US Troop Withdraw

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-16 03:02pm

Linky-poo

Personally, I think that this move is long over-due. The politics of it are questionable at the very least, but it's about time the Cold War ended for our military posture.

frigidmagi · Post by **frigidmagi** » 2004-08-16 04:09pm

Next time please quote the story has well has giving the link. I'm told that SOP here.

CINCINNATI, Ohio (CNN) -- Promising "a more agile and more flexible force," President Bush announced on Monday a major realignment of U.S. forces around the world.

Bush said about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel would move from overseas to posts in the United States over the next decade. The move would also involve about 100,000 family members and civilian employees, Bush said.

"The new plan will help us fight and win these wars of the 21st century," Bush said in a speech before a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The announcement -- tagged on the end of a political speech -- drew quick criticism from the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry. Surrogates for Kerry -- who is taking a break from the campaign trail -- said the redeployment would undermine U.S. security.

But Bush said it makes no sense to continue an armed posture that was forged during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union represented the nation's biggest threat. Terrorism, he said, is now the chief threat.

"The world has changed a great deal and our posture must change with it," Bush said.

He said the plan had been in the works for three years, and U.S. allies and Congress were consulted on it.

The nation's commander in chief predicted the plan would result in stronger alliances and reduce the stress on U.S. troops and their families.

"Our service members will have more time on the home front and more predictability and fewer moves over a career," Bush said. "Our military spouses will have fewer job changes, greater stability, more time for their kids and to spend time with their families at home."

While Bush offered few details, some of them have been leaking out in recent months.

Pentagon and senior administration officials have told CNN that most of the reductions will come from Europe -- the rest, from Asia.

Democratic criticism
The announcement comes less than three months before the presidential election. Some Democrats questioned the timing of Bush's announcement.

The rival campaigns have squabbled over U.S. military commitments and whether the armed forces are getting the support they need.

In a statement released by the Democratic National Committee, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former presidential candidate and former NATO supreme commander, said the redeployment from Europe and Asia would "significantly undermine U.S. national security."

"This ill-conceived move and its timing seem politically motivated rather than designed to strengthen our national security," Clark said.

Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and an adviser to Kerry's presidential campaign, called Bush's plan "pretty alarming."

Holbrooke, who is also a former ambassador to Germany and former assistant secretary of state for Asia, said, "I know that the Germans are very unhappy about these withdrawals. The Koreans are going to be equally unhappy. How can we withdraw troops from Korea while engaged in a delicate negotiation with the North Koreans? And there's a country that really does have weapons of mass destruction."

At the beginning of the summer, a South Korean Foreign Ministry official said the United States had told him it would like to withdraw a third of its 37,000 troops stationed on the peninsula by the end of next year.

In early June, a U.S. delegation, led by Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless, said Washington wanted to withdraw some 12,500 U.S. troops by December 2005, according to Kim Sook, head of the South Korean Foreign Ministry's North American bureau.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld hinted at the change earlier this month, saying the proposed troop realignment would take several years and would likely lead to more American personnel stationed in the United States.

"We've decided that it's time to shift our posture in Europe and Asia and around the world and move from static defense, which does not make much sense today, to a more deployable and usable set of capabilities," Rumsfeld said.

Lawmakers weighed in over the weekend as news of the plan emerged.

"This is a fundamental change and is a change probably in the tactics of our military, so that our people will be more mobile, more available at other places all over the earth," Sen. Richard Lugar, Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday.

And some Democrats agreed that changes were in order for the armed forces.

"There are some things that we should do to redeploy troops so that they are in the best position possible for what the new threats are," Sen. Carl Levin, a Democratic member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

CNN's Kathleen Koch and Elaine Quijano contributed to this report.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-08-16 08:46pm

I wonder how many people are going to bitch about this trashing some local economies...

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2004-08-16 09:13pm

3 years in the making?

I doubt that.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-16 09:31pm

The motivations are not for compassion, but for political reasons; this has been a key promise of Kerry's and Bush is seeking to outdoe him. Of course, when Wesley Clark tells you that this is a VERY bad idea...

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-08-16 09:45pm

JME2 wrote:The motivations are not for compassion, but for political reasons; this has been a key promise of Kerry's and Bush is seeking to outdoe him. Of course, when Wesley Clark tells you that this is a VERY bad idea...

How is this bad? The security commitments and the like still remains, and they're still retaining US forces in countries like Germany.

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2004-08-16 09:47pm

Eh, its a good move I suppose... though like someone said, its not going to be long before people start crying about ruined economies.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-16 09:52pm

JME2 wrote:The motivations are not for compassion, but for political reasons; this has been a key promise of Kerry's and Bush is seeking to outdoe him. Of course, when Wesley Clark tells you that this is a VERY bad idea...

Where has Kerry made this promise? Quite frankly it sounds rather unlike him, given that Germany is one of the allies he thinks we have to retain the most.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-16 09:55pm

Joe wrote:
JME2 wrote:The motivations are not for compassion, but for political reasons; this has been a key promise of Kerry's and Bush is seeking to outdoe him. Of course, when Wesley Clark tells you that this is a VERY bad idea...
Where has Kerry made this promise? Quite frankly it sounds rather unlike him, given that Germany is one of the allies he thinks we have to retain the most.

Well, when the Germans don't want to go to war, you know something's very wrong with the world and that you need to patch things up.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-08-16 09:57pm

Already posted

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-08-16 10:01pm

This is one of the few times I agree with Bush *sob*. The only reason our forces are/were in Germany was to deter the Warsaw Pact (or maintain the balance of terror between the WP and NATO, depending on your point of view). South Korea I really can't imagine wanting us there, as there's an average of 2 crimes per day perpetrated by American service personnel on Korean civilians, based on historical averages (and that's rounding down, since there were over 800 recorded in 1996). Those bases no longer actively serve to promote forward readiness in the military; they are merely a source of pride for the military.

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2004-08-17 01:12am

Wont someone please think of the West Germans!

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-08-17 01:25am

Zed Snardbody wrote:Wont someone please think of the West Germans!

Why? There is no reason to station 100k+ troops in Europe anymore. Europe is stable; we have no mission there anymore. It costs a bloody fortune to run all these spread out garrisons (another CW doctrine so that a couple nukes or chem strikes wouldn’t wipe out everything we have there) some forward bases with pre-positioned stocks of equipment + a couple a easily (brigade size or so) deployable units will do the job.

Training areas like Grafenwhoer and Hohenfels would stay open, perhaps Stuttgart Ramstien, Landstuhl as well. All the rest SHUT THEM DOWN!!!

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-08-17 01:27am

As I recall, aren't the Germans starting to get a little annoyed with having us there anyway?

Zed Snardbody · Post by **Zed Snardbody** » 2004-08-17 01:37am

Dargos wrote:
Zed Snardbody wrote:Wont someone please think of the West Germans!
Why? There is no reason to station 100k+ troops in Europe anymore. Europe is stable; we have no mission there anymore. It costs a bloody fortune to run all these spread out garrisons (another CW doctrine so that a couple nukes or chem strikes wouldn’t wipe out everything we have there) some forward bases with pre-positioned stocks of equipment + a couple a easily (brigade size or so) deployable units will do the job.

Training areas like Grafenwhoer and Hohenfels would stay open, perhaps Stuttgart Ramstien, Landstuhl as well. All the rest SHUT THEM DOWN!!!

In a perfect world I would agree with you. However the EU is not to be trusted. The minute we take our boot off their throat, here come the tanks and what not out of the hidden underground bunkers. Do you really want to wake up one morning speaking French? Well, do you?

No, really it is a good idea and long over due. The only thing I'm really concerned with is the ability to project armored power. Those damn tanks are hard to move and it helps if they're half way there. But that shouldn't be an issue, because we need to stop playing world police. But now we're back to that perfect world thing

Dargos · Post by **Dargos** » 2004-08-17 01:47am

Crayz9000 wrote:As I recall, aren't the Germans starting to get a little annoyed with having us there anyway?

Nope..they love us still. they just hate Bush! We are a part of their culture now(well...W. German...the Ossis' have a problems withus) When we pulled our troops out of Frankfurt back in the early 90's they went ape shit because we were going to shut down AFN(Armend Forces Network) Radio "Its a part of our cultural heritage!!" So we continue to transmit there to this day!

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2004-08-17 02:15am

Crayz9000 wrote:As I recall, aren't the Germans starting to get a little annoyed with having us there anyway?

Well you are cramping their style*

*World conquest

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-08-17 05:22am

Solauren wrote:3 years in the making?

I doubt that.

Actually your quite wrong, Bush was talking about doing this before he was even president and the move probably already would be underway if not for September 11th.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2004-08-17 08:21am

No, really it is a good idea and long over due. The only thing I'm really concerned with is the ability to project armored power. Those damn tanks are hard to move and it helps if they're half way there. But that shouldn't be an issue, because we need to stop playing world police. But now we're back to that perfect world thing

I thought they said alot of those units would redeploy to the ME, so instead of being halfway there, they're not all the way there.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-17 09:52am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Solauren wrote:3 years in the making?

I doubt that.
Actually your quite wrong, Bush was talking about doing this before he was even president and the move probably already would be underway if not for September 11th.

He explicitly said that he would not use our troops for nation-building before he was president.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2004-08-17 10:27am

Durandal wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Solauren wrote:3 years in the making?

I doubt that.
Actually your quite wrong, Bush was talking about doing this before he was even president and the move probably already would be underway if not for September 11th.
He explicitly said that he would not use our troops for nation-building before he was president.

Well that and that he was a compassionate conservative, that no child would get left behind, that he would keep the environemnt safe, etc.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-08-17 11:02am

Durandal wrote: He explicitly said that he would not use our troops for nation-building before he was president.

But I bet he didn't say anthing about deconstructing them.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-08-17 12:01pm

Zed Snardbody wrote:
No, really it is a good idea and long over due. The only thing I'm really concerned with is the ability to project armored power. Those damn tanks are hard to move and it helps if they're half way there. But that shouldn't be an issue, because we need to stop playing world police. But now we're back to that perfect world thing

The actual transit time really doesn't matter given the large number of medium and high-speed RO-RO vessels the US military has or is building. The medium speed vessels can cross the Atlantic in under a week, and the 33 knot SL-7's can do it in only about four days. The eight of those we have can haul 97% of a mechanized division at once.

The many weeks involved in preparing such a division for movement, moving it to the port, loading, and then the unloading and organization process on the other end simply make saving a few thousand miles in transit irrelevant, you could be looking at 2-3 months total. And a few thousnad miles is all leaving from Germany rather then Savannah does, your not even saving an entire Atlantic crossing given the distance from North German ports to Gibraltar.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-17 04:14pm

Entirely appropriate I think. Those troops are no longer necessary for the Cold War posture. Europe and South Korea and the like are all solid, stable first world nations and they can and should take care of themselves.

Wired_Grenadier · Post by **Wired_Grenadier** » 2004-08-17 06:14pm

Crayz9000 wrote:As I recall, aren't the Germans starting to get a little annoyed with having us there anyway?

Not that I heard of.