US forces in mass moves to face new challenges (troop movements largest in history)

Sydney Morning Herald ^ | February 7, 2004 | Richard Halloran in Honolulu

[dead]

In the dark of the morning, 250 troops from the US 25th Infantry Division quietly boarded an Air Force plane and, as the Hawaiian dawn broke over the mountains behind them, were soon heading for Iraq.

Those soldiers, and 4800 more from Hawaii, are part of what may be the most extensive movement of American military men and women since the end of World War II.

From the continental United States to Japan and South Korea, to Iraq and Afghanistan and south to Australia - many of the 380,000 US armed forces, serving in 120 countries, are on the move.

The Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, said during a visit to Iraq this week: "The biggest challenge in the immediate term is doing this big rotation of forces. Just the sheer movement itself in insecure conditions is a challenge."

There are several reasons for the moves:

Those who have been fighting for a year in Iraq and against the Taliban in Afghanistan need to be relieved. The forces in Iraq are also being lightened as armoured units are replaced with light infantry.

The Bush Administration has begun to transform the armed forces. The Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has said repeatedly that everything can be moved.

Although the Cold War is long over, the Bush Administration sees fresh challenges from North Korea and Iran; an emerging, ambitious China; and terrorism and piracy in South-East Asia.

US armed forces are also stretched, especially on the ground, by too many missions and too few troops.

The Pentagon is shifting units to cover gaps, such as those in South Korea, that have been left by forces sent to Iraq.

The operations officer for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lieutenant General Norton Schwartz, said the troop movements are possibly the largest in US history.

In World War II, soldiers stayed with their units almost until the end of hostilities.

In Korea and Vietnam, soldiers were replaced individually.

Other operations, such as Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991, were relatively short and soldiers went home afterwards.

In Iraq four divisions are being replaced over the next five months by three divisions from the army and navy.

In one example, 500 soldiers in a new army battalion recently took over from a brigade of 3500 members of the air force. The new battalion will use light armoured vehicles, relying on speed and agility to patrol their assigned territory.

In Afghanistan an army division and marine battalion are being replaced by an infantry brigade, and a multinational battalion that includes Marines. Special Forces units who operate largely by stealth is also being swapped.

In South Korea, where the US has had troops stationed since the Korean War, US forces will soon begin moving from their Seoul headquarters to a new base about 120 kilometres south.

Within a few years, the 2nd Infantry Division of 17,000 soldiers will also move south from its present position between Seoul and the demilitarised zone that divides the peninsula.

Both moves are intended to ease tensions with Korean citizens, who are becoming increasingly hostile to the American military presence.

The 2nd Division's mission will also change from helping to defend South Korea against North Korea, to a force ready for contingencies elsewhere in Asia.

The Bush Administration plans to move an aircraft carrier, possibly from the East Coast, to Hawaii or Guam to bring naval air power closer to the western Pacific.

The Pentagon plans to send a number of bombers to Guam to put them within striking distance of the Korean peninsula and the Taiwan Strait. Two submarines have been moved from Hawaii to Guam and a third is on the way.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, said during a recent visit to Australia that Australian and US officials were considering building a joint training area in the northern part of the country.

All this will be costly. The Pentagon disclosed this week that it would ask Congress for $US401.7 billion ($526.4 billion) as its budget for the fiscal year starting October 1 - 7 per cent more than the current year's budget.

White House officials said they would ask for additional funds later to cover the costs of the rotation.

[WOSG]

Wow. 100,000 troops in Europe? Not needed. we should cut that to 20,000.
40,000 troops in Japan? That need not be more than 10,000.

we have many other smaller deployments that should be cut back to focus on the war on terror. The Cold War is over, our military posture needs to finally reflect that.

[dead]

I agree. We are moving our troops out of Germany.

Of course, that means that their cannibals will have free reign, but so be it.

[Paul Ross]

The Cold War is over.

Tell that to North Korea...or Bejing for that matter.

The troops in Japan are strategically positioned so as to timely reinforce likely 'hot-spots' such as South Korea or Taiwan.

[WOSG]

I did not suggest reducing our commitment on the Korean peninsula. But 100,000 troops in Europe is a waste of our money and serves no purpose against North Korea nor China nor Cuba, the three remaining communist nations worth freting over.

As for Japan, reinforcement can happen to 'hot-spots' from US bases almost as quickly.

People complain about an Iraq war that likely cost $200 billion. Well our DoD costs are now $400 billion a year, war or peace; that's huge. As fiscal conservatives it is our duty to make sure we conserve every penny. IMHO we can do more with less in every Govt dept, DoD included.

[Jammz]

In regards to your comment that the 100,000 troops in Europe is a waste of money... I'll argue that with you. Those forces are pre-positioned for a reason, with their equipment. How much time does it take to plan logistics for a force that was needed in say Kosovo versus when there are forces already in the region. Places like Italy and Germany are stopping points for our deployable forces coming from the states on their way to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, etc. Have you ever flown from, say, Georgia to Iraq? It totally sucks and it's a really long flight (close to 18 hours or so) and there is no first class on military airlift for our soldiers and airmen. Even a few hours stopped at one of these places is good for the deploying forces as it gives them a chance to stand up, stretch and check out their equipment.
In regards to the troops in europe serving no purpose against china or north Korea: The troops serve a purpose everywhere they go or they would not be there. It may not be against those communist countries, but communist countries are NOT the one's who are learning that America will not stand to acts of terrorism, genocide, mass murder or threats.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty."

John F. Kennedy, 1961

[WOSG]

Have you ever flown from, say, Georgia to Iraq?"

Oh, I've done worse. I've had plenty of international business travel: Austin to India, Singapore, Israel, and Russia. the worst is USA to India through Europe - 24hrs. It's not a big deal.

Note that most of the Iraq deployments CAME FROM THE US.

"It totally sucks and it's a really long flight (close to 18 hours or so) and there is no first class on military airlift for our soldiers and airmen. Even a few hours stopped at one of these places is good for the deploying forces as it gives them a chance to stand up, stretch and check out their equipment. "

Okay, but that implies the need for an airbase or two in, say Germany, NOT 70,000 troops, put there on long-term assignment! Rummy is starting to figure this out and this is part of 'transformation' but IMHO they could save more money by doing it quicker and closing down more int'l bases.

Moreover, your implication, airlift forces, sort of makes my point. Any force located in a friendly country would have to be air-lifted *anyway* to the theatre of ops. So it doesnt pay to put them in a costly contingency posture when they can just as well be called up from a USA homeland base.

"The troops serve a purpose everywhere they go or they would not be there. "

Circular logic there. The troops are in Germany in large numbers because in the late 1940s when we were ready to withdraw them we realized that there was a soviet menace eating up half of europe and threatening the other half. They stayed during the cold war in NATO. They remain there as part of the intertia that is typical of any govt operation. Our Kosovo and Bosnia contingents are small and separate from the germany bases.

Moreover, the 'prepositioning' you speak of doesnt require long-term rotations of large numbers of *troops*.
This 'prepositioning' of cold-war-style positioning costs perhaps $50-80 billion if you total it up. It could definitely be used in other ways to win the war on terror!!!

[Jammz]

First thing. How long did you serve in the military?

Next, Travel for business and travel for military are two completely different animals. What class did you travel in? Military airlines are not comfortable, don't have stewards/stewardesses and don't have any luxuries as commercial aircraft do. The one thing military transport is designed to do is get you from point A to point B. What kind of fighting shape are forces who fly 8,000+ miles going to be in when they land?

Additionally, just an american presence in a country is often a deterrent from a country being attacked. Say we had 2,000 (that's quite a small number) troops in Kuwait in 1990, do you really think that Hussein would have done what he had done, knowing that the death of even one american would have been a blank check for America to completely obiliterate him then and there? Many people were detached from that as "It's just the Kuwaitis" If it had been americans do you think it would have escalated quicker if not immediately? The numbers you refer to are not major... 100,000 troops in Europe... How many men are on a single aircraft carrier?

As for most of the Iraq deployments coming from the U.S., I'll have to make a comment about that. Ask the 173rd out of Vicenza, Italy, who air dropped into Northern Iraq. Ask the 31st FW coming from Aviano, Italy, throw in the batallions coming from Germany, the aircraft out of England and all the prepositioned forces that came out of Saudi Arabia. Also throw into the mix that someone still has to stay behind and maintain the bases/posts that are undermanned and "poof!" you have a magic number of people needed...

Or not...

How about the support bases that provide the munitions, supplies, communications etc ... do we really want to keep all our bombs in one place? I'm sure that would make a really pretty picture if someone managed to over-run it or bomb it I think not. Well, wait, we've got to throw in the communications for those places too... Do we want to radiate everyone on this base while we're at it? Hmmmm might want to put those someplace else too. The more support a base requires the more PEOPLE that base requires. So say you have 2 major bases used for transient travel. Who maintains the runways, and the lighting and the communications and the fuel and everything else that goes into supporting an airbase? Not to mention, who maintains those tanks, those trucks, those jets... ermmm somebody's got to. What about supply? Ever seen a 39 cent part break a $500K machine? No problem, we'll airlift that in too... it'll be there in about a week if we're lucky. Oh wait, how's it going to get there? Let's post it!! What if it's something classified? Post it anyways? Come on...

Want to contract it out, sure no problem... Here's an example... Contractors used just to resurface a runway in England... say 5 Million UK pounds(just a guess)... hmmmm 9 million dollars... plus who's going to maintain it the rest of the time?? You can't let it just sit there... hey wait... let's contract that out too... oh wait, that costs more money plus we have to pay overtime, military people do not get overtime...

The military is not just made of people who fly fighters or drive tanks... The military is a complex machine you have to see and be part of to understand. Go visit an Army Post or an Air Base. Ask anyone there what their job is and why it's important... Everybody has a reason for being there. Everyone has a key part in every mission of every base. It doesn't matter if you're a cook or pilot... you're still important. Those numbers are reflected in the number of personnel at any base.

Rummy knows that the military is not just there to spend money... All the bases have a mission or they ARE being closed or turned over, this includes bases in the USA too... This closure of bases has been going on for the last 10 years... It's not all going to happen until the world is a perfect place and it never will be.

[WOSG]

Given all you say, which is well and good, you dont answer the question at hand. This is not about the principle of logistics or how hard our military works, or about the concept of forward-basing against real threats, which I agree with. The question at hand is this:

What military purpose is served by 70,000 troops in Germany?

[Jammz]

Sir,

I have answered your question. Those 70,000 in Germany are either support for those deployed, will be deployed, or have been deployed. Just because personnel are in Europe it does not make them exempt from deploying and if nothing else, makes them foremost to go as we have a more rapid response time. I will tell you that firsthand. If you base all these personnel in the states, you increase the time for everything from replacements to spare parts.

The logistics itself is an issue. I am much happier knowing that my medical support, my additional air support, my logistical support is only 6-8 hours away, rather than 18 to 24 hours away. In this business time can and does mean lives.