You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
US Army plan would cut soldiers in Europe by half
2007-06-28
Under a broad plan to reconfigure US military forces in Europe, as few as three Army combat brigades, or about 35,000 soldiers, would remain there – a major downsizing from the roughly 62,000 US soldiers stationed there as recently as 2005.

That, at least, will be the recommendation of an internal study conducted for the head of US European Command and NATO forces in Europe, Gen. Bantz John Craddock, who had asked for a "troop-to-task" assessment of forces in the European theater. The assessment is expected to recommend that a fourth brigade based in the United States be deployed to Europe on a "rotational" basis, for exercises and other operations. The reduction in the Army's presence in Europe is part of a broader reduction in forces that include Navy, Air Force, and Marine personnel.

The assessment has not even been made public yet, but critics already are charging that the recommended plan would leave the US shorthanded overseas. They want to see at least four combat brigades, or around 44,000 soldiers, left in Europe.
Unnamed critics, of course.
Oh of course. They're so much smarter than the Pentagon.
Minimizing US troop levels in Europe sends the wrong message to other countries in Europe, and leaves those forces that remain there undermanned to do the jobs they're required to do, says one critic, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the negotiations.
Also tells the Y'urp-peons that the free ride is over and that they're wealthy enough to defend themselves. Especially since the forces we leave there will be 'required' to do much less.
In part, it's a question of dispersing US forces around the world where they can engage with other countries, not keeping them isolated inside the US, the official says. "The world we live in is a world of coalitions."
Uh huh. And the Army we have is reorganizing around the brigade as the deployable unit of action. Taken together with unit (vs. soldier) rotation, that means a need for training and refurbishment. Not to mention a message to the European hangers-on.
The world we live in is a lot smaller now, especially for us since we have a real Air Transport Command and the Euros don't. We can move a brigade to a trouble spot in the world fairly quickly, complete with weapons, supplies and support. We can maintain that brigade in the field as long as necessary. Who in Europe can say that?
There are other concerns about bringing US forces back to the US. As the Army and Marine Corps grow by thousands of personnel over the next several years, there may not be the room to bring existing forces back from Europe.
I seem to recall we have some shuttered bases. We can expand existing bases. Tell Congress that you need a new base and there'll be blood knee-deep on the floor of the Military Appropriations Committee. I think we can find room.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates will review the study presented by General Craddock in coming weeks, but it is unclear when a decision might be made as to how many forces are brought home from Europe. US European Command officials declined to comment on the Craddock plan.

The study's findings appear to be a compromise between a plan first unveiled in 2005 under then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who favored lighter, smaller forces, and critics of Rumsfeld's plan, who believe the US can't abandon its decades-old presence in Europe.
And why not? Let's have a public discussion of that point. Are the Euros worried about the Big Bear today? Are they concerned about Belarus or Serbia? What exactly is the threat to Europe that mandates any American military presence, let alone 50,000 plus troops?

Sure, there are benefits to us. We have established infrastructure that has been useful in the current WoT. But we could replace that, and liberating us from a large, cantakerous fixed base of operations has its plus side. Let's hear someone explain why we need 50,000 plus troops in Europe today.
Posted by:lotp

#21  I spent ten years in Germany between 1971 and 1989, mostly in an (Air Force) intelligence unit that no longer exists. My information about Soviet deployments in Eastern Europe was first-hand. In those days, 350,000 troops in Germany was a good insurance policy to keep Russians on their side of the border. Today, there is no such threat, and little need for more than a few brigades to hold ground long enough for more troops to deploy. Europe, during the same period, cut its military to the bone, reduced capabilities, and in general left more and more of the actual defense of Europe to Americans. The only people today with capable armed forces are the former Eastern European satellites of the old Soviet Union. Unfortunately, they are using antiquated equipment that wouldn't survive for long on a modern battlefield. There's no doubt that Europe needs to take on a bigger part of their own defense - more troops, more modern equipment, more reasonable rules of engagement, better training, and closer coordination among member states. We also need some congresscritters in the United States that have a brain, and can actually understand what the military is saying when they talk to them. Here in Colorado, there's a big debate on whether to expand the Pinon Canyon Training Area. The ranchers want to continue the status quo. The Army wants more training space to allow them to train the additional manpower they're getting due to all the troop realignments. Congress is more interested in playing politics than meeting the needs of either the military or the locals.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2007-06-28 16:43  

#20  Besoeker, you should've seen how many we took off our T/O prior to deployment just for pregnancies or all the ones we had to leave off for post partums. Of course we had to fill their line numbers w/new joins or Marines who just got back from Iraq &/or Afghanland within the past year - disgusting. Not to mention how many of these new preggers had been in the Corps less than 2 yrs and have never deployed. Thank the Almighty I am no longer in that unit.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2007-06-28 13:55  

#19  This figure is Army only. There are still Air Force and Navy personnel. Remove those that do not directly contribute to America's well being.
Posted by: ed   2007-06-28 13:26  

#18  60k rolling down to 35k hmm around 25k being restationed? Maybe that 25k is what we are going to leave in Iraq. Don't froget Bush/Baker/even the Dems short the Koskids are all calling on 15-30k continued presence in Iraq. The argument is when can/should we draw down to that level. My personal opinion is not until we deal with Iran.

The forces based in Germany are heavy infantry and calvary along with some mech units. Perfect for what will be needed in Iraq for decades to come as the insurance policy against the neighbors invading and a internal coup (pretty much the exact role our forces in both S Korea & Germany played after both of those conflicts ended).

Like someone mentioned those bases in Bulgaria and Romania are being setup not as large barracks or troops but as pernament transit points staging areas but only small pernament barracks.
Posted by: C-Low   2007-06-28 13:13  

#17  They're talking Old Europe - EU Referendum covers a lot of military stuff, too.

Army's moving/closing something in England and the AF was thinking about it, too, and some politicos were surprised, IIRC.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2007-06-28 11:23  

#16  Even back in the eighties I thought our troops in Europe were more like tourists than defenders. And I was one of them.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2007-06-28 09:58  

#15  Redeploy them and the SK troops to Taiwan.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-06-28 09:55  

#14  The article is unclear on whether they're counting the new bases in Bulgaria, Romania, and Poland as "Europe" for purposes of talking about the 35,000 plan, or the four-brigade alternative, for that matter. Are we talking "Old Europe", or the aggregate of the old bases & the new eastern bases? Because 35,000 sounds like too much if we're talking Germany & the old NATO bases, but too little if we're counting all the old Cold War bases & the forward bases across Eastern Europe.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2007-06-28 09:49  

#13  Besoeker, are you talking about pregnancies by military personnel?

Most likely. At least he isn't on a tear about Rumsfeld.
Posted by: Pappy   2007-06-28 09:45  

#12  Including those to be deployed with ballistic missile defense in Poland, NS?
Posted by: lotp   2007-06-28 09:42  

#11  The EU has its own Rapid Reaction Force. All U. S. troops out of EUrope, now.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-06-28 09:41  

#10  I would remove most troops from Europe, keeping rapid reaction forces along with the personal for the missile defense in Poland and eastern Europe. The rest of Europe can do without.
Posted by: DarthVader   2007-06-28 09:26  

#9  Besoeker, are you talking about pregnancies by military personnel?
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-06-28 08:13  

#8  Besoeker, are you talking about pregnancies by military personnel?
Posted by: gromgoru   2007-06-28 08:12  

#7  "troop-to-task" assessment....<

Wish someone would do a "dick-to-jane" assessment here in the ITO. I'd love to see the medical stats on tummy melon re-deployers. This COED fobbit army is certainly impressive.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-06-28 06:57  

#6  Sharp eye, TW. I hadda read it two more times!
Posted by: Bobby   2007-06-28 06:24  

#5  Minimizing US troop levels in Europe sends the wrong message to other countries in Europe

There are other countries in Europe besides the US? Why doesn't anybody tell me these things?!?

/Sorry. But what was the editor that makes the professionals so much more trustworthy than the bloggers thinking?
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-06-28 06:10  

#4  I find it interesting that critics are worried about sending the wrong message to neighboring countries and that there might not be room for the troops in the US. Grasping at straws, perhaps?

But bringing back 160,000 troops from Iraq the day after tomorrow is no problem? Go find critics with consistency.
Posted by: Bobby   2007-06-28 05:58  

#3  Good!
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2007-06-28 02:49  

#2  Yes, how about cutting US ground forces in SK by, say, 100%?
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2007-06-28 01:29  

#1  lotp, the military personnel aren't needed, but their money sure is in some of the surrounding towns. That's what they'll truly miss.

Now, can we bring some personnel back from Korea, too?
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2007-06-28 00:51  

00:00