Troop Realignments

[Coda]

Our President announced a troop redeployment that will move about 70,000 troops out of Europe and Asia over the next 5 years. John Kerry disapproves of this change feeling that it will weaken our global position and reduce our national security.

I'm all with GWB on this one. I'll use Turkey as an example. We currently have a couple of bases over there with thousands of troops. After the first Iraq war, this country was the main base from which the no fly zone was enfoced. We spent billions on infastructure and poured massive capital into their country.

Turkey wouldn't let us use their country at the start of the 2nd Iraq war. They led us to believe we could use their country, but pulled out at the last minute.

So I agree with GWB. Old Europe (Germany has the most troops stationed) does not like the USA. Lets get out of there and bring our troops home.

Agree? Disagree?

[Chris D]

Sure. Let's just insulate ourselves even more. Bunker USA!
I might take him more seriously if this weren't a cynical campaign-timed stunt.
Come on home from that cushy Korean gig, and we'll ship your butt to Iraq! If we don't stop-loss you ass first....

[Root Doctor]

It would be more accurate to say that "Old" Europe doesn't like this administration. As recently as 9/12/01, Le Monde ran a headline that said, "We're All Americans Now." The article that accompanied it began, "In this tragic moment, when words seem so inadequate to express the shock people feel, the first thing that comes to mind is this: We are all Americans! We are all New Yorkers, just as surely as John F. Kennedy declared himself to be a Berliner in 1962 when he visited Berlin. Indeed, just as in the gravest moments of our own history, how can we not feel profound solidarity with those people, that country, the United States, to whom we are so close and to whom we owe our freedom, and therefore our solidarity?"

It takes a particular kind of diplomatic acumen to turn the French from vigorous US allies to cheese eating surrender monkeys in less than year. Job well done, gentlemen.

As for the redeployment, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Coda,

Your thinking on this matter is simplistic. Basically you're saying we should "punish" nations who did not support us on Iraq by pulling our troops out. In Europe that's hardly punishment because the host nation supplies a big part of the funds that supports our troops (and their dependents).

"Old Europe" didn't support us with the Iraq War, they did support us when we invaded Afghanistan, so it's not a matter of "like" or "dislike". They just didn't like the idea of invading Iraq. S. Korea supported the invasion but Bush is talking about pulling troops out of there despite the prescence of one of the "Axis of Evil" countries just across the DMZ.

Saying all of the above I think it's time to bring a major part of our troops overseas back, expecially in Europe. There is no Soviet threat anymore and that's the reason why the troops were there in the first place.

Asia may be different because of N. Korea and China.

[Monte Smith]

There are good reasons to applaud this redeployment of forces, which has been much talked about for a year or two. Whether you want to punish Old Europe or not (and I think you'd have to be pretty optimistic about an alliance to believe that a headline in Le Monde matters more than French intransigence on military issues going back decades), the nations of New Europe seem to be keener and more cooperative with the US than France and Germany are. Also, those nations developing economies will offer new challenges and opportunities to our forces. At the same time, many old bases will be reserved in Western Europe. Geopolitically, I think it's a good idea to let France and Germany remember that their security is being achieved on our dime.

As to Korea, a drawing away of forces--both down the peninsula and off of it--strengthens our deterrent against a nuclear-arming North, it does not weaken it. I doubt the North Koreans understand much about morality or democracy, but I bet they do understand military might and our military might is lessened by having hundreds or thousands of sitting ducks parked under Northern artillery. We can fight North Korea far more effectively from any of our dozen carrier groups than we can from fixed positions at ground zero.

[Root Doctor]

Monte, how about some examples of "French intransigence on military issues going back decades?"

[Monte Smith]

Easy, Root. Let's forget recent headaches and select a couple of examples decades apart:

At the creation of the Atlantic alliance, de Gaulle refused to knit France into full military membership in NATO.

In the 1980s, Mitterand refused right of fly-over for UK-based aircraft heading for bombing runs in Libya.

[Dr Dave]

See, Monte has always thought the French are a bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Face it, Monte: We had a lot of international goodwill, and the Bush Administration threw it all away just as fast as possible.

I'd guess there isn't much reason for U.S. troop presence in Western Europe anymore. More to the point, U.S. forces are stretched in Iraq, so it probably makes sense to deploy them where they are most needed.

The really stupid move is to pull troops out of South Korea without getting some concession in return from North Korea. I watched Rumsfeld tie himself in knots last night defending this move. He kept saying that thanks to high technology, troop levels didn't matter anymore. Unfortunately, nobody told the North Koreans that. They've wanted U.S. troops off the Korean peninsula for as long as there has been a North Korea. Now, at a time when we're trying to get leverage with them so they'll stop their nuclear weapons programs, we're giving them exactly what they want in return for exactly nothing. This isn't a colossal foreign policy blunder, but it is certainly some kind of blunder, and Rumsfeld can talk about "thinking 20th Century thoughts" until the cows come home and it won't make any difference.

As to Coda's original premise, Darryl pretty much got it. Being able to house troops overseas was always a privilege granted to America. Imagine if it had been the U.S. that was wrecked during World War II. Imagine what it would be like to have British military bases, say, outside of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Imagine their tanks ripping up our roads, their jets flying low over our houses? Would you be grateful for their presence? Not for very long, I don't think.

[Monte Smith]

What concession from the North Koreans would you have demanded before we move our soldiers out from under their missiles and make it easier for us to destroy their military industry without American casualties? Haha! I'd like to see you at the negotiation table. "We're going to put you into a world of problems, but before we do that, we'd like you to help us out."

[Root Doctor]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Easy, Root. Let's forget recent headaches and select a couple of examples decades apart:

At the creation of the Atlantic alliance, de Gaulle refused to knit France into full military membership in NATO.

de Gaulle was a complicated character who envisioned a different geopolitical struggle than the US when he returned to office in the '50s. Still, he did support the US in a number of important military events, such as the Cuban missile crisis. I believe France rejoined the council of Nato defence ministers and its military committee under Chirac.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

In the 1980s, Mitterand refused right of fly-over for UK-based aircraft heading for bombing runs in Libya.

Weren't France and Libya involved in a war in Chad during this time? France and the Third World is a very ugly equation, I grant you.

[jesus marion joseph]

If we want to play the "you owe your existence to us" card, let's not forget that France gave a fledgeling United States financial assistance during the Revolutionary War that allowed us to wage a successful campaign against the Brits. Besides, my older brother was born on the Rammstein air base. If they dismantle that, he'll be The Kid From Nowhere!

But wait, I was born at Forbes air base in Topeka, and that was closed down eons ago. Let's not make it two Kids From Nowhere!!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Monte,

Remember, Bush is not talking about redeploying troops further south in S. Korea, he's talking about redeploying them to the States. So you'll be having a reduction in forces in one of the hottest spots in the world.

I can see only a couple of advantages in keeping troops in Europe. Physically they'll be closer to the Middle East, Pakistan, India and all the former 'stans of the USSR and the US would still be a major influence in NATO.

But again, with the Soviet Union gone what is the purpose of NATO? They don't serve one as far as I can tell.

I will give Bush some credit on this one. I don't know what his motivation is for bringing this up now, but he is thinking outside of the box. I feel that Kerry's reaction to it was a knee-jerk one. He's in a mode now that no matter what Bush says or does he'll speak out against it. After all, he's trying to unseat the cat. Kerry's opting for the status-quo on this one and his quick response to Bush's proposal is way too quick.

The thing I'm wondering is if re-elected will Bush follow through. He has a history of making proposals and not following through, either by not pushing for legislation or funds.

I think he's counter punching because of the 9/11 Commission. Doubts are being raised about his committment to securing America and he has to show that he's strong in this area.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

What concession from the North Koreans would you have demanded before we move our soldiers out from under their missiles and make it easier for us to destroy their military industry without American casualties? Haha! I'd like to see you at the negotiation table. "We're going to put you into a world of problems, but before we do that, we'd like you to help us out."

I think I'd clean your clock, Monte. You're no better than Rumsfeld. The point is that we're giving the North Koreans something they want in return for nothing. By the way, you must not have looked at a map lately. Your "Missiles on North Korea" scenario is never going to happen, because Pyonyang and Seoul are rather close to each other.

[Monte Smith]

Actually, the current plans call exactly for repositioning troops out of harm's way at Panmunjon and other forward forts on the Korean peninsula and for redeployment in theater. Now I will grant you that in 2004, with our sophisticated military, "in theater" can mean as far away as Diego Garcia. But the fact of the matter is that moving troops out from under North Korean fire means a strengthening and not a weakening of American force projection. Thus the North Koreans objected to this initiative as "a movement toward war" when it was reported by the AP in June of last year. Let me clarify what their objection was: it was a movement toward a war they would lose and in which American casualties would be reduced.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Yes, the current plan calls for troops being moved south in Korea. However, Bush proposes to reduce the number of troops in Korea by 12,000.

To be honest, I'm a bit of an isolationist. The more troops brought back to the States the better as far as I'm concerned. I would really like for us to concentrate on securing our borders.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Actually, the current plans call exactly for repositioning troops out of harm's way at Panmunjon and other forward forts on the Korean peninsula and for redeployment in theater. Now I will grant you that in 2004, with our sophisticated military, "in theater" can mean as far away as Diego Garcia. But the fact of the matter is that moving troops out from under North Korean fire means a strengthening and not a weakening of American force projection. Thus the North Koreans objected to this initiative as "a movement toward war" when it was reported by the AP in June of last year. Let me clarify what their objection was: it was a movement toward a war they would lose and in which American casualties would be reduced.

Monte, I found the North Korean objection at the Korea News site. The way I read it, the North sees troop withdrawal as an excuse to build up high-tech offensive weapons. I do not see anything here that suggests that removing troops per se is something they see as positive. Read it yourself:

-30-

"Relocation of Forces" for Sinister Purpose under Fire
Pyongyang, June 1 (KCNA) -- The United States is intending to transfer part of its troops present in south Korea to Iraq with an outcry over the "urgency of the Iraqi situation" and deploy reinforced troops in south Korea, notes Minju Joson Tuesday, and adds: This eloquently proves that the "relocation of forces" in south Korea undertaken by the U.S. under the pretext of the Iraqi situation is no more than a move to deploy more modernized military hardware in south Korea. The news analyst goes on:
And it must not go unnoticed that the intensified arms beefing-up by the U.S. is designed for its permanent occupation of south Korea and preemptive attack on the DPRK.
It is the invariable Korea strategy of the U.S. to keep a tight grip on south Korea as its military base for aggression and, with it as its base, attain its aggressive goal against the DPRK.
The U.S. moves are throwing a wet blanket over the growing atmosphere of reconciliation, cooperation and peace between the north and the south of Korea and creating the danger of a new war on the Korean peninsula.
The reality shows that the security of the country and the nation cannot be defended, not to speak of the reunification and peace of the Korean peninsula, with the U.S. occupation policy in south Korea and its moves to stifle the DPRK being left alone.
The army and people of the DPRK are making all necessary preparations to cope with the U.S. "relocation of forces", seeing through its sinister intention in time. They have the great banner of Songun and military deterrent force powerful enough to smash the provocation of any aggressor at one blow.
If the U.S. ventured a preemptive strike at the DPRK, making little account of the will and strength of its army and people, they would never miss the chance but sweep the U.S. imperialists off this land to the last man and surely achieve the noble cause of national reunification, the cherished desire of the nation.

-30-

PS: Reading North Korean press releases is a real through-the-looking glass experience. They really are nuts.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Yes, the current plan calls for troops being moved south in Korea. However, Bush proposes to reduce the number of troops in Korea by 12,000.

Doesn't surprise me a bit. They are closing Yongson army base (set on hundreds of acres of prime Seoul real estate) with its golf course, housing tracts, mini-mall, luxury hotel with casino and two night clubs, PX, commisary, liquor store, hospital, community college, Burger King, bookseller, TV station, etc. Hell, you could draw down the American presence at Yongson by 12,000 just by repatriating the caddies.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

Monte, I found the North Korean objection at the Korea News site. The way I read it, the North sees troop withdrawal as an excuse to build up high-tech offensive weapons. I do not see anything here that suggests that removing troops per se is something they see as positive.

Dave, I think you are kinda missing my point. The North CORRECTLY reads troop redeployment as an offensive threat against itself. You should not see anything in their objections to suggest that they see troop reductions per se as something positive, because they view it as a complete strategic negative for themselves. And it is!

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

PS: Reading North Korean press releases is a real through-the-looking glass experience. They really are nuts.

Amen to that, brother.

But you could also have read the North Korean reaction on this very site a year ago, posted by me on the "US pulls out of Saudi Arabia" thread.

[Dr Dave]

OK, I yield. Taking troops out is a good idea. But do you really think the U.S. plans a missile attack on North Korea? I mean, before the election and all?

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

OK, I yield. Taking troops out is a good idea. But do you really think the U.S. plans a missile attack on North Korea? I mean, before the election and all?

Nope. Never suggested anything like that.

[Dr Dave]

"What concession from the North Koreans would you have demanded before we move our soldiers out from under their missiles and make it easier for us to destroy their military industry without American casualties?"

Sorry, I guess I was reading too much into this.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

"What concession from the North Koreans would you have demanded before we move our soldiers out from under their missiles and make it easier for us to destroy their military industry without American casualties?"

Sorry, I guess I was reading too much into this.

Or not enough, Dave. When I refer to a dozen carrier groups that can fight North Korea more effectively than can infantry grouped in fixed positions under the shells of the enemy, I don't mean that the only option America has is ballistic missiles. As a matter of fact, we can send in Navy ships, we could send in Marines, we can attack with helicopter, fixed wing aircraft, anything. The North Korean military industry will be shut off quickly, but that doesn't presuppose clumsy attack by atomic missile that can't distinguish between North and South.

This is yet another idiotic, politically driven Bush play. The idea is not new, and it has some merit, but the Bush neoCons have obviously not given much thought to details, and without a carefully thought-out plan this could easily pose more problems than it solves. Because this is something that has been on the drawing board for so long, it could have waited, but these thugs needed another distraction as we approach an election that does not bode well for the court-appointed incompetents.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Chris A

This is yet another idiotic, politically driven Bush play. The idea is not new, and it has some merit, but the Bush neoCons have obviously not given much thought to details, and without a carefully thought-out plan this could easily pose more problems than it solves. Because this is something that has been on the drawing board for so long, it could have waited, but these thugs needed another distraction as we approach an election that does not bode well for the court-appointed incompetents.

Thank you, Kim Il Sunshine.

[Ron Thorne]

No, thank you, Monte-know-it-all-Smith. And I really mean that.

[Phil_Meloy]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

In the 1980s, Mitterand refused right of fly-over for UK-based aircraft heading for bombing runs in Libya.

I take it you're referring to Reagan's piece of state sponsored terrorism in 1986 when he bombed residential suburbs in Tripoli and Bengazi killing 41 Libyan civilians and injuring another 226 in reaction to the terrorist bombing of the disco in Germany in April 1986. I'm not at all surprised that the French were unhappy about allowing the F111s that took part in the raid to fly through their air space - especially bearing in mind that France has its own large Arabic descent population and for years had been dealing with internal terrorist problems with regard to that community - mainly with regard to its relationships with Algeria and Lebanon. Any participation by France in this US raid against an Arab state would have undoubtedly led to further bombings in Paris and subsequent loss of life. The US was completely insensitive to this issue. It might also be worth mentioning that the then British PM Margaret Thatcher's decision to allow the F111s to take off from RAF Lakenheath air base in Cambridgeshire provoked massive protests against the bombings here in the UK and indeed other European nations.

As far as France's opposition to the current Iraq war is concerned it might be worth considering that their intelligence as regards Iraqi WMD's may have been somewhat superior to what it seems the USA's and Britain's now seems to have been. You also seem to conveniently forget that France's commitment and participation in the previous Gulf war was particularly significant especially with the contribution made by their heavy armoured brigade in the advance on Kuwait.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Phil_Meloy

I take it you're referring to Reagan's piece of state sponsored terrorism in 1986

Wow, talk about hyperbole.

[Phil_Meloy]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Wow, talk about hyperbole.

I'm afraid this comment only serves to demonstrate how unaware many Americans are as to how the USA and its actions are actually perceived by people in other nations - even those that are amongst its closest allies.

[Gary Sisco]

Actually, to me it would only matter *how* they were redeployed and to where and for what proposed reasons. I've been saying for many years now that the US military is still positioned primarily for its (largely hallucinogenic) apocalypse with the USSR and therefore needs to be rethought and redone to meet current needs (which will hopefully be rationally determined).

I have no problem with reployment itself. It's long overdue. I also think Kerry's reaction is kneejerk on this question. He's opposing it because Bush is proposing it. As a senator with long experience on the Armed Services committee, he knows that this has been a serious subject of debate and controversy in the military for many years. It's hardly news. He also knows that there are in fact good, rational reasons to do so. (That doesn't mean that they'll be followed or used, of course. It never does.)

[Coda]

Sorry for starting this thread and then disappearing, I sometimes get pulled out of the office for days.

Talk of the troop redeployment started soon after this second Iraq war. A lot of the redeployment is a result of changing technology and changes to how warfare is conducted. We've moved from labor to technology and simply need to readdress the uses of our resources. Global changes also added to this decision, most notably the end of the cold war but also due to the changing geopolitical landscape.

I'm getting a bit frustrated with some of the posts in this and other threads. I'll use Chris A. as an example because of the consistent position in all your posts. It seems to me that you're always suspicious of any Republican position, this is a polical play by the Bush Administration, blah blah blah. You're losing credibility with me or really have a weak grasp on the US policital machine in that almost everything that comes out of D.C. is political - by both parties. You'll gain more credibility when you're able to objectively view both parties with an equally critical eye.

Also Chris, my apologies for picking you out as the example. You do seem like a decent person, just a bit to ideological for my blood. I hope you are not offended.