U.S. President Donald Trump attends a working dinner meeting at the NATO headquarters during a NATO summit of heads of state and government in Brussels, Belgium, May 25, 2017. Matt Dunham/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
Bloomberg: Trump Seeks Huge Premium From Allies Hosting U.S. Troops
* ‘Cost Plus 50’ plan could worsen tensions with key allies
* Frustration over spending by NATO countries behind proposal
For years, President Donald Trump has complained that countries hosting American troops aren’t paying enough. Now he wants to get even, and then some.
Under White House direction, the administration is drawing up demands that Germany, Japan and eventually any other country hosting U.S. troops pay the full price of American soldiers deployed on their soil -- plus 50 percent or more for the privilege of hosting them, according to a dozen administration officials and people briefed on the matter.
In some cases, nations hosting American forces could be asked to pay five to six times as much as they do now under the “Cost Plus 50” formula.
Trump has championed the idea for months. His insistence on it almost derailed recent talks with South Korea over the status of 28,000 U.S. troops in the country when he overruled his negotiators with a note to National Security Adviser John Bolton saying, “We want cost plus 50.”
Read more ....
Update: US looks to get more cash from allies that host its troops (AP)
WNU Editor: This is not going to go over well.
5 comments:
Mr. Double Down on failure.
Ah, respect for the past! Make America Hessian soldiers for hire
These entanglements with these "allies" is draining us dry. Essentially they are reaping massive benefits, any benefits to us are nominal at best, and all coupled with enormous costs. Not only are the enormous financial costs a problem but the resources expended here make it more difficult for us to properly address our own national security and these entanglements carry enormous risks of getting us sucked into the conflicts of others that not only don't advance our interests but actually undermine them.
I've long recognized that these one-sided agreements against us need to be renegotiated. POTUS appears to get this. It's nice to finally have a POTUS who does. We simply cannot continue to be their chumps.
While I don't think it's enough, cost plus 50 is a move in the right direction IMHO. If we are going to sacrifice our own interests and undermine our security for these people, there needs to be some sort of acknowledgement of this by those receiving the benefits. Full payment of the costs is a step in the right direction. The plus 50 likely takes into account the extreme risks these entanglements place America and the American people in. Getting sucked into someone else's war/conflicts and the risks associated with that is not to be taken lightly.
Assuming this "does not go over well" what does failure to change these agreements look like? It could mean a complete withdrawal of US forces from Europe and other places perhaps with the US withdrawing from NATO. I've long recognized NATO to be a huge cost center without corresponding benefits anywhere close to the costs.
When freed from this yoke, we would be in a much better position to provide for the defense of our country and to grow our economy. I would hardly consider this a failure at all.
Ah. now a Russian response that likes the notion of our getting out of Europe so we can be safe and secure on our continent as though this were 1915 and oceans protect us from enemies...the world is globalized and missiles do away with the notion of safety way far away from enemies , ie Russia...of course do away with NATO! our commenter above carries out the Putin line for sure And hardly subtle at that
Anon (10:05PM),
You don't have a valid comment to make. Therefore you accuse me of a Russian response.
"the notion of getting out of Europe...." entanglements with those of whom the notion that their interests are compatible with ours is questionable at best saps our strength and undermines our security IMHO. A number of us believe this. Our forces need to be properly deployed to maximize our security and economic interests. A thorough review is needed of each of these arrangements.
"as though this were 1915..." given that things such as oceans can't protect us, if they really could, this makes such entanglements even more risky. This makes the proper allocation of our resources even more imperative as there's going to be less margin for error and greater risk of blowback.
I'm not sure what the Putin line is on NATO. As a competitor of the US, I'm assuming he'd want us to carry on with sapping our strength on behalf of these "allies."
For what it's worth, I don't think Trump wants a withdrawal. He wants equitable terms for America in this. If we are going to be undertaking the burdens both financial and the risks to our security associated with defending these people, consideration of this needs to be offered by the beneficiaries.
Cost plus 50 is a step in the right direction but I think it questionable that this is nearly enough. Countries such as Canada and Australia appear to be far more secure than America is and all without these entanglements.
Post a Comment