporizing U.S. troops will bring reprisal in kind.)
2b) We cannot remove troops from a place where a ground offensive is now unlikely (e.g. Germany... though not all of the troops would be removed.)
(Oh, okay: 3 - Say "unilateral" a lot... even if our troops are OUR troops and no one else's.)
Bottomline : Kerry is too afraid of upsetting the Cold War apple cart to fight the current world war.
#23
The only "transatlantic mistake" that could be made in this issue would be to present it as a political move. It's true that in the heat of the debate before the Iraq war some (anonymous) Pentagon officials did in fact present this strategic decision as a way to "punish" Germany. This would not only be politically unwise, but also rather fruitless. The German part of the "bilateral cost sharing" of U.S. presence in Germany was 1,2 bn dollars for about 71000 U.S. troops stationed in Germany in 2000 (Pentagon info given to Congress in 2002). That's about 17000 dollars per soldier per year. This covered 21% of the U.S. costs. Today Germany doesn't really "profit" anymore from U.S. troops when it comes to national defense, so U.S. presence is only a benefit for the local economies of Würzburg, Wiesbaden, Bamberg, etc. These can be compensated by moving in Bundeswehr troups in some cases or using the freed up facilities for other purposes which has been done quite successfully in the past, as the U.S. military didn't leave a toxic wasteland behind like the Soviets in East Germany.
Strategically Rumsfeld's plannings make sense. Germany isn't quite the place to train for "desert war", nobody needs heavy armour in the Palatinate (west of the Rhine), except for a little excursion to Paris. To replace those heavy armoured divisions with a lighter, swifter force is a good thing. They'll be less of a burden to the cherished German ecology, small units can train with German forces (undermining the French dominated Eurocorps etc. Some U.S. troops in Poland would certainly (if silently) appreciated by Germany (closer to Russia is a good thing), and some very mobile forces in Romania or Bulgaria are somewhat "closer to the action" as well.
I guess in 2010 we'll still have at least 40000 troops in Germany, so a "loss" of 30000 is nothing that will really "hurt" Germany. Remember, the U.S. once had 300000 troops here.
A new German government will hopefully renew the ties with the U.S., put Germany on its economic feet again, strengthen transatlantic ties again and hopefully won't fall for the old French tricks again. Germany will always have more strategical options than France.
#27
TGA, I visited several of the American bases in the late 80's and they looked to be in good shape. Because many of the soldiers were accompanied by dependents, the infrastructure is there for low cost housing and such to make them very liveable. If the EU does intend to have a military force, the Union would be making a terrible mistake not to utilize these bases. Moving NATO HQfrom Belgium to Germany should also be looked at.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/18/2004 22:58 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Pappy, does it strike you as odd that although we are in the midst of fighting a war against Islamist terrorists, a significant portion of our populous wants to bring the troops who are actively fighting and killing the enemy back to the US. Conversely, these same people want to keep forces not involved in the conflict deployed in areas where they cannot be brought to bear on the foe. If the VFW bought Kerry's strategy statement, they need to think about keeping the tap closed at their meetings until after the speaker has made his speech.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/18/2004 23:03 Comments ||
Top||
From The New York Times, an opinion article by Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the author of Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace.
Many Americans now believe that the United States is depleting its military strength, diplomatic leverage and Treasury to pursue unrealistic aims in Iraq. They are right. Democracy seems to interest few Iraqis, given the widespread Shiite proclivity to follow unelected clerics, the Sunni rejection of the principle of majority rule, and the preference of many Kurds for tribe and clan over elected governments. Reconstruction was supposed to advance rapidly with surging oil export revenues, but is hardly gaining on the continuing destruction inflicted by sabotage and thievery. And in any case, it is unlikely that the new Iraqi interim government will be able to oversee meaningful elections in a country where its authority is more widely denied than recognized.
Yet few Americans are prepared to simply abandon Iraq. .... The likely result would be the defection of the government's army, police and national guard members, followed by a swift collapse and then civil war. Worse might follow in the Middle East - it usually does - even to the point of invasions by Iran, Turkey and possibly others, initiating new cycles of repression and violence. Thus the likely consequences of an American abandonment are so bleak that few Americans are even willing to contemplate it. This is a mistake: it is precisely because unpredictable mayhem is so predictable that the United States might be able to disengage from Iraq at little cost, or even perhaps advantageously.
Here's why: In Iraq America faces several different enemies, as well as some remarkably unhelpful nominal allies. As things stand, their intense mutual hostility now brings no advantage to the United States. But all could be unbalanced by a well-devised policy of disengagement, and forced to stop harming American interests and possibly even serve them in some degree. .... If the Shiites were persuaded that America might truly abandon them to face Saddam Hussein's loyalists alone, it seems certain that they would quickly revert to the attitude of collaboration with the occupation forces they showed in the aftermath of invasion.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/18/2004 8:57:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From a similar situation in our own country's history as recorded at Filmsite.org:
In the welcoming scene for the new sheriff, Howard Johnson - as chairman of the welcoming committee - practices his speech (with an awful pun) before looking up and seeing the arrival of the sheriff:
"It is my privilege to extend the laurel and hearty handshake to our new... "(pause as he looks up)" nigger."
The black sheriff startles the people of Rock Ridge with a sexual double-entendre as he takes out his speech to accept his position:
"Excuse me while I whip this out."
When the townspeople soon realize that he's a "ni-," they threaten to shoot him. To divert the mob, hold them at bay and escape, Bart holds a gun to his own neck, shouting:
"Hold it. The next man makes a move, the nigger gets it...Drop it! For I swear, I'll blow this nigger's head all over this town. Oh Lordy-lord, he's desperate. Do what he say. Do what he say."
When he successfully holds the lynch mob at bay and is allowed safe passage out of harm's way, he marvels at his accomplishment and congratulates himself for bluffing them: "Oh baby, you are so talented, and they are so dumb."
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/18/2004 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Democracy seems to interest few Iraqis, given the widespread Shiite proclivity to follow unelected clerics, the Sunni rejection of the principle of majority rule, and the preference of many Kurds for tribe and clan over elected governments.
A smear on the Kurds at least, and quite debatable about the Shiites. They may "follow" unelected clerics, but they want elections. If an American votes the way a Jesse Jackson or a Pat Robertson says, is he following an "unelected cleric"?
I think Mr. Luttwak's own statist prejudices are on display here.
Many Americans have loyalties to institutions other than the federal government, be it church, town, family, sports team, etc. In fact, one of the reasons regimes like the Soviets try to destroy other institutions is because they can't tolerate sharing power.
On that basis, maybe the Iraqis have a real shot at this. Maybe.
#5
BTW, let me suggest now before it becomes plainly obvious: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ.
Almost simultaneously, several "media" sources have come out to slam Bush because "He has no exit plan." (Also today, the AP release a 'poll' that "shows 6 out of 10 Americans think Bush does not have an exit plan.")
In other words: THIS IS JUST A POLITICAL ATTACK.
#6
Forgive me, I haven't read any of the other comments..but this pisses moi off.
Many Americans now believe that the United States is depleting its military strength, diplomatic leverage and Treasury to pursue unrealistic aims in Iraq. They are right. Democracy seems to interest few Iraqis, given the widespread Shiite proclivity to follow unelected clerics, the Sunni rejection of the principle of majority rule, and the preference of many Kurds for tribe and clan over elected governments.
1. They are right Says who??? Just cause some writer weenie says it in print...I guess it must be true...Doh! NOT!
2. It's true that Americans don't want to pull out of Iraq and allow them to be slaughtered in the same way that the "peace-loving" people of the 60's allowed the killing fields. That's the beauty of never growing up- you dont ever have to take responsibility for the fact that your actions murdered millions. Peace luv man.
3. Democracy interests few of the little brown folk? How low is the left willing to stoop?
Scuse me, I need to throw up. NYT, WaPO, alphabet soup...you guys suck.
Posted by: B ||
08/18/2004 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Democracy interests few of the little brown folk? How low is the left willing to stoop?
Agree, B. The eagerness of many lefties to dismiss democracy as an unrealistic or undesirable luxury for non-whites to enjoy, is quite astonisning. It's partly simple racism but also partly a disdain for democracy itself. I've had real eye-opening conversations with left-wing friends who calmly dismiss democracy as the best (or at least, to paraphrase Churchill, least worst) form of government. The left inevitably needs totalitarianism, after all, if it's to put into proper practice its goal of societal enslavement.
I think you've really touched upon the root of the disdain for democracy in places like Iraq. If they can argue that those fractious, quarrelsome little brown people can't handle it, they'll eventually get around to arguing that us fractious, quarrelsome little white/black/yellow folks can't do it either.
#11
I pains me to have to call any "senior fellow" at a Very Prestigous Think Tank a clueless dickhead, but I really don't have much choice in the matter. If this guy actually thinks the only reason we're in Iraq is to promote democracy, then that's exactly what he is: a clueless dickhead.
Among other reasons, we're in Iraq to gain a land base for our military forces in the Middle East, in an ideal location for applying pressure on Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. We in Iraq also to secure a supply of oil that won't be subject to the whims of pissed-off oil sheikhs who might cut off the spigot like they did in 1973-- and we WILL be pissing them off, make no mistake about it.
Yes, the implantation of democracy and freedom and all that is one of the reasons we're there; but it's only one of many.
We lost the Vietnam war because we talked ourselves into losing it; and the way we did that is by allowing ourselves to be distracted from "winning the war" to "bringing the troops home."
It's a mistake John Kerry seems determined to make us repeat. And he may very well succeed.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/18/2004 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The United States of America is NOT a democracy!!
The United States of America IS a representative republic.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention, have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death." No doubt he was thinking of ancient Athens.
Edmund Randolph of Virginia understood the dangers of democracy when he said the object of the Constitutional Convention "was to produce a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."
Our government was founded as a decentralized representative republic whose power was limited to the protection of liberty and private property. The words "democracy" and "democratic" appear nowhere in the Constitution. A republic differs from a democracy like the rule of law differs from the rule of the masses.
Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said after the Constitutional Convention in 1787 that the delegates to the convention gave the people "a republic, if you can keep it." Unfortunately, we haven't kept it. We have reverted to a kind of democracy feared by the Founders, a centralized power controlled by majority opinion that can be arbitrary, impulsive and frivolous.
Posted by: Halfass Pete ||
08/18/2004 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Why was it a no-brainer that this was a Mike Sylwester post from the NYSlimes?
Give him a little credit. At least there are some named sources.
#18
I, for one, welcome HA Pete's lucid, polite, accurate response.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/18/2004 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Geebus BullDawg! Were you ever a teacher? Or did you come with a build in PG-Detector? :)
Heh, shipman. Never a teacher (though it is in the family blood). I just thought HP's post a little, how shall we say, out of character. Googling the excerpt "kept it. We have reverted to a kind of democracy feared by the Founders" produced a number of matches which linked back to the original article.
#21
He may go about it wrong, but he has some valid points:
We need to be able to do to the Saudis and Turks exactly what we have done to the Koreans: Tell them if they don't play nice, we will leave them with a huge mess to deal with, without the deep pockets and heroic soldiers of the US to lean on as they have for decades.
The only drawback is that instability in that region can dump the world economy due to oil problems. Somehow Mr Luttwak misses that one.
#22
So long as the United States is tied down in Iraq by over-ambitious policies of the past, it can only persist in wasteful futile aid projects and tragically futile combat.
I have a problem with what he has built off of this foundation. We are currently helping guard the establishment of a civil society in a sovereign Iraq. The shape of the government in the form of a government will be of Iraqi choosing. It is up to them to choose a form and staff it with people that are worthy of our critical support.
Our military might is not being sapped in an activity that is not central to the WOT. We are currently expending ammunition into the bodies of the opposing force in quite lethal fashion (Sadr is a surrogate for the terrorists. His force currently resembles Picket's division after the last bullet was shot at Gettysburg.)
Right now our priority should be to continue to pressure Iran and Syria with the assistance of free Iraqi forces. Only McClellan or Joe Hooker would disengage under these circumstances. We have surrounded Pertersburg, let's not kite off to parts unknown when we have the jihadis in the figure-four leg lock.
The only force that I would split off would be a Spec Ops force capable of closing the Jingaweit camps in Sudan.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/19/2004 0:59 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
