Posted on 08/19/2004 9:10:04 AM PDT by Isara
Security: On the issue of stationing U.S. troops abroad, Democrats are all for fighting the Cold War — and making sure not to displease the Germans.
Sen. John Kerry and his team have now taken their shots at President Bush's plan to recall up to 70,000 troops from foreign bases. In the process, they have given voters some useful insight into the way they think about war, diplomacy and the role of American soldiers.
The typical voter might find their logic a little hard to follow.
For example, the typical voter might believe the point of stationing U.S. soldiers abroad is to put them in the best position to deal with the most likely threats. Under this common-sense idea, the American troop strength in Germany — currently more than 61,000 — is far beyond conceivable need. The Cold War ended some 15 years ago. The Soviet Union is long gone. The heart of Europe has never been more peaceful.
|
What exactly would be the harm, since Germany faces no military threat? Pulling out troops and other Americans would have some local economic impact, similar to base closings in the U.S. But what really seems to rile Democrats (other than the fact that Bush's plan is bound to be popular with voters) is that it would keep the U.S. less tied down in — and tied to — its Cold War allies.
Bush doesn't intend just to bring some Americans home. He also plans to rearrange forces away from Western and Central Europe, so that they are better able to fight where our enemies would probably be active. That's in lands such as Afghanistan, not on the plains of Prussia. After all, Europe is no longer strategically central. If Germany is displeased that it will host fewer Americans in uniform, it needs to come to terms with 21st century reality.
South Korea, another nation where troops will be cut, is a somewhat different case. It still faces a real military threat, and Kerry argued Wednesday that withdrawing forces at this time sends the wrong message. But the U.S. can still make it clear to North Korea that an invasion or other aggressive behavior won't be tolerated.
The Democrats know this, of course, but their critique of Bush's plan seems to have a sole focus: Nations allied with the U.S. in the Cold War will get downgraded, with lower troop commitments and a less central role in U.S. strategy. This sort of thinking treats U.S. soldiers as symbols of American esteem — the more of them a country has, the more it is valued as a U.S. ally.
Our view, and perhaps that of most voters, is that soldiers should be stationed abroad to counter threats, not stroke national egos.
This simply must be done and if we can even some scores in the doing well that just makes it sweet.
In short, Kerry proposed removing troops from Europe and Korea two weeks before he opposed removing troops from Europe and Korea.
Now if we go back to when those troops in Europe were critical, during the Cold War, I would imagine that he was for removing lots of troops and weapons from Germany.
Kerry also wants to preempt a key faction of the right, whom the Straussians have ignored, namely, those who, like myself, are not to quick to declare an unqualified "total victory" in the Cold War, and who want to err in the direction stated by Kagan and Kagan in their book "While America Sleeps." My faction are opposed to the cheap hawks on principle, and believe we are making strategic defense mistakes similar to the UK 1919 - 1936. However, Kerry is a joke, and no amount of posturing on his part would ever steer me away from the better choice, Bush. But still, there may be those of a more apolitical bent who Kerry may be able to snag. In such a close election, it could matter. Bush needs to read the book I mentioned, and challenge Rummy on it. There is still time for tweaks in his message and certainly the GOP Platform for 04 can be tweaked.
Germany is NOT an ally, they are only interested in American $$. They are a wealthy country that can afford to maintain their own military. As for the arguement that diminsihed numbers of troops diminishes the influence we have in Europe, this was refuted when Germany knifed us in the back over Iraq irregardless of out troop levels.
The dems are for propping up socialist European nations as an example of "Successful Socialism at Work". With the US subsidizing a large part of their national defense, these European nations could divert large amounts of their national resources into their social welfare programs and declare their socialist system "superior" to the US system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.