Paratroopers with the 173rd Brigade Combat Team (Airborne) get artillery rounds ready for an artillery live-fire exercise at Grafenwoehr, Germany, Friday, May 18, 2018. MARTIN EGNASH/STARS AND STRIPES
DW: US considering troop withdrawal from Germany, report says
EU officials are reportedly trying to figure out if a US evaluation of the impact of moving troops from Germany is a negotiating ploy ahead of a NATO summit in July. The US Department of Defense has rejected the claims.
The US Department of Defense is examining options for withdrawing US forces stationed in Germany after President Donald Trump expressed interest in such a move, The Washington Post reported on Friday.
The newspaper, citing anonymous sources familiar with the evaluation, said officials were analyzing the cost and consequences of shifting either some or all 35,000 US troops to the US or Poland. Top defense officials, the paper said, have not been involved in the analysis.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The White House is saying that they did not order this review .... Pentagon: White House did not request plan to withdraw Germany troops (Washington Examiner). So who did? My guess is that there is some truth to this report .... Trump was reportedly surprised by the number of US troops stationed in Germany and expressed interest in pulling some of them out (Business Insider).
What's my take .... there is a problem here. NATO is important, and the U.S. role and participation is vital. But how can one take the alliance seriously when countries like Germany are not interested in spending the necessary money and political capital to maintain it. In this context, a review on the entire NATO alliance is (unfortunately) necessary.
More News On Reports That The U.S. Is Considering Troop Withdrawals From Germany
U.S. assessing cost of keeping troops in Germany as Trump battles with Europe -- Washington Post
US Mulls Pulling Troops From Germany as Trump-Merkel Tensions Mount - Reports -- Sputnik
Is Trump Out To Dismantle NATO? -- Tom Ricks, Task & Purpose
22 comments:
I was stationed in Germany for two and a half years..... a bunch of young soldiers blowing our money at the bars and clubs and “pimping ” the cheap bmw’s that we thought we would never be able to afford.....I believe General Trump is seriously threatening to withdraw and I believe it is to hurt them where it will the most.... the wallet.
Save a few bucks. Whoopee. How does it benefit our security? How does this further our national interest? Is the US interest measured only in dollars?
Having unfettered basing rights and sprawling infrastructure that allows you to power project into Asia can't only be measured in dollars. After the WW2, wise men perceived the value of an international system of trade and commerce backed by US security guarantees. Now, we're back to being penny wise and pound foolish, which doesn't seem to make sense since host nations underwrite large portions of the costs for that infrastructure.
How much of NATO is funded by the US?
Fifteen countries make up the remaining 5.8 percent. The U.S. contribution to NATO's Civil budget, provided through the State Department's Contributions to International Organizations, is approximately 21.7 percent, with payments of $66.1 million and $84.1 million, respectively, made In FY2009 and FY2010.Jun 10, 2011
and they have now pledged to increase their share by some 3.5%
I've been saying we need a review of NATO and our commitment to it for about the last 25 years. I'm gratified to see that some in positions of power are finally catching on.
I hope this is more than simply an attempt to hurt someone in the wallet. If so, it would mean US troops are still being treated as pawns. In other words, meet the new bosses, same as the old bosses.
Hopefully this is about assessing America's national security needs, our capabilities, the threats we face, the threats we are likely to face in the foreseeable future, the reliability of certain "allies," and deploying our forces and other assets, (financial, military equipment, and otherwise) accordingly. In this context a pullback from Germany not only seems appropriate but seems long overdue. If course reasonable people can and will have disagreements over just what the appropriate courses of action in any given situation might be.
Maybe positioning for a conflict in Asia..... recall the large bradly purchase.
Ivan: you did good today
Who is Ivan? You'd know I'm obviously not Russian if you botbetrd to actually read the posts.
The posts discusses how much a commitment, if any, the US should commit to Germany through NATO. I'm happy to discuss this. If you have anything constructive to contribute here, please do so. Otherwise don't waste my time.
I have to wonder who leaked this? Seems designed to torpedo the big NATO summit this month.
Of course this is preposterous given the on going US war in the Middle East as Germany is a way point for hospitalized troops and a supply hub. Then there is the on going buildup of US forces back into Europe happening right now and those troops are going to Germany!
The funny part of this is that Trump is reversing the withdrawal of American ground combat power that Obama did. Obama pulled out the armor and not a peep of complaints.
Trump is putting it back and gets attacked because he is the one undermining NATO.
Madness. The Democratic Party has descended into madness and so has the social democrats in Europe.
Aizino,
Disingenuous words?!!? I will attempt to clarify.
I hope this is an attempt at addressing our security needs and not a petty attempt to hurt someone. Of course the rich western European nations need to commit more to their defense and the burden on the US needs to be lessened. At least on the notion that western European nations need to commit more, I think we are in total agreement. Thanks for the reply to my post.
"Rammstein is the only asset that America needs in Germany." That's interesting.
Perhaps we could build this in Poland. The Poles seem to want a larger US presence in their country. Personally I think they love their American cannon fodder and will happily take advantage of us in ways that don't advance and very likely undermine American interests. Perhaps there are steps we can take to ensure this doesn't happen.
Also, rightly or wrongly, many believe that part of the understandings that ended Cold War 1 were that NATO would not be expanded to former Soviet or Eastetn Bloc countries. How would Russia view such a move? Do we need to confront Russia? Maybe we do. A fair debate does need to be had on this.
As I said it is "interesting." Some facts especially those we did not know are often "intersting." I read your posts regularly and am in agreement with you more often than not. With my post I was in no way trying to imply that you weren't being truthful. I apologize if you took it that way. It was more like "thank you for sharing this information." I will research the particulars of this particular military installation. Thank you for providing information on this.
"The Poles were with us in Iraq. The Germans weren't." Excellent point actually. We probably shouldn't have been in Iraq either. At best, the execution, at least of the nation building aspect, was horrible and probably totally misguided. Furthetmore the intelligence or lack thereof used to sell this seems to have been in error. I suppose that means we were all wrong. I'm not sure the Poles should now be expecting to profit on this now especially if it comes at the expense of the security and economic welfare of the American people.
"The Russians are at our border." How so? Mexico is a de facto enemy of America right now. Are they in league with Mexico basing Russian forces are operatives on our borders? It's possible. Evidence would need to be supplied. Is this a reaction to the deployment of NATO forces along Russia's borders or is the deployment of NATO forces in reaction to this? If "everything" is to be discussed at the "summit," I would expect the leaders to bring this up.
I would think allies or potential allies will get support based upon the interests of the nation state. Naturally I would expect there to be a moral component to this ("by what is right?"). Also, how willing are we to endanger the security and economic interests of the American people to do "what is right? I think some of our country's founding fathers had quite a bit to say about this sort of thing. This is by no means easy. As I stated, a frank debate is needed on this and other aspects of US foreign policy.
I would like to think Britain made its decision on who it was going to work with in WW2 based upon what the leadership believed would have enhanced their country's chances of victory in the most efficient and quickest manner possible. Where a country is located naturally would be expected to be an important factor in this decision making. For example, experential common sense would seem to suggest if you are at war with another country an ally who is next door to that country would be of enormous benefit. In like manner as part of a negotiated settlement, where and how military forces are going to be deployed is going to be important.
Maybe we need the military base in Poland. Maybe we need deeper NATO commitments to Eastern Europe. A frank debate is needed on this. Given the risks, this is especially important.
Thank you for the replies to my posts and for the dialogue on this. I will be busy with family, work, and personal issues for the next few days that figure to take up most of my time. As such, I may be unable to reply but will read any additional information you may post on this.
Post a Comment