Reducing our military where they are no longer needed.

[Leo Hubbard]

Its about time.

WASHINGTON – Two Army divisions will return to the United States from Germany as part of a global military restructuring that President Bush said would bring up to 70,000 American troops home in the next decade.
Pentagon officials said Monday the 1st Armored Division and 1st Infantry Division probably would not start leaving their bases in Germany until 2006 at the earliest. They will be replaced by a brigade, a much smaller unit, equipped with Stryker armored vehicles, which are much lighter and quicker than the M1A1 Abrams tanks used by the divisions they will replace.

The United States will close nearly half of all its hundreds of installations in Europe as part of the massive restructuring, defense officials told reporters on condition of anonymity. A Pentagon spokesman said the officials had to speak anonymously because "President Bush made the announcement."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/16/121144.shtml
Why do we have military in countries that should be defending themselves. Yes I know it was to protect our interests. Well they aren't needed there anymore, they are needed elsewhere.

[Stelliform]

Germany's worried over the loss of income from the U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/17/germany.troops.ap/index.html)

But we really shouldn't be subsidizing the German government, so I don't think that we should let their economic conserns change the move. (Sorry for the spelling, I am on a PC)

[Leo Hubbard]

Germany's worried over the loss of income from the U.S. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/08/17/germany.troops.ap/index.html)

But we really shouldn't be subsidizing the German government, so I don't think that we should let their economic conserns change the move. (Sorry for the spelling, I am on a PC)
Why are they waiting until 2006, they should/could pull them right now.

[katchow]

Why are they waiting until 2006, they should/could pull them right now.

you gotta have something to campaign on...

[takao]

Why are they waiting until 2006, they should/could pull them right now.

15.000+ german contractors + 80.000 jobs
long running contracts etc. etc.

and it isn't quite sure how much are pulled out ... there are talks with german politics _but_ there aren't any decisions made yet
actually this "we pull troops out of europe" is an old thing....it comes up regulary every 2-3 years

actually soldiers (few thousands) have already be sent into the middle east..so whats this big fuss about it now ? oh yeah now it is an election coming down the road

[skunk]

But we really shouldn't be subsidizing the German government, so I don't think that we should let their economic conserns change the move. (Sorry for the spelling, I am on a PC)
You're not subsidising the Germans, they are subsidising you. Look it up. It will cost more to house them and feed them in the US.

[Leo Hubbard]

You're not subsidising the Germans, they are subsidising you. Look it up. It will cost more to house them and feed them in the US.
Who says they will live in the US.

[skunk]

That's beside the point.

[takao]

isn't the rent payed for the ground the bases use a symbolic dollar or something around that
so the only thing that will change are prices for fuel,(electricity) and of course they will exchange all contractors ;)

when they change bases into the middle east i seriously doubt that those contract jobs would be given to locals...

[diamond geezer]

Just where are the US military needed/wanted?

Send them all home.

[jelloshotsrule]

Just where are the US military needed/wanted?

Send them all home.

exactly

funny how both kerry and bush suddenly are proponents of pulling troops out of countries.

oh, except iraq

[Leo Hubbard]

exactly

funny how both kerry and bush suddenly are proponents of pulling troops out of countries.

oh, except iraq
Kerry is against it.

John Kerry will on Wednesday set out his opposition to the Bush administration's plans to bring home 70,000 US troops from permanent overseas bases, leaving their future dependent on the outcome of the presidential election.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6b66998e-f08b-11d8-a553-00000e2511c8.html

[skunk]

Just where are the US military needed/wanted?
Probably S Korea at least, to be fair.

[wwworry]

I think this is the only time in which I agree with Bush. Maybe something else but I can't think of what.

[skunk]

Yeah, but he's probably doing the right thing for the wrong reasons... ;)

[pseudobrit]

I think overseas bases provide vital staging points for US/NATO action, training and cooperation and a serve as a healthy cultural immersion programme for our troops.

Now, we may see a shift to our new superbase in Iraq, where there can be no such interaction with the locals while maintaining the staging point for the invasion of _______.

Of course, an aunt of mine is German and my uncle met her while serving with the Army in the early 50's. ;)

[blackfox]

I think that this is probably a necessity with the end of the Cold War and the resultant need to reassess geopolitical realities and any subsequent deployment strategies.

That said, I do think it is good policy (though not a necessity) to maintain bases and troops in several diverse locales for integration/logistical/strategic reasons. Considering that the location f the N American continent is far removed from an areas that might deserve US attention, it is good to maintain bases in Europe and Asia, close to the action.

While I am in favor of bringing troops home, most of those being discussed are not involved in active-combat, and will return at the end of their enlistment anyway...It is the troops in Iraq and Afganistan I want home, as they are enlisted indefinitely, shot at, and pursuing a flawed political vision...

Out of curiousity, some conservatives have blamed Clinton for decreasing the size of the military establishment as a cause of our Nations' ill-preparedness for 9/11, even though we were at peace during the 90's...

Are there no cries of this new policy making the US potentially vunerable in responding effectively to geopolitical flare-ups/crises?

I never bought the argument in the first place, but if you were one who did, care to explain any difference here?

[Leo Hubbard]

I think overseas bases provide vital staging points for US/NATO action, training and cooperation and a serve as a healthy cultural immersion programme for our troops.

Now, we may see a shift to our new superbase in Iraq, where there can be no such interaction with the locals while maintaining the staging point for the invasion of _______.

Of course, an aunt of mine is German and my uncle met her while serving with the Army in the early 50's. ;)
So your saying the reason we tax payers fund overseas bases is to give our troops a cultural immersion experience? :eek:

I always thought it was so they could be first responders in trouble zones, and well we don't have any trouble zones in Europe anymore. After all they are all suppose to be our allies there right?

Why can't there be interqactions between troops and Iraqi's if their staged in their country? :confused:

[Leo Hubbard]

Out of curiousity, some conservatives have blamed Clinton for decreasing the size of the military establishment as a cause of our Nations' ill-preparedness for 9/11, even though we were at peace during the 90's...

Are there no cries of this new policy making the US potentially vunerable in responding effectively to geopolitical flare-ups/crises?

I never bought the argument in the first place, but if you were one who did, care to explain any difference here?
I don't think he's actually planning on reducing the total number of troops in the army. I do think he's trying to use technology to do more with less, but then expect them to do more so no actual reduction in manpower. I also think that he'll redistribute them, that they will not actually be stationed in the US.

[blackfox]

I always thought it was so they could be first responders in trouble zones, and well we don't have any trouble zones in Europe anymore. After all they are all suppose to be our allies there right?

:

The trouble zones were never primarily europe (eastern soviet satellites) but the USSR itself...despite any argument on that point, the current potential trouble zones in N. Africa, the transcaucaus (sp?), E Asia (+China) and the ME are much closer to europe or asian countries we are deployed in. About as close as we can get, with the use of Allied countries...

[mactastic]

Yeah, but he's probably doing the right thing for the wrong reasons... ;)

That's my analysis as well. We certainly could use a discussion on how and where our forces are deployed overseas, however we don't need to be forced into that discussion by a severe lack of manpower.

I don't see any reason many of these bases are still where they are except for inertia. Redeployment is probably in our best interest where the threat has changed or gone away over the years.

I would agree with Dubya that this needs to be done. I'm just pissed that it is happening because we have stretched our military to the breaking point so unnecessarily. You can bet your last dollar that Bush would not have proposed drawing down our troop levels just prior to an election if things in Iraq had gone as they were predicted to have gone by Rummy, Wolfy, et al. That would be an action taken by someone who is 'soft' militarily. But with the current state of our military, 'bring the boys home' is a message Bush hopes will bring him some votes.

I'd like to see some numbers that would show how much we'd be saving over time with his plan. A CBO analysis earlier said a dramatic overseas troop reduction would save perhaps $1B per year, but would cost about $7B up front. That was for a generic plan though, I'd be curious to see what they come up with for this plan. (I certainly wouldn't trust the administrations numbers, they lowballed by 1/3 on Medicare for political reasons.)

[diamond geezer]

Probably S Korea at least, to be fair.

That's about the only place I can think of and even then, do you think the the North would attack if the US wasn't there?

[LethalWolfe]

I think this will help a lot w/logistics surrounding troop and supply/equipment movement. During the Cold War the bases had significantly more troops and supplies than they do now. They were literally ready to repel an invasion that could happen at any time. Post Cold War it is no longer viable to keep every base at "maximum capacity" if you will. So you have fewer troops and fewer supplies at each base so when a deployment in-mass is needed you have to coordiante logistics between numerous bases around the world to get the needed forces and supplies to their destination. And the US military has a startling small mass transportation ability (which is cooler, a fighter jet or a cargo plane?) especially when it comes to carrying heavy equipment (tanks and the like). But if more of the troops and supplies are in a single location (like w/in the US) then your logistical demands greatly decrease.

What you lose in geography you can make up in logistical efficiency.

I don't think we should completely abondon the bases or anything like that. They should still be used as staging areas, but keeping large amounts of troops there to stop a "commie invasion" just isn't needed anymore. Plus, in some areas at least, there seems to be a growing resentment by the younger generation to have US bases on their soil. For example, on more than one occation while my brother was stationed in Germany he was refused entry to to some clubs or bars because he was in the Army.

Plus I like this idea because it will make it easier on the families. Trotting around the globe every 4 years is really tough, especially on the kids.


Lethal

[mouchoir]

Who says they will live in the US.

Your article.

WASHINGTON – Two Army divisions will return to the United States from Germany as part of a global military restructuring that President Bush said would bring up to 70,000 American troops home in the next decade

[takao]

For example, on more than one occation while my brother was stationed in Germany he was refused entry to to some clubs or bars because he was in the Army.

i just want to make a comment on that: here there are clubs who don't let in (groups of) soldiers in uniform as well ...especially near military bases because from experience _it causes problems_

guess how many 'friends' from my unit got picked up by police after a fight ;) i can assure you it was _a lot_

[Desertrat]

South Korea and Japan were two other countries mentioned for reduction in numbers of troops.

I disremember the three countries, but some relatively small redeployment into areas east of Greece was mentioned in one article. We have training agreements already, as well as the potential for bases near probable trouble-spots.

Overall, bringing a couple of divisions' worth of people back to the US will reduce annual costs. Transportation of people and materiel; overseas pay, and housing subsidies, among other items. And, of course, the overall morale factor helps on re-enlistments.

'Rat

[LethalWolfe]

i just want to make a comment on that: here there are clubs who don't let in (groups of) soldiers in uniform as well ...especially near military bases because from experience _it causes problems_

guess how many 'friends' from my unit got picked up by police after a fight ;) i can assure you it was _a lot_


I don't think he ever tried to wear his uniform into the club/bar, but if your club/bar is located near a base and a group of Americans w/high 'n tights (military hair cuts) come your way it's pretty easy to deduce they are American military.

The majority of the time he never got hasseled mind you. But it, and other things, happend enough to get the feeling that the younger generation (read those that didn't really grow up in the Cold War) didn't understand the need for forgien<sp?> troops to be stationed in their country.

All that being said it's gotten me to missing Germany. Hopefully I'll be able to go back someday. And maybe visit Austria too.


Lethal

[takao]

The majority of the time he never got hasseled mind you. But it, and other things, happend enough to get the feeling that the younger generation (read those that didn't really grow up in the Cold War) didn't understand the need for forgien<sp?> troops to be stationed in their country.

perhaps because they are surrounded by allied nations ;) (except austria switzerland and luxemburg which... infact aren't really dangerous)

i think the whole justification of the NATO is problematic at the moment because the warsaw pact is missing
european defense policy is hard topic...especially for those neutral countries which weren't members of warsaw pact or NATO during cold war
(that aside austria has support agreements with US and germany..which even includes skiing courses for US special forces)

i personally don't see a purpose of having a heavy tank division (?) in germany ...the 20.000 warsaw pact tanks are mostly rusting away or are sold somewhere else (germany itself is reducing their heavy arms departments too)

[skunk]

perhaps because they are surrounded by allied nations ;) (except austria switzerland and luxemburg which... infact aren't really dangerous)
I've heard those Austrians can be REALLY dangerous! :D