Replies

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

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!!!