Posted on 03/10/2019 7:12:48 PM PDT by Steve Schulin
[photo caption] M1A2 Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles converge on a smoke signal during a live-fire exercise at Grafenwoehr, Germany, in March. President Trump is pushing a plan that demands allies pick up the full cost of hosting U.S. troops in their countries, plus a 50 percent premium for American protection, according to a news report. [photo credit; MARTIN EGNASH/STARS AND STRIPES]
STUTTGART, Germany — President Donald Trump is pushing a plan that demands allies pick up the full cost of hosting U.S. troops in their countries, plus a 50 percent premium for the privilege of American protection, according to a news report.
Called “Cost Plus 50,” the plan would cost five or six times more for countries like Germany, Japan and South Korea, Bloomberg news reported Friday.
Trump has been championing the idea for months, Bloomberg reported, citing about a dozen unnamed administration officials. Trump even tested the idea during recent negotiations over a cost sharing agreement with South Korea, which was on the brink of collapse before a deal was finally reached in February.
“We want cost plus 50,” Trump demanded at one point during the talks, as quoted by the media organization.
While the U.S. eventually backed off the demand, the idea hasn’t gone away and could be used to pressure allies to increase their own defense budgets. For two years, Trump has railed against allies, especially in Europe, who Trump has described as security free riders unwilling to pay for their own defense.
[photo caption] A C-17 Globemaster III takes off from Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. President Trump is pushing a plan that would demand allies like Germany and Japan pick up the full cost of hosting U.S. troops in their countries, plus a 50 percent premium for American protection, according to a news report. [photo credit: MICHAEL ABRAMS/STARS AND STRIPES]
It isn’t clear how close the Cost Plus 50 idea is to becoming official U.S. policy. Bloomberg reported that Trump’s advisers have pushed back against the idea. But the president’s interest in the proposal has nonetheless sent “shock waves through the departments of Defense and State,” it reported.
The plan would likely face fierce resistance from U.S. allies, especially Germany, which hosts about 32,000 American troops. Unlike South Korea, which relies on a large military presence as a line of protection against the north, the American forces in Germany don’t serve as territorial guardians.
While there were some 300,000 troops in Europe during the Cold War, there are about 70,000 in total on the Continent today. The contingent in Germany consists mostly of enabling forces and headquarters. The Army has just one infantry brigade in the country.
While allies like Japan see the U.S. military presence as a bulwark to an expansionist China, Germany generally doesn’t see an immediate threat to its own security. As such, Berlin is likely to balk at demands to pay all the costs for U.S. bases, which are widely viewed domestically as serving Washington’s foreign policy interests. For example, Ramstein Air Base — the largest in Germany — has been used as a vital staging post for the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Libya, which Berlin either opposed or did not participate in.
And Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the largest overseas military hospital in the world, is a stopping point for troops injured in Afghanistan and other missions abroad. It offers no direct benefit to Germany’s security. Similarly, Marines crisis response forces in Spain and Italy are tasked with protecting U.S. interests and diplomatic compounds in Africa on short notice rather than Europe’s territorial defense. It’s unclear whether Italy or Spain would feel obliged to pony up more for their presence.
Still, with a more assertive Russia, allies in Europe have been eager for more U.S. forces, especially along NATO’s eastern flank, which could give the Trump administration leverage. Poland has offered $2 billion to establish a permanent U.S. base in its country.
Germany spends about $1 billion or roughly 20 percent of the cost of hosting U.S. troops at various installations in the country, according to Rand Corporation data. But Germany’s payments for U.S. troops are almost entirely in kind — the provision of services or facilities.
Bloomberg reported the White House was also considering a measure to ease the financial burden — a discount for countries whose policies were in line with Washington’s.
That could be problematic for Germany, which has resisted demands from Trump to ramp up defense expenditures. By 2024, all NATO allies are expected to dedicate 2 percent of GDP to military matters. While the majority of alliance members are on track to reach the spending target, Berlin has balked at the idea and is expected to fall well short of the benchmark.
Trump would have made a great head of one of the 5 New York families :)
I love so many things he does.
And it makes sense.
Bodyguards and security guards don’t work for free.
We’re defending ENTIRE NATIONS.
______________
I can see Trump in the Oval Office saying, “Today we settle all the county’s business.”
This is meant to make them get their own defense needs into place.
They don’t care about our sabre-rattling, so telling them they are getting a bill will finally make them more responsible.
Until now, these countries are like your college student who stays in your home and refuses to get a job. When you give them a formal, legal request, they realize they DO have to leave...
Our border is being overrun and we keep our troops overseas. Lunacy.
A German friend says they’re thankful to the US base because we give the Germans jobs.
We've become the Klingons. President Trump says he wants our allies with financial means to pay for their own defense. So do I. But I also want them to pay for their own soldiers. When our troops are overseas fighting other nation's wars, and those nations pay, they're mercenaries. President Trump wants other nations to pay more than the cost. That would give the gov a profit motive for never-ending wars.
I could fall off the Trump Train, but I don't know that there's any other train to get on. I don't know why he didn't declare an official end to the Korean War and let NK and SK sort it out. If North Koreans get a taste of economic advantages (and Big Macs) and unify with SK, they'll put their energy into developing as SK has.
Connected?
https://nypost.com/2019/03/09/eu-will-soon-require-us-visitors-to-apply-for-visa-like-travel-pass/
~$800 for a 3 year visa? Sounds like that’ll go towards paying for our troops.
That will kill their tourism industry. Most likely ours too as I’m sure a retaliatory “fee” would be imposed on EU travelers to the USA.
Reforger! Ya that was a money tree for the whole country.
Though it won't be the ethnic Germans next time, but their olive-skinned occupiers.
I toured the Hamm Military Cemetery in 1989. A beautiful place.
“Greece? Surely you jest.” (for a US base)
Times change. Maybe they would get hard up enough at some point for a little extra economic activity. Clearly, their left-wing politics (long a priority for agitation by the Soviets, and post-Soviet Russians) has had an Anti-American strain, and their current government is pretty far left.
But under the Post-Soviet “Lily Pad” approach, more smaller bases can be employed vs. fewer larger ones; and local military bases can be expanded for contingency US use, as well as occasional exercises. A low profile deal like that might fly under the political radar, even in Greece, if there were some benefits or security threats that motivated the politicians.
We are already doing a bit of that in Israel, with American Airmen stationed at an Israeli airbase, and given their own facilities to operate.
Even so, the Greece mention is more about their favorable location, than realistic prospects.
And Clark AFB wasn’t a political issue? Sure it was.
The Philippines wanted Clark closed and it was. The EU wants to be under the US nuclear umbrella on the cheap. They and their allies in Congress have been fighting any POTUS proposed NATO reform tooth and nail. The chance of Congress allowing POTUS to close major bases like Ramstein in Europe at the moment are nil. Guaranteed.
I’m not opposed to a 100% premium.
Or, they can do it themselves.
bfl
We’re going to need those troops on our southern border.
Germany has a huge surplus of money.
It’s an opening gambit, later to be bargained down. I’m guessing he’ll settle on full cost, but if he hadn’t thrown in the 50% initially, he’d have had to settle for half cost.
Ramstein Air Base — the largest in Germany — has been used as a vital staging post for the U.S. military interventions in Iraq and Libya, which Berlin either opposed or did not participate in. And Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, the largest overseas military hospital in the world, is a stopping point for troops injured in Afghanistan and other missions abroad. It offers no direct benefit to Germany’s security. Similarly, Marines crisis response forces in Spain and Italy are tasked with protecting U.S. interests and diplomatic compounds in Africa on short notice rather than Europe’s territorial defense. It’s unclear whether Italy or Spain would feel obliged to pony up more for their presence. Still, with a more assertive Russia, allies in Europe have been eager for more U.S. forces, especially along NATO’s eastern flank, which could give the Trump administration leverage. Poland has offered $2 billion to establish a permanent U.S. base in its country.
Good!
It is about dam time!
They should have been paying it it the entire time.
Grass, gas or ass, nobody rides for free.
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.