QandO
Questions and Observations| « NeoLibertarianism | Main | Thurlow, Updated » |
|
August 19, 2004 Troop realignment: Pro/con David Englin of The New Republic says our troop withdrawls will have a devestating effect on our relationship with our allies, even if they do make some military sense: Finally, even on the grounds of military strategy--where Bush's move is most easily defensible--the plan is not without drawbacks. Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain active throughout Europe. Plus, Europe is closer than Kentucky to strategically critical locations in the Middle East and Central Asia, and therefore an easier base from which to deploy troops. So the strategic pros and cons of the move can be legitimately debated. But the damage that Bush's proposal could do to America's relations with its allies is beyond dispute. There is no easy public-relations substitute for 100,000 Americans living in the heart of Europe and serving as ambassadors to and from their host countries. If you think Americans and Europeans have trouble getting along now, just wait. Good grief. First, our troops aren't going to be fighting al-Queda in Europe, and there is no magic involved in effectiveness if the troops come from Germany or Ft. Hood, TX when and if they're ever called to fight al-Queda. In fact, given the probability that they'll fight in a Middle Eastern country, Ft. Hood would most likely have better prepared them for what they'll face in terms of terrain and climate. Straegically the pros far outweigh the cons. Secondly, the rosy picture Englin paints isn't exactly true. I'm an army brat who lived in Europe and Asia. While relations were "ok", they really weren't all "sweetness and light" where I lived. I followed that up with active duty in Asia which it was clear we weren't wanted there. I spent 18 months in Korea, and the student riots protesting our presense were a pretty regular occurrance. The argument that we ought to keep 100,000 Americans in foreign lands to "help strengthen our alliances" is nonsense. The only nation we've ever had at our side in all our modern wars, Australia, has remained our staunch ally without thousands of American troops hanging out there. If our alliances are so fragile that we have to keep our allies "friendly" by stationing troops there (and subsidizing their economy) then we need to rethink them anyway. Englin's arguments are the typical "touchy-feely" nonsense which ignore the harsh realities of the world in favor of the weak argument that the troop removals may harm our relationship with our allies. Doug Feith, in WaPo has a completely different take: Our new posture will allow us to deploy capable forces rapidly anywhere in the world on short notice. It will push more military capability forward, while shifting 60,000 to 70,000 service members from foreign to U.S. bases. It will create a lighter U.S. "footprint" abroad, consolidate scattered facilities, remedy irritants in our relations with host nations, and, in numerous ways, make it easier for the United States to work well with allies and friends on military operations -- to train and operate, to develop military doctrine and tactics, and to exploit new military technologies with them. Feith makes a point that Englin ignores or overlooks. We're not withdrawing all of our troops, just a majority of them. We will, most likely still have a smaller footprint in Europe. For instance, the 173rd Airborne Brigade will most likely stay in Italy. And the two heavy divisions in Germany. Probably downsized to a STRYKER Brigade. With those two elements left in Europe we'd have an immediate response team available while we ginned up a larger force in the US. We'd also most likely have another brigade or two forward deployed in some of the old Eastern European nations which were once part of the Warsaw Pact. Again, with the emphasis on quick reaction. The move is neither hasty nor vague as Kerry claims. It is a long overdue realighment to face today's threat, not the threat it is now configured to meet, the defense of the inner-German border against Soviet invasion. Neither the inner-German border nor the USSR exist anymore, and its time we acknowledged that and realigned for the new threat. |
This stuff was being planned before 9/11, so Kerry's claims are dead before he utters them.
Oh, and as usual, he's come down on both sides of this issue.
Posted by: Bithead at August 19, 2004 10:12 AM
"The only nation we've ever had at our side in all our modern wars, Australia, has remained our staunch ally without thousands of American troops hanging out there."
This is simply incorrect. When was the last time the French have fought side-by-side with the Americans? Right now. In Afghanistan.
Why would you be so misinformed on such a fundamental issue?
Posted by: Zachriel at August 19, 2004 10:36 AM
Weren't there a lot of roadblocks thrown up to the point where we weren't at all sure that we could use our troops and equipment based in Germany for the Iraq invasion at all?
Oh, and Zach? Did you notice the word 'all' in the prhase 'all our modern wars'?
Posted by: Peter at August 19, 2004 11:23 AM
We're thinking they're kind of a no-show in Iraq. Maybe it's a cultural thing, but it's difficult for us brutish Americans to look at the French and see much in the way of a contribution there.
Then there's that flyover thing that keeps coming up, and some other stuff. So if your point is that the valiant French are solid like our mates down under, you got some 'splainin' to do.
Posted by: spongeworthy at August 19, 2004 11:27 AM
My god, you're citing Feith? Didn't Tommy Franks call him "the f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth."?
Posted by: mklutra at August 19, 2004 11:50 AM
The sky is falling, the sky is falling! Bush wants to relocate about 6000-7000 troops a year over the next ten years. Impossible, and look at the damage to our close allies like France and Germany. We don't even have troops in France.
Posted by: EddieP at August 19, 2004 01:53 PM
Actually, we do have a few in liason and support positions in France. And relocating 6-7000 troops, their families, and equipment is no big thing. Roughly 1/3 of the 100,000 abroad troops rotate back to the States or are discharged every year. That means we could move 33,000 troops home, without breaking a sweat, per year. We moved over 100,000 troops into Kuwait before invading Iraq the second time, and we did that in less than six months.
Posted by: Chris Van Dis at August 19, 2004 02:23 PM
I just read Anglin's piece at lunchtime. Very unconvincing. He says the idea is terrible because our servicemen will not be able to be ambassadors for the US in the communities where they are stationed. That's rubbish because we're still going to keep a presence in these places, just not as large.
Says Anglin "But the damage that Bush's proposal could do to America's relations with its allies is beyond dispute. There is no easy public-relations substitute for 100,000 Americans living in the heart of Europe and serving as ambassadors to and from their host countries. If you think Americans and Europeans have trouble getting along now, just wait." What a crock! It is beyond dispute that this COULD have negative effects and that is the reason the drawback should not occur! What a convoluted reason to do nothing. It is undeniable that you MIGHT get in a car wreck if you drive home, should you walk instead? Besides, part of the problem of the heavy troop presence without a menacing USSR is that it smacks of American imperialism to the left-wing dopes in Europe. They hate American soldiers on (misbegotten) principle, so whose hearts and minds really are going to change?
Then again, Anglin says, we've had problems when US servicemen violate local customs or commit crimes against the locals. Quite simply, this equivocating "proof" cannot make this idea terrible.
Second, he complains that "following through on these promises to military families [to bring them home to the US] will require significant changes at the Pentagon, which is not known for its rapid institutional dexterity." That's part of the farging point of this whole transformation -- get the Pentagon off it's institutional rear end and make it a more flexible and reactive organization.
But also, Anglin says, some military families like to stay in Europe or other overseas places. SO? Most probably do not, and considering that the reduction level will be about 70% of overseas forces coming home, the other 30% can be comprised of people who wanted the overseas assignments.
Put simply, Anglin calls for doing nothing because doing something might have short-term problems. That's not progress, initiative, adaptability or foresight and it's not the American way.
Posted by: The Monk at August 19, 2004 02:29 PM
Living 3 miles from Ft Hoods main gate and having served there for 3 years myself I can say that it doesnt have a lot of terrain that looks similar to what I have seen of conditions in Iraq.
Although at Hood the soldiers rotate to National Traning Center in Calif which is mostly desert.
But we do get some of the heat so that acclimazaion helps.
Posted by: retired military at August 19, 2004 09:01 PM
They fail to mention the use of smaller bases called "lily pad" bases in this CS Monitor article. Manas Air Field in Kyrgyzstan is much more centrally located to Al Qaeda activity than is Germany.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p06s02-wosc.html
Posted by: JB Elliott at August 20, 2004 11:16 AM
McQ - 1) "First, our troops aren't going to be fighting al-Queda in Europe." Not quite. When I was on active duty, I deployed to Italy and the Balkans, where al Queda was incredibly active and directly threatened my unit. The al Queda fruits of some of our military labor in Europe currently reside at Guantanimo Bay. 2) I spent 17 years at bases overseas as a DoD brat. My argument is not that relations were/are "sweetness and light," but that people who live together understand each other better than otherwise, which is the essence of public diplomacy. 3) My argument isn't about strengthening alliances, it's about public diplomacy, which is different (one is about foriegn governments; the other is about foriegn people), and which the Bush administration acknowledges as critical to winning the war on terrorism. 4) To ignore public diplomacy as a tool of US national interests is to ignore an important "harsh reality".
EddieP - I make no mention of France. Although Chris Van Dis is right; I actually flew a combat refueling mission with US Air Force tankers stationed at Istres, France.
The Monk - 1) It's Englin, not Anglin. 2) "That's part of the farging point of this whole transformation -- get the Pentagon off it's institutional rear end and make it a more flexible and reactive organization." You highlight an important goal, but withdrawing military families from Europe does nothing to move the Pentagon in that direction. It only makes it more likely that troops will spend less time with their families because they will be deployed to new, smaller, unaccompanied bases in Eastern Europe. 3) "Most probably do not." Overseas assignment are highly desireable to most most military families. Relatively low host-nation cost of living (with the exception of Japan) combined with generous COLA makes the money and lifestyle great, DoD schools are some of the best there are, and there’s a strong “see the world” factor, all of which increase demand for overseas assignments. 4) I don't call for doing nothing. I call for doing what's in the best interests of US national security. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the American way.
Best,
David
Posted by: David Englin at August 29, 2004 01:04 AM