It's about time

[Occhidiangela]

Since about 1997, I have been arguing that there are too many Americans stationed North of the Alps in Germany. Someone finally has decided to make a move toward correcting that imbalance.

Very recently, a bunch of new nations "joined NATO" to include Romania and Bulgaria, who were in the Partenrship for Peace when I worked in NATO. Progress.

All that we need to do now is get Russia to join NATO, as I have also been saying since 1997. :)

Here's a peak at removing American troops from Germany, where the defense of the Fulda Gap has been a dead idea for 10-15 years. The Euro corps can assuredly guarantee the security of Germany now, eh?

I have personal anguish over this prospect. I spent 6 years as boy living in Germany. I can only say that I love Germany. It is a land with good people, good beer, and a great deal of depth. Future generations of Americans will have fewer chances to grow up as I did, in a foreign but friendly country that allows you to see the world through a different point of view.

To meine Deutsche Freunden, I can only say "Danke und Viel Gluck." (Sorry about the lack of an umlaut). Germany has, after two generations, arisen Phoenix like from the ashes of it own self destruction, with a little help from her friends. I will return again, at least once, before all is over, simply because there is so much of Germany I have not seen yet, and want to see.

Reference:

Washington Post March 25, 2004 Pg. 1

U.S. May Halve Forces In Germany

Shift in Europe, Asia Is Aimed at Faster Deployment

By Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Pentagon has drafted plans to withdraw as many as half of the 71,000 troops based in Germany as part of an extensive realignment of American military forces that moves away from large concentrations in Europe and Asia, according to U.S. officials.  Under the plan, which is nearing approval, smaller, relatively spartan bases would be established in Romania and possibly Bulgaria and designed for the rapid projection of U.S. military power against terrorists, hostile states and other potential adversaries.

Farther east, in Central Asia, bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan that were established in 2001 to support the war in Afghanistan would be preserved as training sites and as staging areas that U.S. forces could use in emergencies.  In Asia, about 15,000 troops out of a total presence of about 100,000 would be withdrawn, mostly by streamlining administrative staffs of the U.S. military commands in South Korea and Japan, the officials said. But much of that reduction could be offset by a buildup of personnel and aircraft in Guam and the possible stationing of another aircraft carrier battle group in either Guam or Hawaii, the officials said. The Pentagon plan also calls for new training and staging areas in Australia and expansion of military ties with Singapore and Thailand.

U.S. officials have said before that they intended to eliminate a number of large, full-service Cold War bases abroad and construct a network of more skeletal outposts closer to potential trouble spots in the Middle East and along the Pacific Rim. But neither the proposed size of the reductions in Europe and Asia nor details about locations of the new sites have been previously disclosed.  The realignment would amount to a dramatic change in how U.S. forces are positioned around the globe. Some of the troops now overseas would be brought home, while vital equipment would be dispersed more widely to enable more nimble dispatch of forces. Another major objective, officials added, is to deepen military ties and joint training with a greater number of allies in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Africa and Southeast Asia.

Several senior administration officials involved in the planning said in interviews that President Bush and his national security advisers are still a month or two away from approving the changes. Some key details have yet to be resolved, officials said, and more consultations with allies will be held.

But many aspects of the initiative have been well defined by Pentagon authorities. Defense officials, some of whom spoke on the condition that they not be named, agreed to discuss the plan after The Washington Post learned some details.  The planning reflects a recognition that potential threats have changed since the Cold War ended, said Douglas J. Feith, Pentagon undersecretary for policy and an architect of the global realignment plan.

"One of the main arguments for forward deployment in the old days was, you had a sense that you knew where you were going to fight and so you positioned your forces where you thought you were going to fight," Feith said. "Our view now is you have to move to the fight."

The administration still intends to retain a ring of permanent military hubs in closely allied countries, including Germany, Britain, Italy and Japan. But many other bases that the United States has relied on would be supplanted by a number of spare "forward operating sites" such as those planned for Eastern Europe. They would be maintained by small support staffs.

Other countries would be designated as "cooperative security locations," providing staging areas that U.S. forces could occupy quickly in a conflict. These locations would have no permanent U.S. military presence but could be used periodically for training exercises.  In western Europe, which hosts about 102,000 U.S. military service personnel, most of the expected reduction would come in Army forces in Germany.  The Army would withdraw more than 60 percent of its 56,000 troops in Germany, home to the 1st Armored and 1st Infantry divisions, officials said, and several overlapping high-level commands would be consolidated.

The nature of the remaining force would change as well. Armored units there now would leave and be replaced in part by lighter, easier-to-deploy forces, possibly including a brigade of Stryker infantry combat vehicles -- lightly armored wheeled vehicles central to the Army's shift toward more agile, mobile units. Additionally, some troops sent to Europe would go for short rotations without families, instead of more traditional three-year tours with families.

Some substantial U.S. military operations would remain in Germany, including Ramstein Air Base, which defense officials view as a critical hub facility for supporting deployments to more distant places. But some U.S. fighter aircraft may be shifted to the Middle East.  Officials said the specific level of personnel reductions in Germany will depend on decisions involving relocation of the aircraft and stationing of a Stryker brigade in Germany, among other factors.

"The one thing I would strongly refute, because it comes up all the time, is the notion that we're withdrawing forces to punish the Germans somehow" for their lack of support for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Feith said. "What we're doing is not at all tied to current events. We're looking at this in terms of changes that will last decades."

Feith said German authorities had been kept informed of U.S. plans. But the German military attache here, Col. Carsten Jacobson, expressed surprise when told the force reduction could end up in the range of 50 percent. "It's definitely higher than what we've heard so far," he said, adding that his understanding was the proposed cuts were in the range of 20 to 30 percent.

Officials stressed that the entire realignment plan has many parts, involving not just the repositioning of U.S. forces but also a greater reliance on pre-positioning of combat equipment at staging areas in strategic locations and aboard ships.

Some defense specialists have questioned whether the administration may be planning too much retrenchment, upsetting relations with old allies and giving up valuable real estate in Germany and elsewhere to bring troops home where they would be farther from potential war zones.

"This set of proposals doesn't seem to be thought out very carefully," said Ashton Carter, who was an assistant secretary of defense under President Bill Clinton and is now co-director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard University. "Neither the strategic rationale nor the cost to the taxpayer nor the impact on our allies seems to have been thought through."

But Feith said that plans are being closely coordinated with affected countries, and that it was outdated to think large numbers of forward-based forces would save deployment time. "In fact, some forward deployments will cost you time, because you have to get permission or you have to work things out" with host governments, he said.

[Kevin]

I don't know all the dynamics, but I am curious as to why pulling out of Germany would be such a bad thing for Germany. I thought Europe had been pretty stable over the last 10 years. I didn't think they needed our protection, and I'm not really clear at all on any economic impact it would have. It actually seems that they may be happy to have a reduced presence there. To me it seems a compliment. You can do this yourselves, you don't need us.

From my limited military experience (6 years in the National Guard, no forward deployments) the plan seems to make a lot of sense. Smaller permanent installations with your stable allies to act as hubs and potential deployment points. Other less entrenched forward deployment points in the hotter spots. We've proved that with the technology we have, we can do fairly rapid deployment from the states to just about anywhere in the world that we need to. So I agree that you don't need as many troops sitting out there. You need places where they can go to that are closer to the action, and lots of smaller ones in more locations makes more sense that a few big ones, especially with the smaller ones being nearer to the hot spots and the bigger ones being back in stable areas.

I too would like to see Russia in NATO. I think that would be a big boost to world security. Ah well, just some ramblings.

[Lord_Olf]

Hi Gnollguy,

just a few words about the economic impact you wrote about:

As it probably is in America, quite a lot of the military bases are in areas that are rather scarcely populated. So, a lot of these towns more or less built their economy around their guests, the soldiers. If the soldiers go away, bad luck; lot's of jobs are going to be lost in those towns.

Two examples, first one being the little town of Elmpt, which about every german will be unable to find on a map*g*. Little hint: Close to the Dutch border.
There used to be an RAF airbase there, and you could find quite a lot of stores, bigger and smaller there, than would have been the norm for such a rather small town (don't know how many people live there, but I'd say around 25.000 maximum). So, there were LOTS of eating places, LOTS of car dealers and stores of various kinds. When the RAF forces went away, the tone became pretty much of a ghost town... Big mistake to bet all your money on one horse, but I guess in the 60's it must have seemed to be a good idea.

Second example, Bitburg (that's where Bitburger comes from, for the beer drinkers here). Also a rather small town pretty much in the middle of nowhere. They have a big brewery there, the aforementioned Bitburger Brauerei, and they have the Bitburg AFB nearby, and that's what the people in Bitburg pretty much do for a living; they work in the big brewery or in jobs related to their US guests. Eating places, drinking places, McDonald's, the like. They even had a big "Erlebnisbad" built two or three years ago, that's a swimming pool with slides, wild water rides and the like. Sorry, don't know the corresponding word in English.
So, if the Air Force went away, Bitburg would also have a big economical problem, since quite a lot of jobs would be lost, and the visitors to their Erlebnisbad wouldn't be nearly as numerous as before.

Just on a side note: I know the article says that most units to be withdrawn from Germany will be Army, and I write about Air Force bases, but the principle holds, I guess.

Also, at the moment, there is a political problem that amplifies the "withdrawal problem" here: The cities and counties (Bundesländer) in Germany have to take over new functions that were to this date carried out by the central government. This for example means that Arbeitslosengeld (money for unemployed people) will now be paid by the cities and communities, for which they will need funds. But the compensation coming from the central government now looks to be less than what they have to pay. So, the cities have less money in their pocket, and if the Army forces leave those cities, they will really have a hard time.

OTOH, I think this will be quite a problem for those cities with big army bases, but it will not have that much of an effect on economy. Bad for the little guy living there, but nothing really bad. I guess that's life.

Hope I could give you a few helpful ideas!

Take care,
Lord_Olf

[Lord_Olf]

for your kind words about Germany.

And when you come here, give Cologne a thought, as I live here and know quite a few nice places to have a few glasses of Kölsch. Should that not be your kind of poison, there are also a few nice Irish Pubs where we can get hold of a pind of Guiness or two ;-)

And I really agree with you: Nothings more important than to be able to take a different point of view. I had the luck (no irony here) to go over to the GDR when it still existed, and to therefore know what it is to live in a country that is not free. We always stayed in the homes of friends there, so no tourist bull#$%& for us, as we were mainly going over to visit relatives, anyway. One of them even spend time in Bautzen Jail because he overheard a political joke and didn't report the "guilty one" to the Stasi. However, someone else did, and reported him for good measure. One life wrecked... Well, time to get on topic again.

Because of these experiences, I, for one, was always glad to have our NATO allies around, and for that effort, a big "Thank YOU" to our allies out there!


Take care,

Lord_Olf

[Kevin]

That's about what I thought it would do. It would be much like the base closing that happened here in the US. Or the same as any other major industry shutting down in a town that was built around it. I didn't expect it to be much of anything on the national scale, but I didn't really know where most of the US bases were positioned to be able to judge the local impacts. I live about 30 miles from Ft. Lostinthewoods, I mean Leonardwood :) and we get a noticable amount of business from base personel here. Though if it closed it wouldn't hurt too much because the local economy here is based mainly on the University, the USGS, Briggs, Purina and a few other industries. Some of the smaller hotels might suffer and maybe a few of the smaller autodealers.

St. Roberts however, which was built on the doorstep of the base would disappear. So I can easily envision the local impact and some of the regional impact.

[Moldran]

In fact, some forward deployments will cost you time, because you have to get permission or you have to work things out" with host governments, he said.

Denying the US permission to use their air bases in Germany would have been a huge popularity boost for the German government in 2003. It would of course also have meant causing *severe* damage to the relationships with the US. This time, they did not dare to do that. We will see what the future brings...

[Occhidiangela]

When the soldiers go, all that is left is Air Bases and head quarters . . . and dozens of logistics sites.

As the European Security Identity gets a bit better focused, there may actually be an initiative to put real heavy lift capability in the hands of the EU Military arm. That would again color how necessary it would be for German security to have heavy lift bases on their soil.

I see the foot print getting a lot smaller, and possible being reduced to a few fuel depots at air ports, air bases, and some maintenance and logistics hangars . . . . total.

The down side is that fewer Americans will get to do as my family did, and build freindships across the sea that has lasted over 40 years. That counts for something.

-Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

The threat model is not what it was post WW II. It is time, and past time, to realign our forces with the reality of the 21st century rather than with the mid 20th.

But that's not why I replied :)

Future generations of Americans will have fewer chances to grow up as I did, in a foreign but friendly country that allows you to see the world through a different point of view.

And that is a shame, indeed. Unless we re-institute the old custom of fostering (and I, for one, would think that grand), most people will grow up ignorant of other cultures (emotionally ignorant of even the existence of other cultures, thus the stupid Americanism, "All people are the same"). However, there is one institution that at least gives some children the opportunity to interact with more than their neighborhood. That is the student exchange program.

While it is for only one year, that program at least gives a child the opportunity to interact in a different society. The people I've known who have taken part in that program are generally more open minded and more world conscious than their peers. Whether this is caused by the program or whether it is because the program attracts that kind of person, I cannot say.

I think that it would do the world as a whole a lot of good to require something like student exchange as a prerequisite for high school graduation, or its equivalent. But, perhaps like democracy, cosmopolitanism cannot be forced.

--Pete