American Worldwide Withdrawal Begins

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon


The point is that telling the US to get stuffed is a low risk enterprise, contra the loons who think that the US can tell everyone else what to do at the point of an aircraft carrier.

I actually agree with this. The US seems to value willing allies a great deal more than coerced 'allies'. I think when push comes to shove the US will leave almost any country that insists that it remove it's troops. This isn't a sign of weakness, it's just simple pragmatism.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Reminds me - why the heck does Dubyah want OSCE observers for the elections?

He doesn't. If you will visit this link http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...ight=elections you will see it's actually House Democrats who wanted OSCE to come. Beside the States has an obligation as a participant to let OSCE come and observe. What's more, it's not the first time either.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by DanS
Kerry is going to do a major policy address against this realignment.

The realignment seems to make good sense and was well vetted. This seems like a loser issue for Kerry.

man, kerry could find a cure for cancer and youd find a problem with that

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Sprayber


People In America have debated the usefulness of troops in Europe. So there.

Apparently, Americans are still doing so. This article has some interesting ideas especially the part about cross-cultural exchanges leading to stronger ties between the States and a host country. This has often been true throughout history many times way back to the Roman Empire times.

Pullback could alter ties with allies

By Dave Moniz and Steven Komarow, USA TODAY

The Pentagon's decision to undertake the largest reorganization of its overseas U.S. troop basing in 50 years ranks as one of the most tangible accomplishments of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who came into office pledging to shake up a hidebound bureaucracy and modernize the armed forces.

The plan would sharply reduce the number of troops stationed at bases the United States set up after World War II and maintained to fight a Cold War that ended with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Pentagon says the move - which involves shifting up to 70,000 troops in Europe and Asia to the USA over the next decade - would improve the lives of military families, make it easier to rush combat forces to global hot spots and better position the United States to fight emerging threats.

But the restructuring also entails some risk and uncertainty at a time when U.S. relations with European allies are strained and North Korea remains a threat.

Though the Pentagon won't abandon bases in South Korea, Germany and Japan, the decision to withdraw large numbers of combat troops, including two Army divisions of about 15,000 troops each from Germany, could affect those relationships in unexpected ways.

Gary Smith, executive director of the American Academy in Berlin, warns that troop reductions would mean fewer contacts between the United States and Germany, which, despite recent tensions over the war in Iraq, have been close allies for five decades. Since World War II, millions of U.S. troops and family members have rotated through Germany, fostering people-to-people relations that have helped underpin the two nations' alliance.

"Germany and America will drift apart unless there are great efforts to collaborate," Smith says.

The president officially unveiled the policy Monday in Cincinnati. Rumsfeld's plan to rethink the Pentagon's "global footprint" has been in the works for three years and widely reported for the past two.

Defense Department officials briefed reporters on the plan Monday afternoon and added more details but left many questions unanswered, including the cost and a detailed breakdown of units and countries that would be affected.

Pentagon officials outlined a number of benefits, including more frequent training with new U.S. allies such as Poland and Romania, and better positioning of U.S. troops in South Korea, who would move back from the border with North Korea.

There are potential downsides, however. Despite Pentagon claims that the restructuring would improve family life, the opposite could happen for troops who would be part of regular training rotations to bases planned in former communist countries in Eastern Europe. American servicemembers stationed in Germany can bring their families to live in a country with similar economic status and strong cultural ties. Under the new plan, servicemembers would be away from their families during months-long training rotations.

The new plan could have much more far-reaching consequences. Though it could force the Europeans and South Koreans to take on a larger share of their defense burden, that could erode the leadership position the United States has long held with its NATO and Asian allies.

Some may also detect a hint of payback.

Pat Towell, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says no matter how the Bush administration portrays the pullback, many will see it as retaliation for Germany's refusal to back the war in Iraq. "If this action had been taken by the first President Bush... it would have been interpreted very differently," Towell says. The current administration's "intentions may be as pure as the driven snow, but people will read into this based on the current events."

Quoted from the above...

Though the Pentagon won't abandon bases in South Korea, Germany and Japan, the decision to withdraw large numbers of combat troops, including two Army divisions of about 15,000 troops each from Germany, could affect those relationships in unexpected ways.

Guess you were right, problem_child

[Dis]

Originally posted by DanS
Kerry is going to do a major policy address against this realignment.

The realignment seems to make good sense and was well vetted. This seems like a loser issue for Kerry.

I agree. How can Kerry say Bush is playing politics?

These troop moves are common sense. We aren't in the cold war anymore. Maintaining heavy divisions in a foreign country is stupid. We need fast mobile troops.

[DanS]

man, kerry could find a cure for cancer and youd find a problem with that

Earlier in the thread, I said this realignment made a lot of sense. In fact, I think it doesn't go far enough. We should remove our troops from South Korea while we're at it, because the South Korean people don't want us there and they can defend themselves.

This stupidity by Kerry is totally self-inflicted.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Dissident


I agree. How can Kerry say Bush is playing politics?

These troop moves are common sense. We aren't in the cold war anymore. Maintaining heavy divisions in a foreign country is stupid. We need fast mobile troops.

Fast mobile troops are for attacking. I would definitely rather be in heavy armor.

[Dis]

the U.S. is an aggressor nation. Hence we need attack troops.

We have never defended against anyone

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
How many wars did we start in the past 50 years? How many did you?

Since for the past fifty years,

1) you've had a massive multinational military force stationed in your country, effectively making it impossible for you to do anything hostile

and

2) your only real enemy was capable of turning you into radioactive dust

I'm not particularly proud of you for not having started any wars.

In addition, in the past century, the wars you've started have been a lot worse than the wars we have, and far bloodier.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
The point is that telling the US to get stuffed is a low risk enterprise, contra the loons who think that the US can tell everyone else what to do at the point of an aircraft carrier.

It's low risk because we don't care enough to use said aircraft carrier on you. Do you really think you could stop us if we cared that much?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Of course there are reasons. Russia should just produce even stronger reasons for them not to want it.

You want Russia to disband its military?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


How many wars did we start in the past 50 years? How many did you?

*cough* *cough*

Balkans

*cough*

Eurocoms did nothing US put a stop to it

*cough* *cough*

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Since for the past fifty years,

1) you've had a massive multinational military force stationed in your country, effectively making it impossible for you to do anything hostile

and

2) your only real enemy was capable of turning you into radioactive dust

I'm not particularly proud of you for not having started any wars.

In addition, in the past century, the wars you've started have been a lot worse than the wars we have, and far bloodier.

For all intents and purposes Europe was occupied for the last 50 years.

Now you boys behave yourself while we are gone off to tame other parts of the world.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Dissident
the U.S. is an aggressor nation. Hence we need attack troops.

We have never defended against anyone

War of 1812.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon


The point is that telling the US to get stuffed is a low risk enterprise, contra the loons who think that the US can tell everyone else what to do at the point of an aircraft carrier.

Whatever


Real situation:


Waiter: "Would you like some sugar with your tea?"

Customer: "No thank you, I prefer it plain."

Waiter: "Are you sure?"

Customer: "Yes, I'm sure, thank you."


The Agathon ENHANCED version:

"YEAH SO THIS ****ING BIG ASS WAITER CAME UP AND WAS ALL TRYING TO THREATEN ME TO PUT COCAINE IN MY TEA!!!! BUT I WAS ALL LIKE **** YOU AND GOT UP IN HIS FACE AND HE GOT ALL SCARED AFTER I FLEXED MY 4 INCH BICEPS!!! HE HAD TO CALL HIS MANAGER FOR HELP!!! MAN I AM SUCH A BADASS!!!!"