TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US to withdraw selected troop divisions from overseas
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

US to withdraw selected troop divisions from overseas

First off, Rumsfeld has been in the business of defense for over 30 years. Over this time, he had led the drive for a more mobile military with the express purpose of rapid deployment to troubled areas. The idea is that you don't need to house troops overseas, and make that a foreign policy issue in itself. Today, the President acknowledged that we were ready to reap some of the benefits of defense modernization.

Second, it's about time for some other areas of the world to realize what it takes to provide for adequate national defense. The Mark Steyn article posted below is a great read, and makes some really salient points on the whole issue. Good stuff:

quote:

Mark Steyn: Do you want to sing Waterloo or fight it? The U.K. Telegraph 17 August 2004 http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/o...8/17/do1702.xml 'We won't come back till it's over / Over There!' sang America's doughboys, marching off to war in 1917. In the Second World War, they had other songs to sing, which is just as well because, even though the World War was over over there 60 years ago, and the Cold War was over 15 years ago, only now are the Yanks heading home. In the largest military realignment in years, Washington plans to withdraw 70,000 troops plus 100,000 family members and support personnel from overseas US bases. That means, for the most part, from Europe. This will undoubtedly be welcome news to the likes of Goran Persson, the Swedish prime minister, who famously declared that the purpose of the European Union is that "it's one of the few institutions we can develop as a balance to US world domination". It must surely be awfully embarrassing to be the first superpower in history to be permanently garrisoned by your principal rival superpower. But it's also grand news for those of us who've long argued that America's six-decade security guarantee to Europe has been a massive strategic error. The basic flaw in the Atlantic "alliance" is that, for almost all its participants, the free world is a free lunch: a defence pact of wealthy nations in which only one guy picks up the tab. I said as much in a Canadian column I wrote on 9/11, and a few weeks later the dominion's deputy prime minister, John Manley, conceded that his country was dining in the best restaurants without paying its way: as he put it, "You can't just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom." But in Nato, for generations, whenever the bill's come, there's been a stampede to the washroom, not just from the Canadians but the Continentals, too. Like any other form of welfare, defence welfare is a hard habit to break and profoundly damaging to the recipient. The peculiarly obnoxious character of modern Europe is a logical consequence of Washington's willingness to absolve it of responsibility for its own security. Our Defence Editor, John Keegan, once wrote that "without armed forces a state does not exist". That's true in a certain sense. But, in another, for wealthy nations who've found a sugar daddy, it's marvellously liberating. You're able to preen and pose on the world stage secure in the knowledge that nobody expects you to do anything about it. Bret Stephens, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, opened his mail the other day and found a copy of something called "Conclusions of the European Council", a summary of the work done during the six months of the Irish Euro-presidency. He made the mistake of reading it. Here's item 80: "The European Council expresses its deep concern at the recent events in the Eastern Congo, which could jeopardise the transition process." Been following that one? Europe is free to flaunt its "concern" � and even its "deep concern" � over the Eastern Congo precisely because it's entirely irrelevant to events in the Eastern Congo. As Stephens points out, European countries now have attitudes in inverse proportion to the likelihood of their acting upon them. They're like my hippy-dippy Vermont neighbours who drive around with "Free Tibet" bumper stickers. Every couple of years, they trade in the Volvo for a Subaru, and painstakingly paste a new "Free Tibet" sticker on the back. What are they doing to free Tibet? Nothing. Tibet is as unfree now as it was when they started advertising their commitment to a free Tibet. And it will be just as unfree when they buy their next car and slap on the old sticker one mo' time. If Don Rumsfeld were to say, 'Free Tibet'? That's a great idea! The Third Infantry Division go in on Thursday', all the 'Free Tibet' crowd would be driving around with 'War is not the answer' stickers. When entire nations embrace self-congratulatory holier-than-thou moral poseurdom as a way of life, it's even less attractive. The Belgians weren't half as insufferable when they were the German army's preferred shortcut to France. For the purposes of the preceding racist generalisation, I should explain that I'm semi-Belgian, but I'm happy to apply the same point to many countries with which I lack consanguinity. At Friday's Olympics ceremony, for example, I noticed the team from liberated Afghanistan drew far more enthusiastic cheers from the Athens crowd than the team of the country that actually liberated them. Fair enough. But what then is the practical value of their professed support for the Afghans? At the time of the Afghan liberation, a poll found only 5.2 per cent of Greeks supported the war. A wealthy continent liberated from the burdens of military expenditure is also liberated to a large degree from reality. Poor peoples have no choice but to live in the real world: if a drought wipes out their crops, they starve. Likewise, rich, powerful nations have traditionally required great vigilance to maintain their wealth and power. But Europe increasingly resembles those insulated celebrities being shuttled around town from one humanitarian gala to another � like Barbra Streisand flying in by private jet to discuss excessive energy consumption with President Clinton. Just as elderly rockers and Hollywood divas are largely free from the tedious responsibilities of rich industrialists or supermarket magnates � payroll costs and plant upgrades � so the EU can flaunt its "concerns" about the world and leave the logistics to others. The US security umbrella, along with the Eurovision Song Contest, was really the prototype pan-European institution. The Americans helped build a continent in which you could sing Waterloo rather than fight it, and, if in their excessive generosity they accelerated an inclination to softness and decadence, well, it's not their problem. For the wars of the future, it makes sense to have a mobile presence using old colonial bases in the Horn of Africa or old Soviet bases in Central Asia as temporary homes. The EU, meanwhile, has challenges of its own, and in the coming clash between a shrinking secularised Euro-elite and its swelling Islamist populations it's not clear whether, as James Baker would say, America has a dog in that fight. The only question for the Continent is whether it's over over there in a more profound sense than those singing doughboys ever contemplated.

It is a good idea, when troops have been stationed in places that were long gone out of trouble. I think it was about time, though it's not SO good if it takes away from South Korea, though I read those will stay put.. at least a good quanity.

good move imo

i think you should withdraw a lot of more troops from the middle east too. would be a better move anti-terror wise....

anyone for a little partisan action on this one? 'cause thats all i've heard here in the states about this sad.

solid decision for the new century. you can thank the mighty U.S. Navy in part for this.


as for the troops in the Middle East, i have a strange feeling that a signifigant percentage (30-40%) will be drawn back either to Kuwait or stateside in the next few months. it's a long limb to be out on, i know, but thats what my gut tells me.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo anyone for a little partisan action on this one? 'cause thats all i've heard here in the states about this sad. solid decision for the new century. you can thank the mighty U.S. Navy in part for this. as for the troops in the Middle East, i have a strange feeling that a signifigant percentage (30-40%) will be drawn back either to Kuwait or stateside in the next few months. it's a long limb to be out on, i know, but thats what my gut tells me.

The thing that's left to do, is to stop overworking the allready overworked troops.

Great move long overdue. I dont think we need such a massive presense in Japan either, although I guess it is considered a quick reaction force to any action by either North Korea on Seoul or China on Taiwan. I also think we should move our troops out of the Koreas, people want us to stop meddling in world affairs and this would be the first step to let the world be self defensive.

I would like to see some charts or graphs on how much money would be saved yearly by such moves.

i'm not a grunt, much respect for those that are, but the "troops" have been sitting on their helmets for a while prior to Iraq. again, i say this with the utmost repect. You have to look at troop readiness from a commanders perspective and forget what you know about real-world (civilian) needs. a commanders worst nightmare is a soldier or sailor that has the most advanced weapons and training at his/her disposal, everything needed to overcome the objective, and not be able to fight on the battlefield when called upon to do so when war has been declared. one of the goals as a General or Admiral is to get as many battle-hardened, seasoned, senior veterans of real-world conflict within his ranks to support and command the younger and inexperienced personel for the next generation of conflict.

does this apply to Iraq? yes i'm afraid it does, in ways you might not imagine. i'm not bragging when i say that the U.S. is the best in the world at it.

there is a saying in the military. military life is excruciatingly long periods of utter boredom, interupted by moments of sheer terror.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'm not a grunt, much respect for those that are, but the "troops" have been sitting on their helmets for a while prior to Iraq. again, i say this with the utmost repect. You have to look at troop readiness from a commanders perspective and forget what you know about real-world (civilian) needs. a commanders worst nightmare is a soldier or sailor that has the most advanced weapons and training at his/her disposal, everything needed to overcome the objective, and not be able to fight on the battlefield when called upon to do so when war has been declared. one of the goals as a General or Admiral is to get as many battle-hardened, seasoned, senior veterans of real-world conflict within his ranks to support and command the younger and inexperienced personel for the next generation of conflict. does this apply to Iraq? yes i'm afraid it does, in ways you might not imagine. i'm not bragging when i say that the U.S. is the best in the world at it. there is a saying in the military. military life is excruciatingly long periods of utter boredom, interupted by moments of sheer terror.

I think that if your looking to enter the military, this should give you the best push!!! ..

Come on.. I have friends in Iraq, and thats not entirely true. They are told something, such as.. "your going to Iraq for only 6 months".. BLAAAAAAAH.. they go there to stay for who knows.. and about half the people there, get into the army because of their offers and incentives, not because they really want to. Messed up isnt it?

It's about time we did this.

I never understood why we've been protecting Germany from a non-existent foreign adversary for the last 15 years.

It would seem prudent to keep some force presence in East Asia, however, given 1) North Korea, 2) the burgeoning terrorist movement in places like Phillipines, Indonesia

quote:

i think you should withdraw a lot of more troops from the middle east too. would be a better move anti-terror wise....

Solid logic

A couple points on this. One, playing pure defense means sometimes you'll be too late. What good is 'homeland security' if theres already a nuke sitting in one of our harbors? Oh great, we've detected a nuke thats already on our territory....in a massive population centre....

Second, the people who are actually crazy enough to plan mass murder, and kill themselves in the process, don't care whether our troops are located here or there.

the 3-11 Madrid bombings were planned long before the Iraqi invasion. The terrorists best friends, the Europeans, are having a hell of a time cracking all the terrorist circles operating throughout, particularly in France and Germany, 2 countries who have pursued policies that could be described as sympathetic to the Islamist cause.
Even after the 3-11 bombings and Zapatero's election, the terrorist cell responsible for the bombing was planning more attacks until they blew themselves up in a shootout with Spanish police.

Its not ours or your policies they hate, its us. probably 90% of Europeans don't get this, and perhaps 40% of Americans don't. What type of wake up call will be required? Or will a massive attack obviously be Bush's fault?

quote:

Originally posted by tupsox Solid logic A couple points on this. One, playing pure defense means sometimes you'll be too late. What good is 'homeland security' if theres already a nuke sitting in one of our harbors? Oh great, we've detected a nuke thats already on our territory....in a massive population centre....

defence is not only about direct defence, but also about indirect defence. a great majority of the arabs are pissed of cause of your presence in that region, if you could decrease it, less people would be ngry at you and therfore al quaida would also have a more difficult way of recruiting members.

quote:

Second, the people who are actually crazy enough to plan mass murder, and kill themselves in the process, don't care whether our troops are located here or there.

same point as above.

quote:

the 3-11 Madrid bombings were planned long before the Iraqi invasion. The terrorists best friends, the Europeans, are having a hell of a time cracking all the terrorist circles operating throughout, particularly in France and Germany, 2 countries who have pursued policies that could be described as sympathetic to the Islamist cause. Even after the 3-11 bombings and Zapatero's election, the terrorist cell responsible for the bombing was planning more attacks until they blew themselves up in a shootout with Spanish police.

Source that they planned the madrid bombings before spain planned on joining the iraq war?

quote:

Its not ours or your policies they hate, its us. probably 90% of Europeans don't get this, and perhaps 40% of Americans don't. What type of wake up call will be required? Or will a massive attack obviously be Bush's fault?

again, proof? i honestly don't think they just started to hate you for no reason whatsoever. perhaps the most fundamentalistic leaders will never change the opinion about the US, but they will have far more problems recruiting new troops for a war against you if you don't cause any trouble for them.

quote:

anyone for a little partisan action on this one?

Some actions don't always call for partisan viewpoints. Some actions are just the right actions, regardless of which side of the aisle you sit on.

To me this is certainly one of those situations.

its hard for me to decide whether this is a smart, or otherly dumb decission the USA is making in redeploying troops.

Historically, all ancient empires had large garrisons and naval bases around there sphere of influences. These bases kept them strong, and typically prevented any uprising or trouble from the areas of control.

When economic or political reform struck, and these bases were dismantel, the empires were soon lose much of their might, wealth, and power within a few decades.

The ancient Athenians prove a great example of this with their league of Delphi. However, they were much more clever. Not only did they get the approval of their fellow 'allies' to surrender their security to the league (which was run by Athens), but the Athenians also got them to pay tribute for this. So in esence, the allies were funding the Athenian army instead of their own. This kept them in great might for many years.

Our situation today is slightly reversed. The USA has gotten most the world to forefit militaries by simply telling them they don't need one anymore, and that the USA will pay for their military expenses. Being that the USA is in action a benevolent nation, and a good caretaker, it isn't outrages for nations to agree to this sort of arrangement.

Now because of economic, or political concerns, or maybe even a belief that simply technology has let us overcome, the USA is thinking of voiding this arrangement.

And thats the scary part. Without the USA world-wide security garuntee, you will get more nations building up their militaries, although this might be a good thing for a short period (it will defintely make the world more appreciative of USA's bargin arrangment to them), in the long run this might not be as pleasent. I've never known of an idle European army... And we've all know what European armies are capable of.

If this realignment is simply the result of new technical achievement, whereby the USA is still able to garuntee the same security to Europe and the rest of the world, I have no problem. However, if this is a realignment for purely other reasons, then I'd have to be strictly against it.

Simply, I don't care how much Europe bickers and moans about American care taking of world affairs, where as the author of the article clearly illustrates this is the inverse proportion of their ability to do something about it. I'll let Europe bicker and moan any day of the week, so long as it will mantain the global hegemony afforded to us by the USA.

When the USA loses such hegemony, it will simply not be as good a world we live in as today - and that goes for the entire world, not just the Americans.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX Come on.. I have friends in Iraq, and thats not entirely true. They are told something, such as.. "your going to Iraq for only 6 months".. BLAAAAAAAH.. they go there to stay for who knows.. and about half the people there, get into the army because of their offers and incentives, not because they really want to. Messed up isnt it?

your right also. most people in the military don't realize what they may be getting into during peace time. thats another subject altogether.

i'm refering to a point of view that inolves a commander's strategic role in preparing his troops. a harsh reality that i was trying to imply is that prior to Iraq/Afganistan/greater Middle East we had a stagnant posture that involved all the high tech training and simulated scenarios imaginable. training that only prepares a soldier or sailor for so much. there is no substitute for real-world conflict. read what you will into that and your probably right in some ways. therein lies the harsh reality.

Well, despite the consensus here that the troop withdrawal is a good thing, Lurch can't keep his mouth shut.

quote:

Kerry to blast Bush troop plans BBC News 18 August 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3575830.stm Military strategy is a key plank of both presidential campaigns The Democratic challenger for the White House is set to criticise President George W Bush's decision to recall about 70,000 US troops based abroad. In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Cincinnati, Ohio, John Kerry is expected to say the decision may hurt US security, Kerry aides have said. Mr Bush announced the move in a speech before the same audience on Monday. Ohio is seen as a key battleground state and correspondents say Mr Kerry is keen to win the support of veterans. 'Alienating' allies Mr Bush told the veteran he planned to redeploy or recall up to 70,000 troops in Asia and Europe - many in former Cold War hotspots - so they are ready to face "the challenges of the future". But Mr Kerry will tell the VFW convention on Wednesday the plans risk alienating US allies at a time when the support of such allies is needed in the global fight against al-Qaeda, a senior campaign official told the Associated Press news agency. Military strategy and readiness is a key point of combat for the Bush and Kerry campaigns in the run-up to US presidential elections in November, correspondents say. When he addressed the veterans on Monday, Mr Bush slammed what he described as Mr Kerry's plans to reduce force numbers in Iraq during the first six months of his presidency, should he win.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus its hard for me to decide whether this is a smart, or otherly dumb decission the USA is making in redeploying troops. Historically, all ancient empires had large garrisons and naval bases around there sphere of influences. These bases kept them strong, and typically prevented any uprising or trouble from the areas of control. When economic or political reform struck, and these bases were dismantel, the empires were soon lose much of their might, wealth, and power within a few decades. The ancient Athenians prove a great example of this with their league of Delphi. However, they were much more clever. Not only did they get the approval of their fellow 'allies' to surrender their security to the league (which was run by Athens), but the Athenians also got them to pay tribute for this. So in esence, the allies were funding the Athenian army instead of their own. This kept them in great might for many years. Our situation today is slightly reversed. The USA has gotten most the world to forefit militaries by simply telling them they don't need one anymore, and that the USA will pay for their military expenses. Being that the USA is in action a benevolent nation, and a good caretaker, it isn't outrages for nations to agree to this sort of arrangement. Now because of economic, or political concerns, or maybe even a belief that simply technology has let us overcome, the USA is thinking of voiding this arrangement. And thats the scary part. Without the USA world-wide security garuntee, you will get more nations building up their militaries, although this might be a good thing for a short period (it will defintely make the world more appreciative of USA's bargin arrangment to them), in the long run this might not be as pleasent. I've never known of an idle European army... And we've all know what European armies are capable of. If this realignment is simply the result of new technical achievement, whereby the USA is still able to garuntee the same security to Europe and the rest of the world, I have no problem. However, if this is a realignment for purely other reasons, then I'd have to be strictly against it. Simply, I don't care how much Europe bickers and moans about American care taking of world affairs, where as the author of the article clearly illustrates this is the inverse proportion of their ability to do something about it. I'll let Europe bicker and moan any day of the week, so long as it will mantain the global hegemony afforded to us by the USA. When the USA loses such hegemony, it will simply not be as good a world we live in as today - and that goes for the entire world, not just the Americans.

While this may be true to some extent, in previous times empires didn't care what other people thought, they just owned land around the world. In this time, people get outraged when you are in their land but they also want it both ways and want protection in their time of need. It doesn't work this way however so you either want us there or you want us out.

About nations building armies. Well, I think treaties such as NATO prevents a lot of this as one country attacked would be seen as an attack on all and no one wants superpowers allied with a country you attack . So I dont think there will be a great arms race, aside from teh countries who have beed doing so already for years, India, Pakistan, NK, China etc.

We all know that 36,000 troops in South Korea if anything happened would mean nothing. They would probably be obliterated in a matter of days, being outnumbered over 100 to 1 as they are on the front lines. They only serve as a trigger point deterrent in case NK attack and the US would have to be in the war as it would an attack on our own troops. To me they are unneccesary as in a war they would be just cannon fodder before any real force could arrive.

Well, Kerry, been the on that same croud that Bush was just days ago.. Kerry got a Standing Ovation, I think that means something?

Today, Kerry blasts the President's decision on the troops. But hey! Wait a minute! What did Kerry say two weeks ago? Let's go to the tape...

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Today, Kerry blasts the President's decision on the troops. But hey! Wait a minute! What did Kerry say two weeks ago? Let's go to the tape...

is he chasing his tail, or is his tail chasing him.

what came first? the chiken or the egg.

whos on first. whats on second. i don't knows on third.

In an ongoing war against terrorism, we do not need troops stationed overseas against no imminent threat. We deploy them when needed instead. Bringing the troops back from Europe and some from Korea makes sense given the fact we can retaliate against any threat within 24 hours. Troops on the ground generally takes more time, but no more time than if they were stationed overseas.


[[[smoke]]]

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape In an ongoing war against terrorism, we do not need troops stationed overseas against no imminent threat. We deploy them when needed instead. Bringing the troops back from Europe and some from Korea makes sense given the fact we can retaliate against any threat within 24 hours. Troops on the ground generally takes more time, but no more time than if they were stationed overseas. [[[smoke]]]

I believe Europe is quiet, and Asia is quiet for the very reason that the USA has troops there. Had the middle east enjoyed the presence of a USA garrison, this war on terrorism would never have existed.

Although there is certainly no danger, and apparently no threat, warranting these troops there, I fear withdrawing them will welcome these new uncertainties to these vacant virgin grounds in the years to come.



...

Although Kerry is obviously flip-flopping and doing this for political reasons, I have to agree with him on this issue after further thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I believe Europe is quiet, and Asia is quiet for the very reason that the USA has troops there. Had the middle east enjoyed the presence of a USA garrison, this war on terrorism would never have existed. Although there is certainly no danger, and apparently no threat, warranting these troops there, I fear withdrawing them will welcome these new uncertainties to these vacant virgin grounds in the years to come. ... Although Kerry is obviously flip-flopping and doing this for political reasons, I have to agree with him on this issue after further thought.

HeH, you finally gave it a thought!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX HeH, you finally gave it a thought!

it wasn't easy. But when examining all of history, I never saw a good thing happen when a garrison was pulled.

Always years after there would be trouble...

If they want our troops there to protect them then they should be the ones paying the bill, not our taxpayers. If they say they don't need us then lets get out and spend our money where it is needed, here at home.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape In an ongoing war against terrorism, we do not need troops stationed overseas against no imminent threat. We deploy them when needed instead. Bringing the troops back from Europe and some from Korea makes sense given the fact we can retaliate against any threat within 24 hours. Troops on the ground generally takes more time, but no more time than if they were stationed overseas. [[[smoke]]]

Your smoking Too Much!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus I believe Europe is quiet, and Asia is quiet for the very reason that the USA has troops there. Had the middle east enjoyed the presence of a USA garrison, this war on terrorism would never have existed. Although there is certainly no danger, and apparently no threat, warranting these troops there, I fear withdrawing them will welcome these new uncertainties to these vacant virgin grounds in the years to come. ... Although Kerry is obviously flip-flopping and doing this for political reasons, I have to agree with him on this issue after further thought.

your right on the diminished threat but our new posture will reflect not only the changing threat, but the way we have changed to defend against a threat. we have become faster, and much more effective projecting the power as oppsed to 20 or more years ago where we embedded power. all branches of the military have embraced flexibility over sheer numbers. this mindset is evidenced in the current restructuring IMO.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.