Americans come home

[Gonz]

Well now, the Cold War is over & the EU is about to challenge the US for supremacy and have apparently moved past thier war-like inner children so we're not needed. A good move on our part.

US plans to cut forces overseas by 70,000
By Peter Spiegel in London
Published: August 13 2004 22:01 | Last updated: August 14 2004 00:51

The US is expected to announce on Monday that it is pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe and Asia in the largest restructuring of its global military presence since the second world war.


People briefed on the plan say two-thirds of the reductions will come in Europe, most of them military personnel stationed in Germany who will be sent back to US bases.

An additional 100,000 support staff and military families worldwide will be part of the realignment.


The changes are expected to be announced by President George W. Bush at a speech to the Convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Cinncinatti, Ohio, on Monday.

Although Germany will remain home to the largest contingent of American forces on the continent, both army divisions now based there the 1st Armoured and the 1st Infantry could be moved to US bases.

Germany will continue to be home to sophisticated training and command facilities and to a mobile infantry force which will be equipped with the new light-armoured Stryker vehicles and is expected to form the core of a restructured European presence.

The Bush administration has been re-evaluating the US military's global posture almost since its first days in office. Senior Pentagon officials emphasised that the move was not intended as a punishment for Germany's lack of support in the Iraq war.

In Asia, the reduction is expected to include the 3,500-soldier brigade from South Korea, which was recently deployed to Iraq.

There will also be a shift of some European command headquarters. The navy's European HQ, which has been in London since the second world war, will be moved to Naples.

 

[Inkara1]

Yeah, why did we have that many troops stationed over there in the first place?

 

[Gonz]

They had to write their Constitution (Japna & Germany) in such a way that only defensive militaries would be allowed. We were/are there to protect them from the KGB and its muscle. We did.

 

[Gato_Solo]

About time, too. AF personnel stationed in overseas billets are not required to go TDY. It'll releive quite a bit of strain on those of us who are stationed stateside.

 

[The Other One]

An obvious move simply for political motives: Bush is buying votes, trying to steal the election again....



This is something that should have happened 2 years ago when the U.S. was criticised by Germany, among several other European countries about involvement in Iraq. Seems like Europe will have to take care of themselves now...

 

[HomeLAN]

And a lot of 'em don't like it.

Make up yer minds, boys and girls, are we an arrogant nation that is out of touch with your agenda, or are we a good friend that you're sorry to see leave? Or is it dependant on how much money we bring with us?

 

[Gonz]

[sings]money, money, money, mo-ney, MO MEEEEEEY [/sings]

 

[Gato_Solo]

[sings]money, money, money, mo-ney, MO NEEEEEEY [/sings]

Every time the US does a big pullout from an overseas area, the citizens there get upset because of the jobs that they will lose. Besides...it's much easier to complain about us if we're there.

 

[A.B.Normal]

[sings]money, money, money, mo-ney, MO MEEEEEEY [/sings]

Actually since these countries spent alot of money towards the US forces being there,the US is going to be on the line for the full expense of these troops when they come home.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Actually since these countries spent alot of money towards the US forces being there,the US is going to be on the line for the full expense of these troops when they come home.

Like how? The US gets no money from Germany for being there. No money from the UK for being there. No money from Italy for being there. No money from Greece for being there. We do, however, spend quite a bit on the local economies as individuals, and the US government actually pays the governments for the bases we use (leases that are usually renewed in perpetuity). Nay. No money is spent by said countries for US forces to be there. If you can find any source which shows that, I'd really like to see it.

 

[Gonz]

[edit]*learn to read ALL of the previous post(s)[/EDIT]

 

[Gato_Solo]

Here's some interesting reading from folks around the world on this. The last one is troublesome, though...

 

[Gonz]

As a former military man, I would think that the real reason that US troops are being withdrawn from Europe, Japan and other countries is that they are short of troops to rotate to Iraq and Afghanistan. This might not be a vote winner as the troops in "soft" postings will be asked to go there! After all they didn't join the Army to get killed!
Russell Taylor, Penang, Malaysia

Thank you friend

In economic terms, it makes good sense to withdraw troops from areas where they are underused and redeploy them. My concern is it could reinforce the slow withdrawal from the world that many US commentators seem to want. In spite of the noises made by a minority, the USA is seen as a positive force in the World whose absence will be regretted.
Barry P, Havant, England

damned bugs

 

[Inkara1]

I'm wondering what the actual death toll of coalition soldiers in Iraq would be if we don't count the number of soldiers killed when they wreck their Humvees. Yes, some do die in combat. But it seems like quite a few die in car accidents... which could just as easily happen in Germany, Japan, or even right here in the US.

 

[HomeLAN]

Actually since these countries spent alot of money towards the US forces being there,the US is going to be on the line for the full expense of these troops when they come home.

Evidence, please. I suspect you're dead wrong.

 

[HomeLAN]

Evidence, please. I suspect you're dead wrong.

I got curious and took a look myself. The best I could find was a passing comment that the local gov't pays some portion of the upkeep for US troops. No data, no details.

However, don't forget the contribution to local economies by US bases and servicemen. I found a hell of a lot about that. The larger bases yield contributions ranging from $1 billion to $1.7 billion - per year. 13 mayors of towns we're looking at leaving are pleading for us to stay due to those contributions.

Yep, we've really been ripping 'em off all these years.

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1431_A_1299315,00.html

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1430_A_1152253,00.html

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_893876,00.html

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/9426301.htm?1c

 

[A.B.Normal]

GWEN IFILL: Will this save money?

LAWRENCE KORB: No. In fact it's going to cost you money. One of the things again with the... you got the impression that these troops are over there and it's a big expense to the taxpayer. As a matter of fact, you have very good bases, a lot of them built with money from the host country, in this case mainly Germany.

You have subsidies that are given by the German government according to the Pentagon we've got about a billion dollars worth of subsidies last year. You got wonderful facilities. You bring them back here. You have to construct new facilities. You're going to have to pay the base closings.

If you move some of these troops as the General was talking about and the Pentagon seems to be indicating to Eastern Europe you're going to have to fix the bases up there. You have terrible environmental problems you're going to have to deal with in those bases.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec04/troops_8-16.html

 

[Gato_Solo]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec04/troops_8-16.html

Once again, no source. Just a person spouting an opinion. If the source is the pentagon, you really should find out where that is, and post it. Otherwise, this is nothing more than hot air...

 

[A.B.Normal]

Once again, no source. Just a person spouting an opinion. If the source is the pentagon, you really should find out where that is, and post it. Otherwise, this is nothing more than hot air...

Actually thats not where I heard/read it,I don't watch PBS for the news,but it was similar in content to what I was referring.It was either at work that I read it in the newspaper ,clicked on a sidebar at one of the news webpages,or one of the network News broadcasts.Sunday/Monday were quite hectic for me and I haven't been able to find the exact article since.

 

[A.B.Normal]

Just did a search to see who the guy was that was giving his opinion and he seems to have repectable credentials.

A senior adjunct fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration, Korb is also a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Lawrence J. Korb
Expertise:
National security organizations, policy, and process; U.S. foreign policy; arms control; defense budget; NATO.

Experience:
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress (present); Vice President and Director of Studies, Council on Foreign Relations, 1998-2002); Director, Center for Public Policy Education, and Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Studies Program, Brookings Institution (1988-98); Adjunct Professor, National Security Studies, Georgetown University (1981-93); Dean, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh (1986-88); Vice President, Corporate Operations, Raytheon Company (1985-86); Assistant Secretary of Defense (1981-85); Professor of Management, U.S. Naval War College (1975-80).

http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6523