US to punish German 'treachery'

[Gangerolf]

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,896573,00.html

America is to punish Germany for leading international opposition to a war against Iraq. The US will withdraw all its troops and bases from there and end military and industrial co-operation between the two countries - moves that could cost the Germans billions of euros.

'We are doing this for one reason only: to harm the German economy,' one source told The Observer last week.

'Our troops contribute many millions of dollars. Why should we continue to support a country which has treated Nato and the protection we provided for decades with such incredible contempt?'

Another Pentagon source said: 'The aim is to hit German trade and commerce. It is not just about taking out the troops and equipment; it is also about cancelling commercial contracts and defence-related arrangements.'

way over the line imo. probably not good for the future of nato either?

[Ted Striker]

If you believe the article that is.

[Ted Striker]

The article just sounds like something people have discussed in a thread on Apolyton actually, so I wouldn't take it for being accurate.

Though, from a strategic standpoint, it might be time to move the army headquarters southeast. Since that's where all the action is going to be for the next 50 years.

[DanS]

We are going to pull out a lot of troops, use prepositioned depots more, and set up bases further east. We might be able to do some other small stuff. But overall, how could we end "industrial cooperation"? It's just silly.

[DinoDoc]

Given the collapse of the USSR, what exactly is wrong with moving forces around?

[Spiffor]

These sources seem unreliable at best.
The US will move their troops further East, now that it can have bases nearer to Russia, but I don't think it has anything to do with punishing Germany.
I think the true diplomatic calculations bahind the scenes are much less hysterical than what they were on the stage last week.

[Sava]

I doubt the article's legitimacy, but nevertheless, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Datajack Franit]

How proud, how arrogant at the same time...

[DanS]

but I don't think it has anything to do with punishing Germany

It does have something to do with it, but the economic impact of the punishment is relatively small. It's an accelleration of a process already under discussion.

[GePap]

The US is correct to move forces if their current configuration is not optimal. Those forces don't protect Germany anymore since the threats to Germany today are not ones dealt with with tanks. As for ending industrial cooperation with Germany...idocy. I remember this company, DaimlerChrystler.....

[Gangerolf]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Given the collapse of the USSR, what exactly is wrong with moving forces around?

probably nothing. it's this part that worries me:

Another Pentagon source said: 'The aim is to hit German trade and commerce. It is not just about taking out the troops and equipment; it is also about cancelling commercial contracts and defence-related arrangements.'

but let's hope it's not true. the article does seem a bit unreliable, lots of "sources" but no names..

[DanS]

This is a more balanced article on the subject...

US Ponders Reducing Troops in Germany Over Berlin's Iraq War Dissent
Thursday, February 13 2003 @ 08:14 PM GMT

"Hunter added that troop realignment in Europe might include the transfer of US bases to 'more cost-friendly environments' in some of the East European nations .."

BERLIN - The United States is considering to reduce its troop presence in Europe, especially Germany, following Berlin's hardline opposition to an imminent American attack on Iraq, the European edition of the American military daily Stars and Stripes said on Thursday.

According to the report, the Armed Services Committee of the US House of Representatives is scheduled to hold hearings in two weeks to discuss slashing American troop presence in Germany.

The Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter was quoted as saying that Germany's and France's opposition to the use of military force to oust Saddam Hussein has 'brought the issue of (US troops in Europe) to the forefront'.

Hunter added that troop realignment in Europe might include the transfer of US bases to 'more cost-friendly environments' in some of the East European nations that have recently joined or been invited to join NATO.

"With an expanded number of European allies, the US may have the opportunity to base its forces in new locations with lower training and development costs," Hunter added.

Of the roughly 100,000 American troops in Europe, 71,400 are in Germany. German-American ties have reached a new post-World War II low point over Berlin's dissent to back a US military intervention in Iraq.

71,000 troops is quite a lot. Never knew it was that much...

[Lancer]

The Sovs are burnt toast. The only point to NATO now is to keep the euros from attacking each other. Since the two countries that historicly fight are now engaged in funky buttlovin', there's not much for us to do there anyway.

I say we move the forces to France.

[GePap]

While I support moving forces as needed, moving forces as part of political retribution would be a bad move: it would make the US look petty, and bring into question our sincerity to the defense of Europe, if all one state has to do is disagree and we get all prissy. Moving forces ot make them cheaper to maintain and better positioned to the days threats: Good thing. Moving them as political punishment: bad thing.

[Gatekeeper]

If the U.S. military believes such moves are necessary, then it may be advisable to carry them out. If this is being done out of purely political spite — and offers little to no military advantage — then I'd look at it twice before doing anything.

It's easy to preach for the break-up of NATO — heck, I've done it once or twice — but when it actually becomes a possibility, wow, things suddenly get a reality-rooted perspective on them suddenly.

Gatekeeper