Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

This is a great post Sebastian. I heard and watched Wesley Clark today talking about this exact issue for the Kerry campaign. I find it ironic that Kerry thinks we need to pull out troops where we are fighting in Iraq but we need 115,000 troops to continue the occupation from 1945 in Germany.

Our bases in Europe are a kind of military welfare program for rich European nations.

Advisers to Democratic presidential rival John Kerry warned the plan could make the US more vulnerable.

“This ill-conceived move and its timing seem politically motivated rather than designed to strengthen our national security,” said retired general Wesley Clark.

“As we face a global war on terror with al-Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces,” said Mr Clark, a former supreme commander of all NATO forces in Europe.

…Mr Bush’s plan does not include the 125,000 US troops now in Iraq and nearly 20,000 in Afghanistan - opening him up to further criticism from Democrats.

Mr Kerry has said he would “significantly” cut US troop levels in Iraq within a year. Mr Bush said his rival’s campaign pledge to do so “sends the wrong signal to the enemy”. thescotsman.com

I despise the Iraq war and Bush policies, but I agree with pulling troops out of Europe. The cold war is over, and our presence in Europe reeks of U.S. imperialism.

Instapundit had a link to this blog entry by a german blogger (I think):

But…but… this means job losses in the tens of thousands in Germany!! You can’t do this! Germany is broke by all definitions and needs help, not another devastating blow to the job market! We’re already struggling to sustain our 6-week-annual vacations and the 35-hour week, not to forget our generous welfare state - we simply can’t afford even more job losses! We need US taxpayer dollars to keep our standard of socialism!

Do you know no decency, Sir? I mean, Germany had done so much to support the US fight terrorism in Iraq, like…er…like… - well, that’s obvious, anyway. Don’t Gerhard Schroeder and Joschka “I am not convinced” Fischer deserve better treatment for their unwavering support, even in difficult times? And didn’t the German population always show great sympathy for your decisions to go to war against terrorism?

…Think twice about your decision, Mr. President!

Otherwise we might turn to France to guarantee our security in the future. They’d sure be more than willing to risk their soldier’s lives to defend Germany.
medienkritik

I’ve got mixed feelings about this. I do think its time we got these guys back on their own militarily, but there is the problem of sending the wrong signals to the terrorists or others out there that the reshuffling is due to Guess-which-war in guess-what-country.

Hopefully, also, this doesn’t compromise our response time on sending out our military forces. It’d be an awful shame if Bush hobbled us just to get more troops for his Anti-“Islamofascist” crusade.

Oh, just a thought on that, and there’s a reason I use that pointed term at the end, There’s a concept called “the umma” Which is supposed to represent the totality of the Muslim Brethren in the world. Koran says they’re supposed to stick together. You generate enough resentment among these people, and you could very easily see an intensification of tensions between us and the Middle East if our attitudes veer towards picking on Arab and Muslim countries pre-emptively on a habitual basis.

It should worry if only because terrorists nations could use it to stymie or demonize our approach to them.

Sebastian, troop realignment toward current strategic is a good thing. In fact it is a forced act by the Iraq quagmire. This country does not want a draft, and with 140,000 troops tied down in Iraq with withdrawal in sight by this administration, with national guard and reservists activated, we have little choice but to perform a strategic realignment freeing up troops. We must free up troops because another hot bed of conflict could arise at anytime in a new location, and to date, we have not been prepared for it from a military manpower position.

One fly in the ointment. A slow phased realignment means years before we have a sufficient ready response capability again. I don’t understand this?

I am glad that our forces in Europe gave the EU the time it needed to focus on the political and economic foundations of the EU formation. That was a very important role our troops served in Europe. However, our needs being what they are, and the EU being sufficiently well developed, they are capable now of filling the void left by our withdrawal.

The same can be said for Japan now that they have undertaken to militarize again. However, Newt Gingrich testified this week before the committee looking at 9/11 report implementations, where he cautioned all to not lose sight of the future threats in a rush to address the current ones.

He highlighted the Chinese a couple of times. He did not specify whether he was talking about Taiwan’s defense in this regard or possible future Chinese expansionist moves. But, his advice was sound. Russia is still not stable. Asia largely is for the time being. But, given our deep dependence upon markets in Asia to sustain our economic situation, and an apparent inability of Japan and China to leave their hostile past behind, the wisdom of withdrawing our military presence from Asia, or even significantly downsizing it, may actually become impetus for new anti-American interest moves to be made in Asia.

On the one hand, it is good to reestablish our ready to go military deployment capability. On the other, could we be trading stability and deterrence for a rapid deployment capability. Stability and deterrence are far preferable to acting on hostilies begun. Gingrich holds a large number of views I disagree with philosophically, but, I think his advice before the committee this week is important and valuable in planning the new shape of our military stategic capabilities, not only for current crises, but, for both avoiding future ones as well as being able to respond to them.

Force reductions and realignments have been occuring in Europe ever since the Soviet Union imploded. Installations have been closed and the troops either sent to other bases in the area or elsewhere. That is as it should be. By the way, the same process has been happening to military bases here in the States. Just ask some of the (former) merchants in the towns and cities that have felt the impact of the sudden population loss.

What makes this a big deal is that it’s an election year. Democrats are obliged to scream about it because the other side is in charge of making it happen. If Kerry was in charge, he would most likely be doing the same thing. Or maybe he wouldn’t. Or then again, maybe he would and then he wouldn’t.

Even with the previous reductions, I believe this move has to happen. We have been picking up a big part of the defense tab for a few nations who don’t especially want us around. Not wanting us there is certainly their right but draining our defense budget while refusing to support us when we need them is not.

The focus of today’s military is increasingly on rapid deployment. There is no good reason to have thousands of troops tied down in Germany when they could arrive there in a matter of hours or days if the need ever arose.

It’s time for Gerhard Schröder to put his money where his mouth is and for our troops to go where they’re more needed and better appreciated.

NOTOTH-
They’re not tied down. They can go anywhere they want to, and in immediate region do it cheaper and faster than troops coming from stateside.

I’m just hoping this doesn’t send the wrong kind of signal to the people in the region, or to our enemies overseas. Bush should have learned by now that these situations have sensitive considerations.

Reducing our military overheads is a good thing. Since WWII, Europe and Japan have prospered by saddling American taxpayers with most defense costs. Working American’s cannot afford to police the world nor can we trust China, Putin or Bush. But, even Bush can do something right.

I have to agree with the President on this one. But I’m just not sure why he has to do it a week after Kerry said he’ll start replacing US troops in Iraq - and just a few months from the end of his presidency. If it’s such a good idea, why didn’t he do it four years ago? Doing it now just makes it reek of politics.

It’s time for Gerhard Schröder to put his money where his mouth is and for our troops to go where they’re more needed and better appreciated.

It’s interersting to extrapolate that kind of thinking. If we encourage Germany, France, and Japan to strengthen their militaries, ours becomes comparatively weaker.

Right now none of our allies can make a significant military move without US assistance. What happens when they can?

I am of two minds about this announcement. Having served in the military in Europe during the time the Soviet Union was imploding, I can see the need to bring the troops home and leave but a token force in their place. Europe boarders are largely porous now and Russia present little threat. It will take time to bring them home because Army and Air Force personnel were allowed to bring tier families with. It will take time to outfit U.S. bases to accommodate that many soldiers and airman and their families, not to mention the support infrastructure that must be bolstered.

As far as Korea is concerned; bad move. The country is on the verge of sometime and it isn’t good; pulling out U.S. troops at a time when the North Koreans have signaled by spotlight that they are developing nuclear weapons is just foolish. We have already started moving troops back from the DMC, but the North has a million men under arms, and at least that many artillery pieces. Invading the South would be a small detail; just loping a few rounds over the DMC would be enough to upset the world economy. After all South Korea has the world’s fifth largest economy and is a center for steel, automobiles, electronics, textiles, and shipbuilding. And strategically its position vis-à-vis Japan cannot be discounted or ignored; you know Japan, the country with the world’s third largest economy.

It is rumored the North Korea is soon to be in possession of six old Russian missile submarines (my guess is Delta class SSBN’s), and according to Jane’s Defense Weekly is working on an SLBM with a range of some 1000 nautical miles. If left unchecked a nuclear capable North Korea would destabilize the entire Pacific Ocean basin, from the Bearing Sea to Australia, from the Asian landmass to California.

Funny how is was imperative for use to invade Iraq because Saddam MAY have had WMD, but the other two countries that constitute the so-called Axis of Evil, that have confirmed that they have nuclear weapons programs underway, we leave well enough alone. And instead of putting more troops into South Korea as a deterrent and incentive to negotiate, we pull them out. Make sense to anyone?

Right now none of our allies can make a significant military move without US assistance. What happens when they can? Posted by American Pundit at August 17, 2004 12:11 PM

Isn’t that what the left wants? (NOTE: This bit of political sarcasm is intended solely for the entertaintment of the reader and is not necessarily a statement of fact. If subsequent polls show this to be erroneously unfunny, I may change my response at that time. Or later. Or not.)

Why would President Bush announce this plan now? Because it makes sense now. This has been a long time in the works. He could not have done it four year ago, because it required thinking through and consultations on the working level. Politics has little to do with the timing. I would assume that John Kerry would broadly agree with what Bush has done and if he does not maybe he shouldn’t be president. We can’t put our policies on hold because they might negatively impact John Kerry’s White House aspirations.

As for the European becoming relatively stronger – good. The biggest challenge to the Atlantic Alliance is Euro weakness. It encourages the Europeans to act in craven ways and encourages the U.S. to ignore allies that can bring little to the table. Such an unequal relationship engenders resentment all around. My fear as that the European, as the EU, will never be able to develop a deployable force and that as European nation states are integrated more closely into the EU, neither will they. That leaves us the protector of last resort. They ancient Greeks called this a hegemon and hegemony is never popular. The Greeks also recognized the ironic twist that such a relationship more often resulted from the weakness and perfidiousness of allies than from the overt desire of hegemon to dominate.

Shrub needs to come up with something after gumming up the works for almost 4 years. This is his best idea yet, better than going to Mars, though I wish he would.

To all:

Every move that John Kerry or George Bush make from here on out will smack of politics. Its the system, so either change it or get used to it. But for Pete’s sake, quit whining about it.

Judge the idea for what it is, not for the possible underlying reasons for it. Even Bayviking, with her inherent hatred for Bush, says its a good idea. So if it is done for political purposes, so what??

I recall Republicans who got so mad at Clinton for co-opting the Republican agenda. And yes, of course we all know that he did that. As far as I was concerned, I only cared THAT he did what I wanted him to do, not about his reasons for doing it. In the same way, I dont give a hoot about my son’s “reason” for mowing the lawn. I only care that he does it.

So it is with troop realignment. If you think its a good idea, then be happy. If not, then be sad. But who cares about the why.

DMC = DMZ, sorry for the mistype guys and gals…

joe, I said it was a good idea. I also said the timing reeks of politics. You agreed on both those points. What’s the problem?

If you think its a good idea, then be happy. If not, then be sad. But who cares about the why.

I love the old ‘ends justify the means’ argument. If I had a billion dollars for every country Bush invaded using that argument…

John, thanks for the background on hegemony, I think most of us will agree on that.

As for the European becoming relatively stronger – good.

Be careful what you wish for. France, Spain, and Britain all have ties to the Carribean and South America. Most European countries still have close political ties to their former colonies all over the globe. Are we ready to cede the Mediterranean back to the British, French, and Italians? Are we ready to lose influence in Africa, Asia, and Europe?

A stronger EU sounds good, but as John points out, it ultimately means the end of our hegemony - the bad and the good.

A. Pundit, America can act like a control freak over the world like it has been and go bankrupt for its effort with expenditures which have a net negative return on investment, or it can concede that ultimately, how other people live and manage their nations, is up to them, and not us, provided they make no offensive designs upon our nation or people.

Fifty nine years after WWII, it is time to let Europe grow their own self-defense. Asia however, needs watching and some measure of rapid deployment capable of protecting American interests, as it is full of nations in transition and burgeoning new political and econmic systems which are not yet stable and therefore, not yet non-threatening to American interests. Gingrich is absolutely right on this point.

China is a real threat with their WMD’s and massive trade surplus!

China has repeatedly threatened Taiwan and threatened to nuke LA during the last Taiwanese election, yet the trade does on! Clinton poopooed the threat, as he did when the CIA was exposed for importing crack cocaine!

I have always believed that our international presence, whether we’re talking about trade, military involvement or whatever, should be based almost entirely on what is in our own national interest. If it doesn’t pass that test, then we should think long and hard before we become involved at all.

I suppose some would argue that we should be as concerned about others as we are about ourselves. Nonsense. I think we’ve created some of our worst predicaments when we tried to fix someone else’s problems that had little or no direct impact on us. I’m not making an argument for isolationism, but I think selective isolationism is most reasonable.

Bush is constantly accused of being involved in the Mid-East because of oil. Well, I certainly hope that we’re there to stabilize our oil supply, or for some equally critical purpose like having an in-theater launching point for the continuing war against international murderers. I’d hate to think we’re making this commitment solely because we want to make some group or another feel good about itself.

Whatever our publicly stated reasons are for stationing our military in other countries, I really hope that the bottom line is always that it will ultimately help keep us strong and safe. There is no other good reason.

Thanks NOTOTH. Finally, some sense coming from the right, rather than just regurgitated spin.

I think (hope actually) that energy security was the core reason for our intervention in Iraq. Our current energy policy dictates it, and it’s too bad Bush felt he had to package it in a lie. The invasion was brilliant, but Bush botched the follow-up. That’s going to cost him the presidency.

I also think an energy policy that forces us to stabilize the Middle East is a mistake. Kerry’s energy policy is the main reason I support him

America can act like a control freak over the world like it has been and go bankrupt for its effort with expenditures which have a net negative return on investment…

David, I’m just pointing out the consequences of a militarily strong EU. The erosion of our ability to influence global events will alarm some. Others won’t care.

After I posted that last one, I ran across this article,

Critics of U.S. global dominance should pause and consider the alternative. If the United States retreats from its hegemonic role, who would supplant it? Not Europe, not China, not the Muslim world—and certainly not the United Nations. Unfortunately, the alternative to a single superpower is not a multilateral utopia, but the anarchic nightmare of a new Dark Age.

Maybe, maybe not. But it’s something to consider before we make up our minds to relenquish our hegemony.

> Bush is constantly accused of being involved
> in the Mid-East because of oil. Well, I
> certainly hope that we’re there to stabilize
> our oil supply, or for some equally critical
> purpose like having an in-theater launching
> point for the continuing war against
> international murderers.

NOTOTH, I agree that this reason for invading Iraq is the only one that makes rational sense. And yet it’s the only reason Bush hasn’t actually hoisted up the flagpole yet. He’s tried all the other reasons except this one.

The fear, of course, is that the American people will realize that this policy is essentially a textbook example of Empire. I just wish Bush would say so, so at least we could stop arguing over trivial issues like rusty old sarin canisters and Saddam’s gifts to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

-Cf

Pulling out of South Korea might be the best part of this idea (of troop withdrawal). Though NK probably has deeper motives than their demands in our negotiations over their nuclear capacity suggest, one of the primary demands is an assurance of nonaggression on our part. The 12,000 US troops currently staged in SK is a nice little symbolic deterrent but if it can help with NK abandoning their nuclear program it would be an easy price to pay. I think the worst of this is the fact that our administration didn’t use this as a bargaining chip with NK. Nonetheless, we can still portray it as a good faith measure in negotiations. Who knows, maybe they already have, though I would expect them to advertise it if they had.

I do find the timing of the announcement politically motivated. At best, it serves no purpose in our foreign relations and means nothing substantive to anyone until 2006. It would have been more prudent to hold the announcement until our next administration is decided and more specifics are available. The software industry calls this kind of thing “vaporware.”