| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Europe | ||
| U.S. Troops May Move Bases in Europe | ||
| 2005-01-15 | ||
U.S. troops could start moving from Cold War-era posts in Germany to new bases in Romania and Bulgaria this year as part of American efforts to create a more mobile overseas force, the top U.S. commander in Europe said Friday.
The move east is part of an overhaul announced by President Bush last year that aims to withdraw 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members from bases in Germany and South Korea. Under the plans, the United States would move away from many of its big, permanent bases where troops are stationed long-term with families and large back-up infrastructures. Instead, it would use smaller, more austere facilities where troops would rotate in for shorter deployments. "These are purely military sites without family, without infrastructure changes," Jones said. "We're not talking about rebuilding Ramstein," he said in a reference to the sprawling U.S. base in western Germany. The Pentagon says a network of smaller bases spread around the world will provide more flexibility in dealing with terrorism, regional crises and other emerging threats. Romania and Bulgaria, which joined NATO in April, are considered particularly suited to new U.S. bases because of their proximity to volatile regions in the Balkans, Caucasus and Middle East. They also have Soviet-era facilities that could be adapted for American use, and both countries are keen to host U.S. troops. Jones said the United States has sought to calm Russian concerns about any eastern movement of U.S. forces. "We've kept our Russian friends fully apprised of our intentions," he said. "That has had a reassuring effect."
| ||
| Posted by:ed |
| #7 Except that in that case, the United States was backed by its own alliance ... |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-01-15 11:52:59 PM |
| #6 In my view the US government should publicly continue paying attention to world opinion. Only in the sense that we can hear them. Whether we're listening is a different story, depending on what's being said, and who's saying it. The US government should listen carefully to the UN and throw âem a few billion every year. Uhhh, no. If a pipsqueak nation slaps the US in the face, the US government should frown and politely ask for better behavior. Errr, no. There's no reason for someone else to have to do that. Civility is the expected manner in which to handle things. If some nations can't handle that and decide to go the rough route, then the least they should get in return is a really, REALLY rough ride. Instead of a farcical UN debating club a real alliance might form to oppose the US. At one time, there was, albeit assembled by force, an alliance that opposed the U.S. Look what happened to them. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-15 8:44:19 PM |
| #5 I can see your point, Anonymous5032, but in dealing with the UN, and France as well, to give 2 examples, we must be open and honest how we feel, and give appropriate backup. This diplomatic doublespeak is just time honored bull sh*t that ought to go away. I am not talking about total style of Harry Truman, but I am thinking about how I recall Jean Kirkpatrick held the diplos feet to the fire when she was US ambassador to the UN. We can quietly try to work it out first, then if that does not work, then more direct approaches need to be done. I agree that we must be very careful with our power. We are a country to be feared. We must also not be hypocritical. What we say should be how we should act. There is a lot of responsibility that goes with superpower status. However enemies should have the fear of the Wrath of God if they threaten us. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-01-15 7:54:46 PM |
| #4 .com: âNo one else tip-toes around following their national interest. It's high fucking time we stopped doing so.â¦â No other nation in the world has the power of the US. No alliance of nations has the power of the US. Even nations that are friendly toward the US fear that power. Every nation that negotiates with the US does so from a position of weakness. The US has the big stick and can afford to speak quietly. In my view the US government should publicly continue paying attention to world opinion. The US government should publicly treat foreign governments as equals. The US government should listen carefully to the UN and throw âem a few billion every year. If a pipsqueak nation slaps the US in the face, the US government should frown and politely ask for better behavior. (Thus other nations are reassured that the US is not a bully to be feared.) In private, the US government should act for US national interests. The US government should privately communicate to other nations what is and is not acceptable. When US interests are thwarted by a nation, then that nation should suffer. (I hope France suffers for a long, long time.) If strongly provoked, the US enemy should disappear. (Many old enemies are gone.) When another nation supports the US that nation should receive favorable treatment. In other words the US should continue following the same real world politics that it has for decades. (Consider what might happen if the US pulled out of the UN and openly threatened any nation that opposed US interests. Instead of a farcical UN debating club a real alliance might form to oppose the US.) |
| Posted by: Anonymous5032 2005-01-15 5:38:13 PM |
| #3 this is larger than BRAC - this is a message |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-01-15 5:25:22 PM |
| #2 This is part of the BRAC and the people conducting it are much more concerned with Congressional than with Russian sensibilities. |
| Posted by: RWV 2005-01-15 5:23:15 PM |
| #1 Grrrr... Fuck the Russians and their sensibilities - they don't reciprocate in any venue on any issue. Do what needs doing and, other than the countries who will host new facilities, do it without regard for the squeamish horseshit about reassuring those who are blatant adversaries. No one else tip-toes around following their national interest. It's high fucking time we stopped doing so. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-01-15 1:02:43 PM |