Move It Along (Repositioning our armed forces around the world)

The New York Post ^ | June 8, 2004 | Peter Brookes

[quidnunc]

The ground-shaking announcement that the Pentagon will withdraw one-third of its troops from South Korea by the end of 2005 is just the beginning of a process of realigning U.S. forces around the globe.

It means big changes in where our fighting men and women serve — the biggest since the end of the Cold War, at least.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld likes shaking things up, and the post-9/11 world demands it.

The Defense Department's Global Posture Review is due out in a few weeks, and its main new idea seems to make lots of sense: Station flexible, agile, high-tech American fighting forces in places around the world that are politically hospitable to our presence and as close as possible to potential flash points.

Here's what's likely to happen regarding the American troops now overseas, and why:

Germany: Down. The likelihood of a major war in Europe is about zilch. So it makes no sense to have 73,000 U.S. troops in Germany. Better to move them closer to the places we're likely to see military action, such as the Middle East and Central Asia.

-snip-

[Joe Boucher]

It will be most interesting to watch these places as we remove our troops. Places like Korea and Germany like Viequez in Puerto Rico that have protested out troops
being there and what they do.
Already these places that have relied on U.S. monies are worried to see the dollars go elsewhere.
Also they will have to shift dollars from their pockets to their protection.
Hell with them.

[Poundstone]

Peter Brookes appears to be correct in his surmises (he was previously a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia in the current administration; he was fired for incompetence over a year ago). The interesting thing (for me at least) will be the Japan piece; I agree there will be, essentially, "no change," but it will be interesting to see what adjustments we make in Okinawa, where local desire for a reduced base burden is strong.

[Tom D.]

We need to get every one of our troops out of South Korea and Germany.

The South Koreans hate US troops. My secretary's step son and the son of another friend of mine just got back from a tour of duty in Korea. These kids say that the South Korean populace despises GIs and takes every chance it can to let our soldiers know of the Korean distaste. Let those guys eat their dogs and worry about the little nut in pjs with his nukes.

As to the Germans, we saw what they were good for last year when it came time to call Saddam's bluff. I guess that too many old Nazis have fond memories of the warm nights they had with the French trollops while they occupied France in WWII. We should immediately close every military site in Germany. Tell them to find their own damned army to fill up the empty bases and the empty stores, bars, etc. around those bases.

[q_an_a]

he has some interesting ideas, but I don't think you will find land or the nerve for 11,000 troops/boots on the ground in Italy. I served there and the only place that works for bases is the south, but they are all old communists and the duty would not be pretty.

[GSlob]

Well, if one wants one's cake then one should pay for it, which is right and proper.

[quidnunc]

q_an_a wrote: he has some interesting ideas, but I don't think you will find land or the nerve for 11,000 troops/boots on the ground in Italy. I served there and the only place that works for bases is the south, but they are all old communists and the duty would not be pretty.

I have read elsewhere that the US naval headquarters personnel in the UK will be moved to Naples.

[q_an_a]

adding two people to Naples would be the same as adding more troops to a built in closet. You can't get around 60% of the work day. I can't think of a good base, but 3,000 more in Naples will be interesting.