Iceland Unhappy U.S. Pulling Defenses Out

Chron.com ^ | March 16 2006 | KRISTA MAHR/AP

[Ax]

I remember reading during the height of the cold war, that having our ASW types stationed on Iceland was akin to having a permanent carrier battle group checking out Soviet Naval activity in/out of those icy northern waters.

[Range Rover]

Seriously - Overall, it doesn't seem like the best idea to totally pull out of there. If Iceland can't defend itself, have them contribute SOMETHING in order to defray the cost. If the pay was good (the benefits are , certainly, if you like fishing, hiking, bathing in hot springs and being around Volcanos), I would consider helping them defend themselves but ONLY if it was to the greater benefit of the US and our allies.

[Range Rover]

Do female Icelanders always stand tilted at a 45 degree angle?

Something to do with the Vodka and being so far North, I'm told.

I do know that they have some bizarre (by our standards) superstitious beliefs...huldufolk of both sexes will become intimate with human beings….an experience said to be utterly delightful, according to the few men and woman fortunate enough to be chosen.

[Cheburashka]

At one time Ft. Dearborn was a vital border outpost. Time passes and needs change. It was torn down in the 1830's so locals in Chicago could use the land.
If it doesn't fit our needs we should pull out. And Iceland is a backwater as far as the U.S.'s current defense needs.
Keeping everything because once upon a time it was useful isn't a realistic policy.

[Emmet Fitzhume]

Talk to me about the women.

I hear they are beautiful.

[Daus]

By your logic, we have no rational reason for any military installations within the continental U.S.

I'm sorry, but the cost structure of keeping military families in Iceland is a bit different than keeping them in the continental US. Also, consider the impact you are having on the soldier's life for no dicernable value. If you can please illuminate me on one tangible benefit to the Icelandic outpost, go for it.

And yes, at the end of the day, the country that is ultimately being protected is the US. There is now just as much chance of Kansas being attacked as Iceland. The only countries with anything approaching real blue water navies are either staunch allies or on the other side of the world from Iceland.

Using your logic, there would be no point is basing any soldiers in the US, they should all be overseas. :)

[Range Rover]

True...No real need for a military outpost on West Wacker now.....would make more sense to have howitzers in Key West...but that's not happening.

It is rather odd, however, that we actually have a country UNHAPPY at the prospect of having a US military presence removed. Germany isn't happy but that's primarily economic moaning and groaning.

[Daus]

Just to be clear, this is an airwing of FOUR F-15s with some search and rescue helo's. I would imagine there only potential use is to intercept Russian bombers en route to the US. $250 million Jeff? :)

It's about the money. If you want to bribe for the relationship just give them $100 million and be done it. :)

[Jeff Head]

I agree whole heartidly with protecting and defening our borders and using the military, particularly the National Guard of the various states to do so...along with constructing a solid, well watched barrier fence.

But the submarine and other threats to the sea lanes are not gone. The Russians still have a credible threat and the Red Chinese are quickly developing one. The era of traditional, major warfare is not over. We need to be prepared and Iceland can be relatively easily defended if we maintain our presence there.

See:

The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia

The Dragon's Fury Series

[Jeff Head]

It's not about the relationship or any bribe. Those F-15's and other assets ensure that we can get the other necessary assets onto that island if there is a need. If the need developed and someone were able to occupy that island then we would have to spend a river of blood winning it back and placing ourselves back into a position to protect vital sea lanes that we would have lost for whatever interim.

This is not about bribing, feel good influence, or anything like that. It's about hard cold strategic reality in this case, and the lessons of history.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Iceland's best defense is that no one wants it.

[R.W.Ratikal]

Iceland's best defense is that no one wants it.

[Daus]

4 F15's are not going to hold the island. In any "Icelandic Invasion" scenario you are going to have to augment the force with other troops and equipment. If Iceland is truly being threatened they will decide at that point which side they are on, and either allow (or beg) us to deploy or not.

If you want to put something useful there (like anti-Missle base) then I'm onboard. Those 4 F-15's are for a non-existent threat. Even if the Ruskies fired up, the days of inbound Foxbats our long gone. It would be missles.

[Jeff Head]

I agree that four F-15's is not enough. They should have a full squardon based there and have P-3's and a couple of E2-Cs or Sentries. And then have the force prtoection./security to augment it, which in addition to a securiy force, would also include missile defense.

The island is strategic enough to warrant it...and the threats still exist and will into the forseeable future.

But that's just my opinion. We have beaucoup other places where our troops could be moved out of without risking such strategic positions.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Wouldn't these 1200 guys be of better use in Iraq or Afghanistan? We'll have plenty of time to fortify the island once Continental Europe institutes Sharia law.

[Halgr]

Actually, Iceland is key to the control of the North Atlantic....If we ever have a major conflict with Russia...this will be one of the first places they will need to control/as in WW2 major transatlantic convoys will traverse just to the south of the island...of course we have nothing to worry about now since russia is our friend.

;-)

[Sax]

I see what you're saying - what we've got to consider is where else they may go for military alliances. When we leave, there's a vacuum and no guarantee who'll fill it.

We need to engage in some statesmanship to reduce our military expenditure, but still maintain enough of an alliance that they do not welcome someone else with competing interests.

[KneelBeforeZod]

Icelandic

[My Favorite Headache]

Horrible decision on the U.S.'s part. Let's hope that the sub's we have stay in the region (Iceland Defense Forces)....because I still don't trust Mother Russia.

[Icelander]

Iceland aligned itself with the nations in the Coalition of the willing under US leadership. before the Iraq war.

So much for thanks..