Question for the Euros...

[ScutMonkey]

All politics aside, do you support the idea of US troops leaving European soil?  I know it's a Bush initiative and Kerry's opposed to it but for the purposes of this debate I'd prefer to put that portion of the issue aside.  The question I have is:

Does the US need as strong a presence in Europe as it's had during the cold war?

My knee jerk reaction is "Get them out of there" for several reasons.  

1.  The bad press when they act like "ugly Americans."  
2.  The waste of money now that the Soviets are no more.  
3.  The animosity Europeans seem to feel towards them.

What's everyone else's take?

[ScutMonkey]

Question for the Euros...

[Overkill]

To be honest, I would agree to pulling them out. The cold wars over, and Germany is hardly likely (famous last words) to start up the sort of trouble that put the US forces there in the first place!! Cost wise it makes sense, although I would (if I were the US) request that certain countries allow US airbases to remain there for the foreseeable future. I think the reasons are obvious.

Contrary to some US posters views we do appreciate US help against the Eastern bloc, Terrorism etc. However, friendship doesn't always mean total agreement with all your friends actions, or mean you always need to get involved in everything they do. Friendship also means being able to give and take criticsm without falling out!!  

[Arrow]

Ok, eventhough I'm American, I'm going to reply.

We are keep airbases and training grounds in Europe, which is about all we need from a military/power-projection standpoint. There is no military need to have armor and infantry units based in Europe. The only item of concern, as far as Europe goes, is the effect a pullout will have on the local economies. Base closings can kill a small city easily.

Now going OT, pulling troops out of Korea worries me.

[iwakefie]

I am really not bothered either way. Personally I think the US should deploy their troops where they would be best used, although I do agree that moving troops out of South Korea would be a bad move.

So if this redeployment means the closure of some UK bases, well we can always use them ourselves, to house our troops, if we move the 12,000  we have in Germany back home. If they (the troops & families) are going to spend money in a local economy, it might as well be in the UK.

[Rocky]

We shouldnt move troops out of S Korea.  Its probably the worst time to do that, we are trying to convince N Korea not to try to get a nuclear program and Bush plans to do this with threats and not talks.  So I dont know how he can move troops out and still think we'll accomplish any sort of treaty.

[Tmagic650]

I am from the USA too, but I would like to see our troops leave Europe... We can deploy a sizeable force anywhere in the World in a matter of less than one week now anyway

[Wrawrat]

Well, it's pointless to keep them there If the euros don't need them. They should be able to take care of themselves. It's not like Russia is a threat nowadays.

[ric]

It's about ******* time!! Euro-weenies should police ($$$$) their own corner of the globe!!!!  

[VorLonUK]

Listening to a lot of the argument/debate about this, mainly by so called American Experts I think it's a bit silly for numerous reasons.

On the face of it, it seems logical and better in terms of cost for the American Tax-payer. Now if you scratch away at the surface it's going to cause more hassle in the long run.

Regardless (for now) if it's a good idea or not, I personally don't think that any military/foreign policy/diplomatic issue was considered when it was thought about. This imo is purely another Blunder by GWB in his attempt at American "policy" Isolation and his "I'll do anything" to buy a few more votes stance, it's so obvious, that it's sad.

I assume that if Kerry gets in that this whole policy (scheduled for up to the next 10 years I believe) could be overturned?

In days and weeks to come I'm sure that the sensibilities of this move will be discussed over and over again. I'll reserve full judgement until the "experts" have established a concensus

 

[ScutMonkey]

Quote
Originally posted by: VorLonUK
Listening to a lot of the argument/debate about this, mainly by so called American Experts I think it's a bit silly for numerous reasons.

On the face of it, it seems logical and better in terms of cost for the American Tax-payer. Now if you scratch away at the surface it's going to cause more hassle in the long run.

Where do you see the hassle?  Is there a compelling military protection reason to have those American bases in Europe.  I'm only talking about Europe, not Asia, although pulling our base in Okinawa would go a long way towards easing the tensions on that island.  They HATE the US military.

Quote
Regardless (for now) if it's a good idea or not, I personally don't think that any military/foreign policy/diplomatic issue was considered when it was thought about. This imo is purely another Blunder by GWB in his attempt at American "policy" Isolation and his "I'll do anything" to buy a few more votes stance, it's so obvious, that it's sad.

I agree that it was announced before the elections to buy votes, but I don't think it's being done just for votes.  The plan isn't going to start happening until next year and will continue through 2006 at the earliest.  Anyway, that's why I said, "politics aside."  I know exactly why it's being announced now.

Quote
I assume that if Kerry gets in that this whole policy (scheduled for up to the next 10 years I believe) could be overturned?

Of course, but if the Pentagon is recommending this as a response to terror I tend to doubt he'll completely abandon the idea.  It would buy him alot of street cred in Europe to pull our troops out of some of those places.

Quote
In days and weeks to come I'm sure that the sensibilities of this move will be discussed over and over again. I'll reserve full judgement until the "experts" have established a concensus

As I said, this isn't going to happen this year and it's going to take a while regardless.  We'll see where it leads.

[VorLonUK]

Quote
Where do you see the hassle?

It's a tricky one Scut, that's for sure...

On the one hand you've got the US pulling it's troops back and no doubt that will please many Eropeans who believe that the US "interferes".

Although I was/am dead against the almost unilateral decision to invade Iraq on the wrong basis I do feel that the US does have a role to play in the world along with it's allies.

I think ALL 1st world countries and many others have a real need in the 21st century to protect their freedoms and essentially their democracies and to that end "joint" operations will no doubt still need to continue.

I actually like the fact that we have US bases here and I've met a few of the US guys when I stayed with a mate of mine who used to live up in Suffolk (UK). The bases are like mini towns and the local people (from what I saw) enjoy have the US guys about.

So going along the lines of the thinking from the so called experts, basically the cohesion that our forces share at present would be lost if the US was to send in a "force" on "demand"

Our guys US & UK (as with other countries) often train together and although some of that wouldn't cease, the ease that it happens now through joint co-operation looks like it would be lost.  Add specifics like "cloudy" command structures and muddled logistics then I think it's a recipe for eventual disaster. Personally I don't think it will stick and if it does, even initially, later I have no doubt it'll go back to something similiar as to what it is now.

Even so, It is very difficult for the US to make a decision on this as they can't win either way, they'll be criticised both ways. However, like I said above, I don't believe this is a military decision based on neccesity or efficiency, but simply one of GWB "off the cuff" let's see what sh*t I can stir today and let's see what it does for my ratings..  

[fall-apart]

Doesn't the US need places to stop and refuel on their way to the next soon-to-be ex-theocracy?

[UglyShoes]

it's a yes no answer.   We don't need massive amounts of heavy armor and such in places like germany and some others.  But we need those bases logisticaly.  Whether people like it or not, and i don't care for it a lot of the time, the US is the peacemaker/guardian of the world.  We have to be everywhere to keap countries in line, and to be able to react quickly if something happens.  Places like germany are no concern to us, but such locations make great launch pads for other places. Some of the plans involved setting up new remote bases in the middle east.  Some of out installs are simply redundent cold war left overs. I think a lot of country would tell you they want the US gone, but soon as we go to do that they would probably want us to stay after they relize that when we go they are on there own. A lot of nations have crap for  armies. They rely on having us there, heck not to dis canada, but they know they don't need much of a military simply cause they have the US attached to them.

South Korea would be a big mistake, but could be ok. The south koreans definitly could give a good go to stop the north, but they would still get destroyed. with us gone the north might get more stupid.  But then i personaly don't think the north has any interest in starting any war, they just want to make noise and get noticed. They are the last true communist country in the world in the traditional cold war sense. They really don't want to stop.  The other side of the coin is south korea culture.  The post War population hates the US, and wants us out. They don't knwo what we did for them. They are taught that the UN saved them, the US is never recognized, they are truely clueless.  The pre war generation wants the US to stay, cause they know the reality of things. But those with common sense are dying, and the younger population will never get a clue since the history and facts have been lost one them. They see the US has being there for no reason but to control them.  The sad part is that the US bases get attacked by the koreans, my brother had to be very carefull when there, and his base would get attacked with molitof (sp) cocktails and other such things often. On the street they had to be careful to not look like soldiers for fear of being attacked,  very very sad.

In the end i'm sure much of the world think the US doesn't belong and says they want us gone. But many would probably get worried soon as we do leave. The world would be less stable if we pulled up all stakes and brought everything home.

Far as these moves now,  well it's purely an election year thing. Bush is clearly trying to make some people happy since so many are pissed about iraq and reservest overseas and so forth, he's trying to get something, but really a lost cause.  Pretty much anytime you see some big policy being thrown out at the possible end of a presidents term its pure politics.  Serious moves you wait till after elections and will do when you know you will be around for 4 more years, or if it's something your going to burn bridges on and so forth and know your actions is a career killer, so do it at the end.

[Arrow]

Guys, we're not bringing everybody out of Europe. From what I've read (which is only the overview), we will still be maintaining a many (maybe all?) of our airbases in Europe and we are keeping our large ground training center in Germany. What Bush is doing is bringing home the ground forces that are stationed there; for all intents and purposes, they are just sitting there. The logistics of deployment for training or for combat get a more complicated, but its nothing that should adversely affect our ground force deployment (except for maybe half a day's delay getting somewhere because of increased flight time).

[UglyShoes]

yeah, it's not much of a change, more of something that sounds like something on first look.  I think it was some tank devisions leaving Ramstine

[Timster]

I view this re-allocation of troops as a means to give relief to the troops that are still in Iraq.  Some of these troops were part of the invasion a year ago, and were supposed to have rotated back to the States awhile back, but couldn't due to a lack of replacements.  It's always been a good policy to cycle vets back from the front to pass on their knowledge to the troops heading into action.  Almost every one of them has family back home that they haven't seen except for maybe a flight home for a week or two.  For the reservists and guardsmen,  they are taking a major pay cut by being away from their regular jobs, and some are still recovering from their extended airport duty after 9/11.

Unless they reinstate the draft, I don't see the current flow of recruits filling the jobs of those who are trying to get out.

[UglyShoes]

The thing I saw on this stated that this will not have any effect on troops in iraq, also these movements arn't going to happen anytime soon, talking a couple year timeframe