I was reading this article on Fox today and thought I’d bring it up to debate if anyone is interested.
Basically it talks about proposed US troop withdrawls…or I guess I should say deployed in other ways in some cases…in Europe and Asia. It seems like a smart idea to me, especially our European deployed troops (I’m a bit more wary of removing troops from South Korea right now).
A few things from the article:
So, is it a good idea to withdraw or re-deploy our troops in Europe? I’m unsure exactly why we still DO have so many troops in Germany to be honest. How about in South Korea and Japan?
has really bit us in the butt in Iraq, so I’m a little wary when Rumsfield starts making predictions about how all we need in the military is 6 guys, each armed with a trillion dollar weapon systen.
That said, S. Korea certainly has more then enough people to man the front lines should that situation go bad, and honestly I’d much rather the S. Korean army take most of the casulties to defend S. Korea, if possible. They have been training for a war with the North for 50 years, and it will be their homes on the line, so they’d probably be more effective then US troops should the worst happen.
Europe is surely wealthy enough to field its own military and finance its own defense. I see no reason for the US to have a military presence there. Let the Europeans take care of the next Milosevich.
Korea is a little dicier, but if we’re going to shell out money and men to defend that pennisula, I’d like to know what we’re getting in return.
Surely, though, the changes in geopolitics since the days of the Soviet Union and a potentially dangerous “Red” China would speak to a rethinking of US troop deployment throughout the world.
Come on. Yeah, it was NATO, but who flew most of the sorties? And who was the driving force behind the military action? The Europeans were followers, not leaders in that military action.
Please. The largest air force carried out the most sorties? What a surprise. And to suggest that Europe was passive in the intervention is insulting (note that the US hasn’t exactly pulled its weight in subsequent peacekeeping - http://www.kosovo.mod.uk/natoforces.htm )
I certainly don’t see the need to continue to garrison troops (at a cost to ourselves) in Europe…certainly not in WESTERN Europe, let alone in Germany. Its past time for the Europeans to take care of their own defense…not that anyone is likely these days to attack them. Who, exactly, is a threat to Europe today? The Europeans have been more than happy to let the US pick up the bill for defense…while badmouthing us. Thats certainly their right, and I’m certainly not advocating withdrawing from NATO…but I think we can better use those troops by re-deploying them elsewhere.
Korea though…I’m unsure how wise it really is for us to withdraw any troops from there. Certainly not when tensions between us and North Korea are so high. It sets a bad tone IMO. I can certainly understand why we would withdraw troops from Japan…again, they can take care of their own defense, such as it is. There actually IS a threat against them in the form of North Korea, but I don’t think its a serious threat to Japan. We certainly still have real commitments in the East though…Japan, South Korea, Taiwan.
The fundamental question is whether or not the US should have troops staitioned in Europe. I say no. There is no reason why the EU as a whole, can’t have a larger Airforce than the US, if they don’t already. The action against Kosovo had nothing to do wtih NATO’s charter, and should have been handled exclusively by the Europeans themselves. Why wasn’t it? And more to the point, why should it be the next time around?
The US, as part of NATO, should certainly be part of any action in defense of another NATO member. That is the purpose of NATO. But I see no reason why the European powers can’t police their own backyard.
Don’t worry, as far as future Kosovos are concerned, the EU’s already trying to deal with the US dominance of Nato decisions, with the EURRF. Although in typical EU fashion, nobody can agree on anything.
Army bases in Europe… not much use. I would imagine that deploying to the balkans from Germany or from the US won’t make that much difference in time…
Now if the US lets go of Airbases… then they are being stupid. Air power still relies a lot on having bases in many places. To defend those bases you need a few soldiers on the ground too. I’d suggest the US keep a token force in Germany. Less than 20-30k men.
As for Korea… unless the troop withdrawl is some positive “signal” to N.Korea… then removing them isn’t the best idea.
Personally I think Bush is withdrawing troops for some bad reasons... Punish Germany and to free more troops for Middle Eastern adventures... even if I think there is no need for troops in Europe.
I don’t think so, theres no strategic viability for them anymore, Germany isn’t a trouble spot, and the USSR has long gone. Other than maybe a small contingent for Bosnia, theres no other reason.
If the troop movement is for anything, its to strengthen the occupation of Iraq and be quick to move troops to trouble spots around the world,which are much more south than they were 15 years ago.
If you mean by this that there are no other trouble spots in Europe, you’re forgetting Kosovo, which still has a very major need of peacekeeping troops (though admittedly not necessarily American ones).
I am sure that American deployment to Europe had everything to do with defending the helpless Europeans against the U.S.S.R. and nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy against the U.S.S.R. :rolleyes:
Like we got a choice? We’re already dragging retired guys back in involuntarily, and no one, but no one, wants to use that word that starts with “d” and rhymes with “shaft”.
I think we’re likely to start with immigration mercenaries. Speak good enough English, sign up for a three-four year stint, maybe two if it involves combat, and you’re on the fast track to citizenship. Upside: offers the opportunity for motivated people to become US citizens. Downside: kinda icky.
Believe me, Br’er elucidator, ‘daft’ does come to mind.
As for this whole strategic realignment, it only makes sense. It’s not like we are leaving Europe, just redeploying around the Old World to reflect that A) We need quicker access to MENA/Central Asia, and that B) Russia is no longer a threat. Ditto for Japan and Korea. We aren’t leaving, we are adjusting to the new reality. South Korea no longer needs America to man the DMZ; their armed forces are top-notch. They need our air power far more than they need our grunts.
Until a few more countries grow up and want to play Global Cop, we are going to be deploying around the world quite a bit for the foreseeable future. Why not realign our forces to allow for more efficient deployments?
Oh, is that what we want? Perhaps our fellow nations look with less rosy scenarios. They might well be forgiven for concluding what we really want is them to play Robin to our Batman, to throw thier soldiers and their treasure into whatever cause we determine to be urgent and worthy.
And “deploying around the world”? What a splendid gift for euphemism you have, Brutus! Just for myself, I think I should very much like to see a whole bunch less “deploying” being done. The innocent business of “deploying” too often involves the rather messy stuff about “getting dead”. Tiresome business, that.
