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  In Asia, about 15,000 troops out of a total presence of about 100,000 would be withdrawn, mostly by streamlining administrative staffs of the U.S. military commands in South Korea and Japan, the officials said.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.