US troop removal

[denoir 0]

This was briefly posted in another thread, but I think it is an interesting discussion on its own.

Shake-up for US troops overseas [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

US President George W Bush has unveiled plans for a major shake-up of US forces around the world.

Mr Bush said the world had changed and was now faced with new threats and the US military line-up had to follow suit.

He said the US would deploy "agile and more flexible forces" to face the challenges of the future.

Up to 70,000 US troops - from Europe and Asia - would return home, but the US would complete its mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the US leader. The speech was meant to show that Mr Bush has a vision for America's future security needs, says the BBC's Pentagon correspondent Nick Childs.

But opponents of the president say these proposals will not tackle the immediate problems for the US military in Iraq, our correspondent says.

Force-posture change

Mr Bush made the announcement in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Cincinnati. The events of 11 September had changed America, he said, and the US had in turn changed the world.

He said terrorists had to be pursued in their lands. But with the threat from the Soviet Union no longer existing, the US had been looking into the "force-posture" for the past three years.

"The world has changed a great deal and our posture must change with it - for the sake of our military families, for the sake of our taxpayers, and so we can be more effective at projecting our strength and spreading freedom and peace," Mr Bush said.

"We'll ensure that our forces are well-prepared and well-positioned to meet the challenges of the future."

He said 60,000-70,000 troops would be brought back to the US in the next 10 years, alongside 100,000 members of their families and support personnel. The Pentagon sees many of the largely fixed US forces and bases in places like Germany and South Korea as outdated, says our Pentagon correspondent.

On his way back from a tour of Russia and Central Asia, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the changes would take four to six years. Washington has been quietly negotiating with key allies for months including Germany where the changes will have a significant impact .

Moreover, there are concerns in some circles in Washington about what the new plans will mean for American influence in Nato, our Pentagon correspondent says.

Campaign aims

This was very much a campaigning speech by President Bush to underline his credentials as commander in chief, he says. The US president was speaking in front of veterans in Ohio - a crucial battleground state in the presidential elections in November.

Mr Bush again justified his decisions to go into Afghanistan and Iraq and insisted America was safer because of them. He has come under growing criticism from the Democratic challenger for the White House John Kerry over post-war planning on Iraq where nearly 1,000 US soldiers have been killed since the end of the war.

Iraq - Currently 211,028 troops in total

Germany - Currently 75,603 troops in total

South Korea - Currently 40,258 troops in total

Japan - Currently 40,045 troops in total

Afghanistan - Currently 17,900 troops in total

Italy - Currently 13,354 troops in total

UK - Currently 11,801 troops in total

Qatar - Currently 3,432 in total

Bosnia-Hercegovina - Currently 2,931 troops in total

Iceland - Currently 1,754 troops in total

Personally, I think it is a good move. There is really no reason whatsoever for US troops in Europe. The same goes for Japan. And America needs the soldiers for Iraq and Afghanistan, so they can be put to much better use.

One thing that I'm confused about is the financing of the troops. I've heard two versions about the US troops in Germany. One is that they bring money to the German economy and the other that they cost Germany money. Anybody know the numbers on that one? It's been used as an argument on both sides of the debate.

[Gordy 0]

Don't believe everything u read. It's elections time.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]There is really no reason whatsoever for US troops in Europe.

They are trying to move some troops to eastern Europe.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....ussia_2

Quote[/b] ]

Rumsfeld Briefs Russia on Shift of Forces

Sun Aug 15, 8:17 PM ET Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo!

By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld briefed his Russian counterpart over the weekend on U.S. plans to shift its forces stationed around the globe, in some cases potentially bringing them closer to Russia's borders.

Rumsfeld and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov met over a two-day period in St. Petersburg on a variety of security issues, including U.S. plans to reorient its forces away from its Cold War alignment and toward one aimed at fighting Islamic terrorist groups. President Bush (news - web sites) is expected to discuss his plans for the military on Monday at a speech in Cincinnati.

Rumsfeld said in the coming years, forces will be leaving Germany during the worldwide shift. Some U.S. military units will return home, while the United States is expected to sign access agreements with new allies in Asia and elsewhere. Some new bases may have only a small regular American presence, but can be expanded rapidly in a crisis.

But any plans are far from final, Rumsfeld told reporters while flying home from Russia on Sunday. While there is no chance American troops would be based on Russian soil, Rumsfeld said "they have an interest" in the matter, presumably because some of the countries the United States is negotiating with are former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact states.

"The Russians feel more and more that we are in their backyard. We feel like, well, we need to be there," said Eugene Rumer, an expert on the former Soviet Union at the National Defense University.

Often the United States and Russia don't agree, but no one issue appears to dominate the relationship. Thus far, the Bush and Putin administrations have been content to snipe at one another on specific matters, but as a whole they remain cordial.

"The relationship is a good one. It's one that has been evolving," Rumsfeld said.

[Gordy 0]

Yuuupiii, some more McDonalds to come..

[somebloke 0]

why the hell are there like 15,000 troops in germany?

[DracoPaladore 0]

They still think the Russians are coming.

I posted a link to it in the Iraq thread. I'll go find it and drop it in here too.

[Gordy 0]

why the hell are there like 15,000 troops in germany?

remember Braveheart?

"...  we will breed them out"  

[Ares1978 0]

why the hell are there like 15,000 troops in germany?

Logistics and airforce personnel I suppose.

[Badassdom 0]

it say

Iraq and the Gulf - currently 211,028 troops

Germany - Currently 75,603 troops

South Korea - Currently 40,258 troops

Japan - Currently 40,045 troops

Afghanistan - Currently 17,900 troops

Italy - Currently 13,354 troops

UK - Currently 11,801 troops

Qatar - Currently 3,432

Bosnia-Hercegovina - Currently 2,931 troops

Iceland - Currently 1,754 troops

its probably so they have troops in the region and they still had the bases in w-europe from the cold war

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

erm most of the troops in germany are in rotation, alot of them have either been in or will be in iraq, the american dollars that the US troops bring to the surrounding germany economy will probally mean alot of buisnesses near bases which rely on the troops might have to close down.

[-33ker 0]

The removal of the US troops from bases in Germany will only affact the local business around the bases. I don't think the US troops are a major economical factor for the whole country.

[EiZei 0]

It's not like Germany's economy would be affected much if a 50000 inhabitant town would suddenly cease to exist.

Former FDF General Gustav Hägglund is saying that this means that europe will finally have to organize it's own regional defence and stop relying on americans.

[Bordoy 0]

The same thing is going to happen in the UK with the closure of an RAF Base with alot of surrounding bussinesses etc

[hellfish6 7]

I wonder where all those troops are going to go. Most of the bases in CONUS are overcrowded as it is.

And the troops aren't still there because of the Soviet threat. Yeah, that was the original intent but we keep them there because they're close to the hotspots - Europe's excellent infrastructure allows the two divisions based there to react to anything in the region very quickly. And the forces in Japan/Okinawa are specifically there to be prepared for a North Korean invasion. I don't think you'd find a single soldier happy that he won't be based in Germany or Italy anymore - it's a hugely popular posting for everyone I ever served with. I had a blast when I was stationed at Hohenfels with 1-4th Infantry.

[Grizzlie 0]

How do u think, will this affect military spendings of european countries?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

How do u think, will this affect military spendings of european countries?

Who, exactly, should Germany be afraid of that it would require an extra 70,000 men to make up for the loss of the Americans?

Luxembourg? Liechtenstein?

I don't think they will care, to be honest

[hellfish6 7]

Europe has no real security threats right now... at least conventionally speaking. Must be nice to not be hated.

[Grizzlie 0]

"Now" does not mean "never". U do not know what can happen even next week...

[billybob2002 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....s_bases

Quote[/b] ]Some 11,500 residents are matched by a U.S. military community of the same size, and the local economy would lose $150 million a year if the Americans left, Mayor Volkmar Pees told The Associated Press.

[Akira 0]

"Now" does not mean "never". U do not know what can happen even next week...

Being that Europe is now just a big Confederation, if someone wishes to screw with Germany, I reckon they would also find that they have to screw with France, Italy, UK, and everyone else as well.

I'm guessing, conventionally, that ain't gonna happen.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

"Now" does not mean "never". U do not know what can happen even next week...

Yeah, lets spend billions every year because of the bogeyman who may never come. That makes sense.

[denoir 0]

Deployment of U.S. Forces in Europe

Quote[/b] ]

Our troops on the front line in Iraq and Afghanistan have one important thing in common: They trained on U.S. soil and deployed overseas to defend our nation. The Cold War concept of training overseas is obsolete, yet our foreign basing structure to support that activity remains intact.

The process of when, how, and why we base troops abroad is in need of a serious overhaul. As chairman of the Senate Military Construction Subcommittee, I am proposing to do just that.

During the Cold War, our mission was to defend our allies from aggression. Boots on the ground in Europe allowed a significant forward presence to deter potential attacks. Currently, our nation has 119,000 troops in Europe, 37,000 in Korea, and 45,000 in Japan. Although these levels have decreased since the fall of the Berlin Wall, they are out of proportion to the threats facing our nation and our allies today.

THE NEED FOR STRATEGIC BASING

Our mission today is not only to maintain a military presence, but also to support contingencies where we have no permanent bases--contingencies such as we have in Kosovo and Afghanistan and throughout the Middle East. Operation Iraqi Freedom has demonstrated the importance of strategically basing our forces. We were forced to create alternative means to transit troops for deployment when they were denied passage via rail through Austria, and war plans were significantly altered when Turkey would not allow ground troops to be based there.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has called our overseas basing a Cold War relic. He has asked our military leaders to review basing requirements overseas and prepare a

10-year basing strategy. And he has asked them to reexamine their military construction programs for 2003 and 2004. That means the appropriations bills that we just passed and the ones that we are working on today.

For instance, for 2004, the Defense Department has requested $174 million for Korea and $284 million for Germany for new military construction. That is a large bill for taxpayers to foot when key strategic decisions are in flux. There are more than 80,000 American troops currently stationed in Germany alone. The cost of maintaining these bases is in the billions of dollars. General Jim Jones, the newly appointed Supreme Allied Commander Europe, has already warned that today's threats do not justify these costs.

Many of our installations in Germany and South Korea are remnants from a bygone era. For example, Yongsan Army Garrison in downtown Seoul was built by the colonial Japanese army long before World War II. Tank and artillery ranges where our forces train in Germany were first used by the Bavarian army more than 100 years ago. Today, these training areas are wholly inadequate to accommodate the extended reach of our current generation of weapons and the rapid pace of modern maneuver warfare.

Not only do some bases fail to meet our national security needs; in some cases, the host countries are openly antagonistic toward our troops. And yet we continue to pump millions of dollars into these bases, which are no longer capable of supporting our mission.

Unfortunately, antiquated bases are not the only roadblocks impeding our troops. A barrage of restrictions has made it difficult for U.S. troops to train under realistic conditions. For example, Germany has severely curtailed our ability to fly helicopters at night, conduct live-fire exercises, or move vehicles over the countryside during war games. These challenges have forced us to look elsewhere, such as NATO's newest members--the countries of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic--to meet our training needs.

Despite its limitations, Grafenwoehr is still considered by some to be one of the better sites to train in Europe. To make the most of it, the Army has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the complex in the past decade. Still, the best training area Germany has to offer consists of only 18,000 acres, a postage stamp compared to the 400,000 acres of maneuver area and ranges our troops have available at the National Training Center in California or the more than 1 million acres at Fort Bliss in Texas with New Mexico's McGregor range.

FUNDING NEW OVERSEAS BASES

All of this raises serious questions. Is it more efficient to train our soldiers in the United States and deploy them abroad as needed? And if we are looking for new bases overseas because of the new security threats, do we fund them by closing stateside bases or perhaps obsolete overseas bases?

Regardless of which alternative is pursued, the responsibility and cost of meeting the challenges of the 21st century threats around the world cannot be met by one nation alone. Bilateral cost sharing is the direct payment of certain United States stationing costs by the host nation, a cornerstone of our allied partnerships.

Today, Germany contributes 21 percent to our basing. Japan and Saudi Arabia cover approximately 80 percent. Italy contributes 37 percent. In a relatively new agreement, the Korean government has pledged to increase its contributions from approximately 41 percent to 50 percent of stationing costs by 2004.

Clearly, there is a broad spectrum of cost sharing with our allies around the world. As we consider various factors in our basing decisions, we should also consider cost sharing.

PROPOSAL FOR AN OVERSEAS BASING COMMISSION

To make sure we get it right, with a worldwide view, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with the ranking member of the Military Construction Subcommittee, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), to create a congressional commission charged with taking an objective and thorough look at our overseas basing structure. It will be called the Overseas Basing Commission. The commission, comprised of national security and foreign affairs experts, will consider force needs and basing structures, ensure our overseas bases are prepared to meet our needs in the 21st century, and present their findings to the 2005 Domestic Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission.

Such a review is timely. The 2005 BRAC is just around the corner, and some in the Pentagon have suggested that it could result in the closure of almost one in four of our domestic bases. But if we reduce our troops overseas we will need to have stateside bases for them.

We need to know what training might be transferred to determine which bases will be critical for future use. It is senseless to close bases on U.S. soil in 2005 only to determine a few years later that we made a costly irrevocable mistake. That is a painful lesson that we have learned before.

CONCLUSION

Although our military force structure has decreased since the Cold War, the responsibilities placed upon our service members have significantly increased. We must make it easier for our men and women in uniform to protect our nation's security interests from their stations around the globe.

Operational effectiveness is paramount. It would be irresponsible to build on an inefficient, obsolete overseas base structure as we face new strategic threats in the 21st century, taking valuable dollars needed elsewhere.

Let me say that I have discussed this for quite a long time and in depth with members of the Department of Defense, and I think there is a general agreement that something must be done about our overseas basing structure. I am trying to slow down the process for this 2004 military construction appropriations bill to give the Department of Defense time to give us a better idea of the basing structure they think they are going to need. I don't want to spend one U.S. dollar that we think we might need somewhere else building something that could be permanent on a base that we may not, in the end, use.

So that is my view from the Military Construction Subcommittee, and one that I hope will make an impact on the thinking in the 2005 BRAC round and also have an impact on the efficient use of our taxpayer dollars for our defense needs.

21% of the cost surely amounts to much more than $150 million per year. So it seems that it's good business for Germany as a whole that the US bases are shut down.

[denoir 0]

"Now" does not mean "never". U do not know what can happen even next week...

Being that Europe is now just a big Confederation, if someone wishes to screw with Germany, I reckon they would also find that they have to screw with France, Italy, UK, and everyone else as well.

I'm guessing, conventionally, that ain't gonna happen.

Yepp. In the new yet-to-be-ratified constitution is a common defence clause that states that if the territorial integrity of one EU country is threatened, all the rest must help defending it.

Which puts all EU member states under the protection of British and French nuclear weapons. Which basically rules out any invasion scenario. There's Russia of course, but it's not very likely at all.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

"Now" does not mean "never". U do not know what can happen even next week...

Being that Europe is now just a big Confederation, if someone wishes to screw with Germany, I reckon they would also find that they have to screw with France, Italy, UK, and everyone else as well.

I'm guessing, conventionally, that ain't gonna happen.

Yepp. In the new yet-to-be-ratified constitution is a common defence clause that states that if the territorial integrity of one EU country is threatened, all the rest must help defending it.

Which puts all EU member states under the protection of British and French nuclear weapons. Which basically rules out any invasion scenario. There's Russia of course, but it's not very likely at all.

If Erdogan leaves power, it leaves Turkey as another troublespot.

Hell, we almost shot 2 Turkish aircraft down a day before the Olympics started because they were mucking about over our territory again

[-33ker 0]

How do u think, will this affect military spendings of european countries?

I don't think germany will spend more money on its Military when the US leave. We simply don't have any money to spend!