| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Why U.S. troops should stay in Germany |
| 2004-06-14 |
| The Pentagon is proposing sharp cuts in U.S. forces in Germany, which for more than half a century has been America’s biggest military outpost in Europe. It’s a bad idea, particularly at a time when the United States is struggling to rebuild its relations with its NATO allies. On good track with Germany, probably less so with France. Washington is hoping to cut its military presence in Germany — a little more than 70,000 soldiers — roughly in half. Two heavy divisions now based there, and the soldiers’ families, would return to the United States. They would be replaced by a much smaller light combat brigade, while other units would be rotated in and out, at considerable cost, for short-term exercises. The Air Force is also thinking of moving some of its F-16 fighter jets from Germany to Turkey, where they would be closer to Middle East trouble spots but subject to restrictions by the host government. I suppose we all know what kind of "restrictions" this means. And will this all really come cheaper? The large American military presence in Germany has long symbolized the understanding at the heart of NATO — Washington’s commitment to remain permanently engaged in Europe’s security and to integrate its military operations with those of its major European allies. Recent history has only reinforced how important that relationship is to the United States. NATO is the only alliance capable of sharing some of the global military burdens that have now overstretched America’s ground forces. It is not so much about Europe’s security anymore but about global security ensured by a close collaboration between both sides of the Atlantic. Europe may take a bit longer to adapt to the new challenges but it will. Many Germans, remembering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s scornful "old Europe" put-downs of their country last year, will see these withdrawals, and the accompanying German job losses, as payback for Berlin’s diplomatic opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Actually the subject seems to be widely ignored in most parts of Germany except in the regions where U.S. troops are actually stationed. And liked. Washington denies that. But the Pentagon does seem to have a growing preference for stationing troops either at home or on the territories of allies ready to embrace President Bush’s notions of unilateral preventive war. That latter is of course nonsense, because it defies the meaning of "unilateral". If other nations "embrace the notions", the thing is not "unilateral" anymore, right? And in Germany the government will change, and the idea of preemption (or prevention) will look much more interesting once Al Qaeda stages its first major attack in Berlin or Frankfurt. Despite its criticisms of the Iraq war, Germany imposed no restrictions on the use of American bases during that conflict. It continues to deploy thousands of German soldiers to protect those bases, freeing American troops for other uses. Berlin also contributes $1 billion a year to the bases’ support. I guess you don’t read about this very often in the States? Economically, the plan to bring the soldiers home is a loser. Well I don’t have the figures but it’s not all figures here. The German bases have other advantages as well. They are much closer to the Middle East and Central Asia than bases in the United States and are in a safe country with a stable democracy and the modern conveniences that make life easier for troops on long tours overseas. Soldiers stationed there have access to a variety of training exercises and can enjoy down time with their families. The American military hospital at Ramstein Air Base, the largest outside the United States, provides specialized care for battlefield casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan as it did for those from Bosnia, Kosovo and the U.S.S. Cole. It would take a lot of time to attain the same standards in say Romania or Bulgaria. I believe though that Ramstein would be the last to go anyway. There is nothing sacrosanct about maintaining particular Army divisions in Germany. The role of American military forces there has evolved considerably over the decades — from occupying a defeated enemy to deterring Warsaw Pact aggression to symbolizing Washington’s post-cold-war commitment to remain militarily engaged in Europe. Along the way, the size of the American presence has evolved as well. In the nearly 15 years since the Berlin Wall fell, United States force levels in Germany have dropped by roughly 75 percent. Further reductions should not be ruled out. But the Pentagon’s current plans are unduly drastic, unfortunately timed and suspiciously motivated. I don’t buy the latter. Rumsfeld personally told me that this was not the case. And given his usual "undiplomatic" bluntness, I believe him. I wouldn’t rule out that some people do like the "payback" idea (even on Rantburg). But payback might be a bitch... sometimes for the one who deals it out. |
| Posted by:True German Ally |
| #12 Stephen always has the killer insight on this particular flavor of stuff. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-14 7:11:29 PM |
| #11 TGA - not saying that Germany/EU is footing the bill. What I am saying is that Americans want a true mutual self-defense pact. Not one where the Europeans can pick and choose when to uphold and when not to uphold NATO agreements. We were attacked but the Europeans chose not to fullfill thier part of our mutual defense pact. Which has alot to do with not being militarily able too, this needs to change on the Euorpean side if NATO is too survive. Jules post is put spot on, there is growing resentment of Europe in this country. I do hope NATO can be resucued. But as you put it the US will still lead in a war - with or without Europe. This, I believe, is part of the problem we face. The Europeans will benifit regardless. This needs to change since we cannot do it alone. But if forced to we will sure give it a go, the alternative is surrender. TGA I respect your opinions and am in full agreement with what you say. I just wish your fellow EU citizens felt the same. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-06-14 6:19:49 PM |
| #10 Tony - probably due to unresolved feelings - I was stationed in Germany at the height of the cold war. Some of the W. Germans were ok, most even, but lots were real "aryan assholes" to Americans, and it's only gotten worse. And no, I never liked France. Italy, now... |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-06-14 5:31:30 PM |
| #9 The combat divisions in Europe are coming home for the simple reason they aren't needed to help protect Western Europe from invasion.If they are to be used in future,it will be as expeditionary forces dispatched from home bases,and it is cheaper to base them w/their families in the US.The infrastructure will be kept for forseeable future-to show US still engaged w/Europe,already built so don't have to spend scarce dollars to build new,and as TGA points out Germany allows US to use bases pretty much unrestricted.Tactical aviation(F-16s,F-15s,etc.)would be moved for couple of reasons.If based in Turkey then Iran,Syria,Palestine and Iraq would be w/in range.If moved to SE Europe,I suspect it would be more a matter of local governments not minding US a/c practicing low-level flight,with a touch of rewarding new friends thrown in,but mostly no noise abatement restrictions on training flights. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-06-14 5:08:21 PM |
| #8 TGA-What this discussion should reveal is that, while there is growing anti-Americanism in Europe, its reciprocal is growing resentment of Europeans in the US. I hope we can make NATO sound again, but there is significant resentment here for the European hostility towards Americans, and we are beginning to see signs of that resentment seep into action on this side. Of course we want a restored, updated NATO, but not at any price. |
| Posted by: jules 187 2004-06-14 3:42:11 PM |
| #7 Don't declare NATO dead before you found something better. Let's work together to redefine NATO. United we stand. Totally agree with those sentiments TGA. mojo - that was uncalled for. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2004-06-14 3:21:05 PM |
| #6 Why U.S. troops should stay in Germany Just in case we need to (in the immortal words of Hollis P. Wood in "1941") "kick the livin' shit outta" them again... |
| Posted by: mojo 2004-06-14 3:06:47 PM |
| #5 Let's work together to redefine NATO. United we stand. sniff, sniff, TGA...if everyone in Europe (or even Germany) was like you, the world would be a great place. I don't know how I feel about the bases in Germany, but I do know that you have reminded me that when you drop all the rhetoric, good people from all countries have similar goals. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-14 3:04:38 PM |
| #4 Dan and B, I'm afraid you both miss the central point here. You are NOT footing the German defense bill here. Germany does not save any defense money because you are here as Germany is in no danger of being attacked by anyone. War of Terror you say? The thing is, if Germany (and Europe) wanted, they could just be free riders because the U.S. will lead that war... with them or without them. I guess I don't have to point out what is cheaper. The global nature of (Islamist) terrorism means that no threat is specifically directed against Europe OR the U.S. But as Dan said, the battles won't be in Europe. We all know where they are and probably will be in the next ten years. This is not about financing a few German communities (never was), this is about keeping Europe involved in global matters. If you leave Europe and disassociate yourself from European affairs and joint military endeavours, it will cost you more than keeping 50000 troops (for your own benefit) in Germany. Don't declare NATO dead before you found something better. Let's work together to redefine NATO. United we stand. |
| Posted by: True German Ally 2004-06-14 2:51:53 PM |
| #3 The large American military presence in Germany has long symbolized the understanding at the heart of NATO — Washington’s commitment to remain permanently engaged in Europe’s security and to integrate its military operations with those of its major European allies But it now symbolizes to Americans that Europe expects American taxpayers to foot their defense bills so they don't have to. I hope that the impact to the communities that have supported us is minimal. But I've lived in communities here at home that have gone through base closings and so.... as a taxpayer wanting to see my money well spent.... I see no reason that Germans, spending my money, shouldn't have to as well. |
| Posted by: B 2004-06-14 2:19:44 PM |
| #2 NATO has to change or die on the vine. If the EU cannot committ itself to global defense (remember this treaty is supposed to go both ways) partnered with the US it is dead. Economics should not guide our defense posture. Regardless of the cost the battles are not in Europe at this time. As for economic impact where bases are located it is no different than what communities went through here in the states. And the overall impact on German GDP is very minimal. I just hope the German's realize that we are friends and this in no way some kind of punishment. And if it is it is pathetic given GDP impact of our forces. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-06-14 1:35:22 PM |
| #1 *blinks* you met rumsfield ? cool. |
| Posted by: dcreeper 2004-06-14 1:20:21 PM |