Posted on 06/14/2004 6:34:32 AM PDT by OESY
The Pentagon is proposing sharp cuts in U.S. forces in Germany, which for more than half a century has been America's biggest military outpost in Europe. It's a bad idea, particularly at a time when the United States is struggling to rebuild its relations with its NATO allies.
Washington is hoping to cut its military presence in Germany — a little more than 70,000 soldiers — roughly in half. Two heavy divisions now based there, and the soldiers' families, would return to the United States. They would be replaced by a much smaller light combat brigade, while other units would be rotated in and out, at considerable cost, for short-term exercises. The Air Force is also thinking of moving some of its F-16 fighter jets from Germany to Turkey, where they would be closer to Middle East trouble spots but subject to restrictions by the host government.
The large American military presence in Germany has long symbolized the understanding at the heart of NATO — Washington's commitment to remain permanently engaged in Europe's security and to integrate its military operations with those of its major European allies. Recent history has only reinforced how important that relationship is to the United States. NATO is the only alliance capable of sharing some of the global military burdens that have now overstretched America's ground forces.
Many Germans, remembering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's scornful "old Europe" put-downs of their country last year, will see these withdrawals, and the accompanying German job losses, as payback for Berlin's diplomatic opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Washington denies that. But the Pentagon does seem to have a growing preference for stationing troops either at home or on the territories of allies ready to embrace President Bush's notions of unilateral preventive war.
Despite its criticisms of the Iraq war, Germany imposed no restrictions on the use of American bases during that conflict. It continues to deploy thousands of German soldiers to protect those bases, freeing American troops for other uses. Berlin also contributes $1 billion a year to the bases' support. Economically, the plan to bring the soldiers home is a loser.
The German bases have other advantages as well. They are much closer to the Middle East and Central Asia than bases in the United States and are in a safe country with a stable democracy and the modern conveniences that make life easier for troops on long tours overseas. Soldiers stationed there have access to a variety of training exercises and can enjoy down time with their families. The American military hospital at Ramstein Air Base, the largest outside the United States, provides specialized care for battlefield casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan as it did for those from Bosnia, Kosovo and the U.S.S. Cole.
There is nothing sacrosanct about maintaining particular Army divisions in Germany. The role of American military forces there has evolved considerably over the decades — from occupying a defeated enemy to deterring Warsaw Pact aggression to symbolizing Washington's post-cold-war commitment to remain militarily engaged in Europe. Along the way, the size of the American presence has evolved as well. In the nearly 15 years since the Berlin Wall fell, United States force levels in Germany have dropped by roughly 75 percent. Further reductions should not be ruled out. But the Pentagon's current plans are unduly drastic, unfortunately timed and suspiciously motivated.
"they could at least leave out the obviously erroneous or illogical."
What would that leave them?
As a young boy, on Saturday mornings toward the end of WW-II, I would go to a Virginia naval base with my dad and spend the day roaming the base -- pistol range, exhibition baseball, chow hall, officers club, etc. -- and I was able to interface with German POWs a few times (as they worked under guard trimming roses). It was a good experience for me and them, and I can vouch that those I met were treated well.
Whne the war was over, German POWs were repatriated, but many of them quickly returned to settle in the United States.
One such German couple opened a carry-out hamburger place in my home town and the place was packed every day -- hard work, good quality, good service, and good prices.
Later in life, I told those stories to a young German national, born around 1965, and she told me that she'd been taught in Germany that WW-II German POWs were mistreated in America.
Personal stories like yours and mine are what put the lie to propaganda. Thank you.
NYT again confirms Rumsfeld is doing the right thing
YEAH! There is NOTHING worth protecting in Eurotard land. It is just a sinkhole of wasted funds. Indeed, NATO is an obsolete organization that has LONG been surpassed. Let the Eurotrash police themselves.
I worked in Germany.
I worked for two different German companies for over 10 years.
I traveled extensively throughout Europe. Virtually all of my experience, including quite a few in the "Iron Curtain" countries, were great; except for anything and anyone from France!
People are people on a one to one basis but they are also the product of the propaganda they are fed.
You spew hate, they find you hateful
I assume that was directed to someone else?
. . . and the problem with this would be ?
NATO, being an obstacle to Communist expansion, is an organization that communists want to destroy.
Given that, and given Clinton's misuse of NATO forces, I'd say that putting an end to NATO might be a staged event.
A 100 billion dollar subsidy of NATO isn't "friendly" ? Why are we subsidizing a rich country so heavily? Especially since it makes more sense to be deployed differently, from a strategic point of view...
I guess you don't put much weight on the fact that our heavy subsidy allows Germany to prop up their welfare state at the expense of their own self defense, while at the same time they resent our assertiveness and presence.. but they dont want us to go! To compare them to adolescents is apt.
Youre going to have to come up with a better reason than ...But this will counter their bad media!
Basically, none at all. It could be that the move is linked to German opposition to the Iraqi operation, but even if it was, these are American troops whose deployment in decided in Washington and nowhere else.
Our troops are not there for the convenience of the Germans but for ours.
Some facts the NYT leaves out: The Clinton administration, just like Truman and Carter before them, gutted our military leaving us with far fewer forces to face just as great dangers. Therefore, we must make more judicious use of what we have.
The French, though part of NATO, provide no military assistance to NATO, troops or otherwise. They only obstruct. Let them replace our troops with theirs.
No matter what we do, other than capitulate, the NYT will criticize us.
Of course.
On France and Chirac (and Schroeder), I've been tough. I came close to punching in the nose a currency exchange clerk who was abusing my father in Paris when my parents came to visit while I was stationed in Europe. In fact, on a vacation two years ago, when people asked, Why France?, I responded I was a masochist.
In my opinion, I couldn't have been more wrong. For two full weeks, my wife and I were treated royally. Many credit Jean Tiberi, the former mayor of Paris, with changing popular attitudes that helped his country's tourist industry. There is a lesson here for all of us. I also came to realize that boycotts hurt primarily those with the good working relationships with Americans; that is, those most friendly.
Meanwhile, the fact that Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia financed the First Gulf War with contributions of $7 billion each, allowing us to claim we made a profit on the war, gets scant mention in the press. Military and economic contributions in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere are almost never mentioned. Perhaps, they too have learned lessons.
How many Poles are engaged in NATO operations?
Right now, several thousand German soldiers are in Afghanistan (NATO-led ISAF) and Bosnia as well as Kosovo.
By the way, Atlantic Friend (who must stand this heavy French-bashing here *sigh*), is right when he says that our constitution forbids attacks on other countries. Our constitutional court has decided in 1994 that we may engage in humanitarian missions outside NATO area and in 1999 that we may participate in a war if accepted by NATO or the UN.
I was about to say that Germany paid over 30% of NATO budget, and was the single largest contributor in terms of money (and maybe also in terms of troops, since every German unit is NATO-slated IIRC) but I don't know if this figure is still accurate.
Poles are everywhere.
There is no need for a US Corps in Germany anymore, but boots on the ground give us a say in what goes on in Europe that we would not otherwise have.
I would like to see the 2nd Infantrycentric Stryker Brigade Combat Team (the artist formerly known as Prince the unit formerly known as 2nd ACR) move into Graf. From there they can rail to Black Sea SPOE's or road march to Luftwaffe bases in Bavaria for air transport. They would be a Central European Task Force, much like the 173rd is the Southern European Task Force.
These things were in the works LONG before the Iraq war. It's time the europeans developed their own militaries, and it's time we stopped exposing our people to the virulant Anti-Americanism rampant in Germany.
Do you´ve numbers?
Thanks, I appreciate your words, and it´s no different from what I have heard from others on this subject. I promise to invite a group of you to a beer or two when I get the chance to meet some GI´s in autumn.
Without noting the source, I got as far as the second sentence before my conservative antennae signaled "leftist hit piece."
Why was I not surprised to find it was a NYT Editorial.
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.