Article

2004-08-18 Fifth Column

WaPo: Hand Wringing over Euro Troop Reduction

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Anon4021 2004-08-18 12:33:41 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Who's the blue guy commenting? Like the colour, btw.

Posted by Rafael 2004-08-18 2:04:16 AM|| 2004-08-18 2:04:16 AM|| Front Page 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 2004-08-18 3:03:39 AM|| 2004-08-18 3:03:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 #1. That's Seafarious. A new editor.

Posted by GK 2004-08-18 3:46:03 AM|| 2004-08-18 3:46:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 "leaving peacekeeping and cleaning up afterwards to Europeans. "
Might as well higher my lazy-ass,jail-bird brother-in-law.

Posted by Raptor 2004-08-18 7:16:32 AM|| 2004-08-18 7:16:32 AM|| Front Page 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.

Posted by Yank 2004-08-18 10:02:33 AM|| [http://politicaljunky.blogspot.com] 2004-08-18 10:02:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave.

Harry Truman also gave the okay to use nuclear weapons to end a war, but not one 'internationalist' seems to clamoring for a repeat.

Posted by Pappy 2004-08-18 11:13:57 AM|| 2004-08-18 11:13:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#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 2004-08-18 11:21:52 AM|| 2004-08-18 11:21:52 AM|| Front Page 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 2004-08-18 11:25:10 AM|| 2004-08-18 11:25:10 AM|| Front Page 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.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-08-18 11:31:58 AM|| 2004-08-18 11:31:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#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 2004-08-18 11:48:47 AM|| 2004-08-18 11:48:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 That's Seafarious. A new editor.

Thanks GK.

Posted by Rafael 2004-08-18 12:23:49 PM|| 2004-08-18 12:23:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Vodkapundit delivered a well deserved fisking to this former Clowntonite.

Posted by Tibor 2004-08-18 12:25:23 PM|| 2004-08-18 12:25:23 PM|| Front Page 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 2004-08-18 1:03:42 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-08-18 1:03:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Wow. Vodkaman's fisk is a thing of beauty.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-08-18 1:51:44 PM|| 2004-08-18 1:51:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Ol' "Give 'em Hell" Harry wasn't one to try and put lipstick on a pig, either. Corrupt pols and contractors found that out early.

Didn't like the smarmy press much, either.

Smart man.

Posted by mojo 2004-08-18 1:52:58 PM|| 2004-08-18 1:52:58 PM|| Front Page 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.

Posted by jackal 2004-08-18 2:00:11 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-08-18 2:00:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by lex 2004-08-18 2:43:30 PM|| 2004-08-18 2:43:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-18 2:58:55 PM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-18 2:58:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Zhang Fei-Bullseye.

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-18 3:10:28 PM|| 2004-08-18 3:10:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#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?

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-18 3:33:00 PM|| 2004-08-18 3:33:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Allies are countries that decide to line up alongside us, not the ones that spit in our faces and strengthen our enemies.

Ah, far better put than anything I have heard uttered by anyone in the Bush camp.

Posted by Dreadnought 2004-08-18 5:07:57 PM|| 2004-08-18 5:07:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#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.

Posted by eLarson 2004-08-18 5:22:46 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com] 2004-08-18 5:22:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#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 WÃ¼rzburg, 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.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-18 10:10:15 PM|| 2004-08-18 10:10:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 nobody needs heavy armour in the Palatinate (west of the Rhine), except for a little excursion to Paris

TGA,

You devil, you. Old habits die hard. Next time, though, we'll hit 'em from the west, you hit 'em from ost.

Posted by Dreadnought 2004-08-18 10:42:20 PM|| 2004-08-18 10:42:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 ... nobody needs heavy armour in the Palatinate (west of the Rhine), except for a little excursion to Paris.

Hopefully with an early-morning run through Belgium...

Posted by Pappy 2004-08-18 10:43:02 PM|| 2004-08-18 10:43:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 OK OK I was wrong, nobody needs heavy armour in the Palatinate, NOT EVEN for a little excursion to Paris :-)

Posted by True German Ally 2004-08-18 10:54:16 PM|| 2004-08-18 10:54:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#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 2004-08-18 10:58:10 PM|| 2004-08-18 10:58:10 PM|| Front Page 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 2004-08-18 11:03:33 PM|| 2004-08-18 11:03:33 PM|| Front Page Top

03:50 Katta
18:29 muck4doo
02:12 Anonymous2u
00:59 Super Hose
00:30 Super Hose
00:24 Super Hose
00:06 True German Ally
00:03 Brutus
23:59 Super Hose
23:57 Pappy
23:57 Seafarious
23:55 Pappy
23:53 Anonymous6108
23:48 Super Hose
23:40 Pappy
23:34 True German Ally
23:28 OldSpook
23:25 OldSpook
23:18 Super Hose
23:18 Capt America
23:15 OldSpook
23:14 AzCat
23:12 Super Hose
23:10 OldSpook