Author Topic: U.S. Military In Europe May Change (Read 1442 times)

Preon1 · « **on:** February 10, 2003, 10:12:22 AM »

Given current US foreign relations (specifically with Germany), top DoD officials are considering downgrading the current European posture of large garrison bases to smaller expeditionary bases. I see this being a big deal when it comes to future US relations (specifically with Germany). I mean, it basically means that the US is pulling out of a multi-billion dollar investment (by my rough calculations it's about 7.5 billion a year in Germany alone). What's Europe gonna think about that?

The following is an article in today’s Washington Post.

Quote

Washington Post
February 10, 2003
Pg. 16

U.S. Military In Europe May Change

Government Is Considering Revamping Structure to Reflect New Era

By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer

The United States is contemplating radically changing the nature of its military presence in Europe, moving from a "garrison" system of big, heavily staffed Cold War-era bases to a more expeditionary posture in which troops would be deployed to the continent on a rotational basis, said members of the U.S. delegation flying home yesterday from an annual conference on security issues in Munich.

The current thinking about revamping the U.S. military structure in Europe follows the transformation of the politics of NATO through the addition of 10 member nations that are taking notably pro-U.S. stances, effectively reducing the influence of "old Europe" powers such as Germany and France, delegation members noted.

If implemented, the change would be one of the biggest in the history of U.S. military bases in Europe, which dates to the end of World War II. Even discussing the shift sends the signal in Europe that the United States is ready to match changes in the alliance's political structure with changes in its military structure. Disclosure of the move also might be interpreted in Europe, especially in Germany, as a sign that the United States is exploring alternatives to its heavy reliance on Germany as the host of its core military operations in Europe.

The possible change in military structure and the strains with Germany and France were the two main subjects of conversation among the U.S. delegation to the Munich conference, whose proceedings over the weekend were marked by an unusual public clash between U.S. officials and officials from France and Germany over the Bush administration's hawkish stance on Iraq.

"It doesn't feel like it's the U.S. and U.K. isolated from Europe," Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said in an interview yesterday high over the ice floes of the North Atlantic. "It seems like France and Germany are isolated from the U.S., the U.K., and the rest of Europe."

The split over Iraq is likely to produce lingering suspicion of the German government in the United States, some members of the delegation predicted. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said the continued German opposition to the U.S. position on Iraq would "throw people for a loop" in his home state, where German companies have a major presence, including a BMW automobile plant.

But at the same time, Graham and other members predicted that a German desire to make amends is likely to encourage the government of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to participate in postwar peacekeeping in Iraq, easing the U.S. burden there.

Several members of the delegation spoke enthusiastically at the briefing they were given by Marine Gen. James Jones, the new U.S. commander in Europe, on his preliminary thoughts about possible ways to overhaul the U.S. military presence in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. They said they expect a permanent U.S. military presence eventually to be cut from the current level of about 100,000 personnel, most of them Army.

Rather, they said Jones and other top Defense Department officials are contemplating something more akin to the U.S. presence in Kuwait, where tanks, trucks and other military gear are stored, with troops flying in to exercise or deploy with it.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of those briefed by Jones, said that the commander "envisions a transition to bases with prepositioned equipment and skeleton crews." That makeover would reduce the U.S. military presence in Europe by closing facilities such as Defense Department schools and military commissaries but ultimately might make U.S. bases in Germany more important to U.S. strategy. In a few years, some of the Pentagon officials said, the U.S. bases in Germany, England and Italy could be what the military calls "power projection" platforms from which forces could move quickly to hot spots in the Middle East, Africa or Asia. Some U.S. troops are moving from bases in Germany to the Persian Gulf region, but they are not configured for rapid deployment.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who also attended Jones's briefing, said, "He was talking about a different configuration that is more nimble and flexible."

Delegation members emphasized that the contemplated changes in force structure are not related to current U.S.-German strains. But those tensions could provoke efforts to reduce the U.S. military's reliance on its facilities in Germany, one conference participant predicted. "I think there will be a movement by some in the United States to say that the next time [there is a U.S.-German disagreement], they might not let us use the bases, so let's get a training base in Romania or somewhere," said James Steinberg, director of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.

In his briefing, Jones raised the possibility of the U.S. securing access to a new base in Eastern Europe through which it would rotate troops on training missions, said one Senate staff member who attended the briefing.

Jones took over as the top U.S. commander in Europe a month ago. He knows the continent well, having grown up in France. But as a career Marine officer he is seen as not wedded to the current structure of the U.S. military in Europe, which has been dominated by the Army since it was established as an occupation force in 1945.

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #1 on:** February 10, 2003, 10:18:19 AM »

WW2 is long time over, we dont need a occupation force any longer.
Thank you, and have a nice day !

AKIron · « **Reply #2 on:** February 10, 2003, 10:25:32 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
WW2 is long time over, we dont need a occupation force any longer.
Thank you, and have a nice day !

I think what you meant to say was: The cold war is over and a force protecting against Soviet invasion is no longer needed. Right? And I'm in full agreement.

Rude · « **Reply #3 on:** February 10, 2003, 10:26:10 AM »

Occupation force....that's cute.

Wonder what the local economies surrounding these bases will suffer when we leave....havin that cake and eaten it too has been nice eh?

Frogm4n · « **Reply #4 on:** February 10, 2003, 10:30:21 AM »

well what if you had another countrys army sitting in your backyard. what if the french had tanks rolling around some backwater texas town. It is a occupation force to the people living in germany and japan.

Dowding · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2003, 10:30:44 AM »

I think the fella was joking. Hence the smilie.

It started as an occupation force, but soon became a mutual protection force a la NATO.

straffo · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2003, 10:35:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Rude
Occupation force....that's cute.

Wonder what the local economies surrounding these bases will suffer when we leave....havin that cake and eaten it too has been nice eh?

Dunno how to say that properlly (aka I'm not sure of my vocabulary) but most US bases are "self-sufficient" and I guess that some soldier didn't even get out

So I'm unsure of the economical impact.

I'll have to search of the impact of closure of U.S. bases in France.

AKIron · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2003, 10:50:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by straffo
Dunno how to say that properlly (aka I'm not sure of my vocabulary) but most US bases are "self-sufficient" and I guess that some soldier didn't even get out

So I'm unsure of the economical impact.

I'll have to search of the impact of closure of U.S. bases in France.

While many US bases are "self-sufficient" that does not mean that the people that live on them don't pour a lot of money into the local economy. I'm not just talking about the guys running the local bars. Many bases offer a lot of employment to the local community through both jobs and contracting. Very very rarely does any community want to see a nearby US base close.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #8 on:** February 10, 2003, 10:51:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
well what if you had another countrys army sitting in your backyard. what if the french had tanks rolling around some backwater texas town. It is a occupation force to the people living in germany and japan.

If Mexico was the USSR and the US was a weak neighbor, but was allied with the superpower France - and I lived in Texas, I would welcome a French defensive force with open arms.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #9 on:** February 10, 2003, 11:09:40 AM »

you obviously are not from texas.

french and mexican armys better stay the hell out.

and im a liberal the conservative texans would flip a gidget at the suggestion of such a horror.

Naso · « **Reply #10 on:** February 10, 2003, 11:26:12 AM »

Back on topic:

I see why Berlusconi's smile is soo big in the last days!!

$$$$ !!!!

About the hijacking (half):

A base usually is not isolated, there is always need of houses, cars, gas, and fun places, and, why not? on local employee.

A lot of stuff comes from homeland, but AFAIK, the US payments for local services are generous.

Have a small effect of local economy, but it does, indeed, HAVE effect, specifical with small places.

I mean a little, almost unnoticable effect on a town like Naples (for example), but a bigger, sensible effect on a little city like Aviano (for example).

.

ra · « **Reply #11 on:** February 10, 2003, 11:38:16 AM »

Quote

well what if you had another countrys army sitting in your backyard. what if the french had tanks rolling around some backwater texas town. It is a occupation force to the people living in germany and japan.

We won't move out entirely. We will leave our cemeteries behind.

Naso · « **Reply #12 on:** February 10, 2003, 11:41:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by ra
We won't move out entirely. We will leave our cemeteries behind.

Oh, please, not again...

There are cemeteries from all the countries, there.

Udie · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2003, 11:53:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
you obviously are not from texas.

french and mexican armys better stay the hell out.

and im a liberal the conservative texans would flip a gidget at the suggestion of such a horror.

We'd say "thanks for the tanks, but we've got ones that actually work, and by the way why do they all have white flags on top?"

ra · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2003, 11:58:03 AM »

Quote

There are cemeteries from all the countries, there.

There are no cemeteries in Texas for French troops who died fighting for America. It was his comparison which provoked my response. so you can relax.

ra