American soldiers should be moved to the east

The Financial Times ^ | May 6, 2003 | George Allen

[MadIvan]

Constanza is a port on Romania's Black Sea coast. No statues of Saddam Hussein were toppled there. No shots were fired on those shores. However, an important contribution was made there to winning the war against his regime.

Constanza is located almost halfway between Berlin and Baghdad. There, on the friendly edge of Europe, Romania welcomed more than 1,000 US troops deployed to disarm and liberate Iraq. In solidarity with the coalition against Iraq, Romania opened its airfields as an "air bridge" to the Gulf and many of the essential tools for victory were moved through Constanza. The men, women, equipment and supplies of the coalition flowed into the Gulf region not just in huge numbers but also at the right time, in the right order, with the right mix of resources to achieve victory. Constanza, and the resources that central European states provided, facilitated this military action.

The war was also won with the assistance of Bulgaria, where US forces used an airbase at Sarafovo on the Black Sea. It was won with Slovakia, which sent a contingent of anti- chemical weapons specialists to Kuwait; and with Poland, which sent forces to fight alongside US troops. But deployment of US forces in Romania provides a window into the future showing how the US may allocate permanent force structures in Europe.

America's strategic view of the world began to shift before September 11 2001. The nations formerly dominated by the Soviet Union are now free and independent but the passing of the Soviet threat was not an end to all threats. New dangers have arisen and they must be dealt with where they present themselves. The experience of the Iraq war now prompts an important question as we plan for future conflicts: do US bases in European countries that are longstanding members of Nato provide the best possible location for American forces? The answer is that, while the US unquestionably should retain forces there, we must also consider new options, including in the south-east of Europe.

For nearly 60 years, the US has had military bases on the territory of Nato partners. Chief among these is Germany, where there are currently more than 80,000 American soldiers. Most of the US troops wounded in Iraq were evacuated to medical facilities in Germany, even though the country is more than 2,000 miles from Baghdad. The US also supported military deployments to Iraq from long-established US and Nato bases in Europe. But the US also set up temporary bases in other parts of Europe - in countries such as Rom- ania, Bulgaria and Hungary. These nations will soon be the newest members of Nato. Each has recent memories of life under a repressive regime and each was a stalwart and vocal member of the coalition against Iraq.

There are abundant options for US bases in this region. They include strategically located ports such as Constanza and dozens of other facilities that would provide versatility in responding to threats from the Middle East and central Asia. Many of these were built in the Soviet era but have been modified to achieve interoperability with Nato and to conform with Nato doctrine on military logistics.

There would be three advantages to moving US forces to such bases and facilities. First, they are closer to current military threats. Even before September 11, it was becoming clear that the newest threats to Nato countries come from the southern and eastern borders of Europe and from terrorist cells across the globe.

Second, these countries want US forces. In welcome contrast to recent sentiment in Germany and France, which for decades has refused to have US troops on its soil, countries such as Romania and Bulgaria have invited them in. Local opinion polls show that the hospitality of these governments reflects the will of their people. Third, it would be cost-effective. The newly free economies of Europe are embracing economic freedom with zeal but operations are less expensive there. A garrison near Bucharest would cost less than one near Bonn.

Now is the time for the US to re-evaluate its bases in Europe. It should do this not to punish any ally who did not agree with it, or simply to reward its newest allies, but to serve its own strategic interests. The new democracies of Europe offer the opportunity, strategic advantage and shared values that will help us to win the next conflict - or deter it altogether.

The writer is US senator for Virginia and chairman of the European affairs subcommittee of the Senate foreign relations committee

[MadIvan]

Britain has bases in Germany too, this move makes sense for us as well.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[doug from upland]

We helped free them and they are grateful. Yes, lets spend our money in the countries of real friends.

[mrsmith]

"The new democracies of Europe offer the opportunity, strategic advantage and shared values that will help us to win the next conflict - or deter it altogether. "

Senator (former Governor) Allen, Virginia's international superstar bump!

[headsonpikes]

The Germans may be having second thoughts soon; the French...never.

They are the ancient enemy of English freedom.

[SevenofNine]

Ivan there item off Fox news wire this morning that US thinking about MOVING our bases out of Saudi Arabia to Qutar

Moving other base from Germany to Romania OR POLAND I rather have our US boys spent time in Eastern Europe than deal with German and Frogs

[MEG33]

The latest from Germany is that we're turning into a police state! May we choose our partners well.

[45Auto]

I have the highest regard for the Romanians after their little revolution in 1989.

[aculeus]

Our Virginia Senator Allen has Presidential potential.

[American Soldier]

I would think even an E-5 or E-6 would be considered wealthy by Romanian standards... I bet (despite the country being less developed) it would in some ways provide a better quality of life in terms of one's financial health than Germany. The government probably wouldn't have to pay COLA either. Probably huge economic benefits to whoever lives anywhere near the base. The soldiers are going to want: (1) dance clubs; (2) beer & liquor when off duty; (3) cars; (4) always-overpriced souvenirs; (4) restaraunts. Even if they gouge the soldiers on prices it'd probably still be cheap for the servicemen...sounds like a winner for everybody.

[Lysandru]

I have been saying for years that U.S. Army units in Germany should be transferred to Poland.

Bases in Eastern Europe make tremendous military sense. Given the pefidity of the Schroeder punks-- it now has political benefits.

[sarasmom]

"It should do this not to punish any ally who did not agree with it, or simply to reward its newest allies, but to serve its own strategic interests."

Punishing former allies and rewarding new ones could be viewed as a beneficial unitended consequence.

OTOH, why not come straight out and admit, that we are all very happy it also serves our own strategic interests?

[Aric2000]

I really REALLY hate to disagree here.

BUT, NATO needs to be disbanded, and then Great Britain, and the US need to put together a coalition with the Eastern Block countries, and let the EU go defend itself.

CLOSE ALL bases within Germany and other European countries, move them to these other countries and let France Germany etc defend themselves for once.

We want allies who can help themselves, such as Britain, Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, etc. The Frogs and the Germans can go Pi$$ up a rope as far as I am concerned.

[caltrop]

We should by all means move Air Force installations to Central and Eastern Europe. There's no reason, however, to keep the 70,000 GI's (and their dependents) currently in Germany in Europe. While a few GI's should remain colocated with our Air Force, the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy, for example, the great majority should be returned to the US.

[Joe Boucher]

One of the more important things to evolve from this war, countries lining up to ally themselves with the U.S., understanding that to be our ally means dollars in the order of military bases and dependants.
Hey Germany, how's the local economy?
Hey france, F, U.

[RusIvan]

The soldiers are going to want: (1) dance clubs; (2) beer & liquor when off duty; (3) cars; (4) always-overpriced souvenirs; (4) restaraunts. +++

And (5) prostitutes:). They cheap there too.

As I red the reminisces of russian soldirs who fought Romania in 1944 (Romania was ally of Hitler). There was slut house in any small place.
Bulgaria was a different story so. But they was ally of Hitler too.

[MEG33]

Thank you for your concern. Stalin and Hitler were both mass murderers.We teamed up with Stalin to defeat Hitler.Thankfully both countries may,if they choose,overcome the past.

[BnBlFlag]

These U.S troops should be moved to the Mexican border with some possibly going to the Canadian border.

[El Gato]

But they was ally of Hitler too.

Ever hear of the August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Russia, the Soviet Union and Stalin actually, was an ally of Hitler too, and they jointly dismembered Poland, an event which led more or less directly to the Holocaust.

As I red the reminisces of russian soldirs who fought Romania in 1944 (Romania was ally of Hitler). There was slut house in any small place. i>

My impression was that the Russian troops just took what they wanted, without even paying for it or if the "slut" wanted to give/sell it or not.

BTH, why were Nazi troops intialy greeted as liberators in Ukraine and other states of the Soviet Union? (The fact that the SS were dumb as posts and quickly disabused the populace of that notion doesn't affect this question)

[RusIvan]

Ever hear of the August 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Russia, the Soviet Union and Stalin actually, was an ally of Hitler too, and they jointly dismembered Poland, an event which led more or less directly to the Holocaust. +++

But Soviet Union never fought for Hitler. But Romania and Hungary did. Bulgaria too but not against Soviet Union.
Chekhs worked for Hitler war machine. They produced lot of weaponry for Hitler. Yes they wasn't alone in it.

Poland wasn't divided in 1939. Accually Stalin took lands which Poland occupied in 1921. It was disputed lands.

Same Poland 2 years before in 1937 participated with Germany in particioning of Chekhoslovakia. Surprised?:))

Yes they took from Chekhs one region while Hitler took all other. I doubt that Chekhs fotgot that episode.

So you see those small nations of yours scavengered with Hitler. Later they kissed ass of Stalin.
Now they are America ass kissers.

But if America stumble at moment they will change the patron at once. History shows us it.