Bush to redeploy 70,000 US troops in Europe and Asia

[The Watcher]

I do agree, with thread of communism gone, US should rethink its deployment of troops:

---------------------------------------------------------

Bush to redeploy 70,000 US troops in Europe and Asia

ADAM ENTOUSIN CINCINNATI

GEORGE Bush, the United States president, yesterday announced plans to bring home up to 70,000 troops from Europe and Asia within a decade so that they can respond more rapidly to unexpected threats.

"The world has changed a great deal and our posture must change with it," Mr Bush said of his plan for one of the biggest shifts of US forces at many of 5,458 military facilities worldwide since the Cold War.

Mr Bush said his goal was to ease the burden on US troops, but the plan offered no immediate relief to more than 140,000 US troops facing extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Addressing the veterans of foreign wars in the political battleground state of Ohio, Mr Bush said more troops would eventually be stationed in the US, and those remaining overseas would have more combat power to "surge quickly to deal with unexpected threats".

At the Pentagon, defence officials said a "significant portion" of the 60,000 to 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilian personnel in question would come out of Europe, including about 30,000 troops in two heavy divisions in Germany.

They said moves would not begin until at least 2006 after decisions are made on new domestic base closings, and that a brigade of Army Stryker armoured vehicles with 5,000 troops would be deployed to Germany as part of the US shift away from ponderous forces toward mobility.

The US now has about 115,000 troops stationed in Europe and another 97,000 in the Asia-Pacific region. A senior state department official said troop reductions in Asia would be "not very dramatic" but gave no details.

Advisers to Democratic presidential rival John Kerry warned the plan could make the US more vulnerable.

"This ill-conceived move and its timing seem politically motivated rather than designed to strengthen our national security," said retired general Wesley Clark.

"As we face a global war on terror with al-Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull back our forces," said Mr Clark, a former supreme commander of all NATO forces in Europe.

White House officials said the realignment would take seven to ten years but it could be welcome news for many military families and appeal to some veterans, an important voting bloc in the November election. Mr Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran.

Mr Bush said the realignment plan was part of a long-term commitment to "reduce the stress on our troops and our military families" and would save US taxpayers’ money.

It could also mean big changes in long-standing arrangements with key allies, particularly Germany, as well as South Korea and Japan, and will result in more US troops on home soil at a time when critics say deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched US forces too thin.

Mr Bush’s plan does not include the 125,000 US troops now in Iraq and nearly 20,000 in Afghanistan - opening him up to further criticism from Democrats.

Mr Kerry has said he would "significantly" cut US troop levels in Iraq within a year. Mr Bush said his rival’s campaign pledge to do so "sends the wrong signal to the enemy".

source

 

[sikder]

[Admin Edit: Look at the topic, read the content, then reply. No BS!]

 

[highsea]

This is long overdue, imo. Having troops stationed in Europe is basically useless. Half the time the Europeans don't even want us overflying their countries. And with NK's nukes, massing 35 or 40 thousand troops on the DMZ is asking for disaster.

Our troops in Germany would be better utilized retraining here at home for redeployment in hotspots, and in bases in former Soviet block countries, where they can go after al-qaeda without getting permission from France or Germany to cross their airspaces.

There is also the pending China/Taiwan problem to consider.

-CM

 

[tatra]

Our troops in Germany would be better utilized retraining here at home for redeployment in hotspots, and in bases in former Soviet block countries, where they can go after al-qaeda without getting permission from France or Germany to cross their airspaces.

Heaven forbid one has to respect another sovereign country's borders and ask permission to overfly it!! The horror, the horror....

 

[highsea]

Hahaha. Point taken. :

Even so, the troops stationed in Europe are not doing much for us the way it stands. It is expensive and they are not well utilized. The threat of the USSR to Western Europe is no more, so having that many troops in Germany doesn't make a lot of sense. We can replace two divisions with a Stryker brigade, which will be easier to deploy, and the remaining troops can be used elsewhere.

The threats the US faces today are different, and we need a different deployment strategy to counter them. But it's also true that the deteriorating relationship with France and Germany played a part in the decision.

-CM

 

[P.A.F]

i just think it's a step forward towards world domination for america

 

[highsea]

i just think it's a step forward towards world domination for america

The US does not have the political desire to dominate the world. We have a long history of coming to the aid of other nations. We have never tried to take them over. I assure you, we will be out of Iraq as soon as we can. We don't like being there any more than the Iraqis like us there.

We will continue to pursue al-qaeda to the ends of the earth. We will also defend our allies. When the terrorism stops, then we will be able to stop. The American people do not like the situation. It has interrupted our lives and our economy.

But to say that we want to dominate the world, shows that your understanding of America is very limited. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

Peace.
-CM

 

[sikder]

Originally posted by highsea:
The US does not have the political desire to dominate the world. We have a long history of coming to the aid of other nations.

I hope these are ur's personal view.

 

[highsea]

I hope these are ur's personal view.

They are my personal view, as well as reflective of the vast majority of Americans. It is a central part of our culture.

It's true that 9/11 had a great effect on us. We had been the victims of terrorist attacks for at least 20 years, but never on our soil. What we woke up to was the fact that if al-qaeda had a nuclear bomb, they wouldn't have used airplanes.

This caused a dramatic shift in our policy. What country will not defend herself?

We now believe that we must do 2 things. First, we have to take the fight to the enemy, no more waiting for another attack. We are doing this, and will continue to do so until the threat is gone. It doesn't matter how long it takes.

Second, we have to address the heart of the problem, which is the hatred towards America that we see in many, if not most ME countries. This is a more difficult problem than the first, but both issues must be addressed in tandem.

The first we can do militarily. The second has to be handled politically. What is the heart of the problem? What "created" al-qaeda? The pat answer is "US Policies" in the ME, but that doesn't offer a solution.

It's true that the US supports the Saudi Royal Family. This is a long standing policy, as well as our support of Israel. These policies certainly pre-date al-qaeda.

I hear over and over that the US is an Israeli puppet. This I reject. Israel does not do our bidding, nor we theirs. We have a lot of influence over them, but we do not dictate their own policies. They are soverign. But if we abandon them, we abandon the whole ME.

What we wish is for a peaceful and stable ME. We think that by indroducing democratic reforms, this can happen. As I mentioned in another post, the people do not choose war, the leaders do. If the people choose their leaders, we believe they will choose leaders who do not want wars.

The US only imports about 15% of our oil from the ME. We can get this elsewhere, so it's not just about protecting a source of oil for the US. But stability in the ME does have an effect on the entire world economy.

Iraq is a testbed of sorts. If a stable democratic system can be created in Iraq, that respects the rights of her citizens and her neighbors, we think other governements in the region will be pressured by their own people for reforms.

We don't really care what type of government a country has. We care that they respect their people and their neighbors. When this happens, the incentive for terrorism melts away on it's own.

Peace.
-CM

 

[P.A.F]

i understand you point of view but most americans will say the same. but you have to live away from the US to know whats going on in the real world. the american media has made american people think like that.
back to the topic of 70000 troops being redeployed. i think it's a step towards world domination not that my understanding of america is low it's just that this is a fact. even military analysts say it. you answer these questions now. i'll answer them as well

was the iraq war just? no it was for the oil and to make that country into a arabian military base as saudi arabia is getting a little tired of america.

do you call arming taiwan peace keeping? no its just to contol china (world domination)

why has the crisis in chad (darfur) just been found out now? because oil has been found there.

why tell others to disarm when it doesn't do that itself? so that with it's thousands of warheads it can dominate earth.

 

[sikder]

highsea

If u write like that you can keep on writing a bottomless story.

How about YOU arrange these attacks,hiring some cheap thugs and blame it on their origin place.

paving path ahead of u clear,so it becomes easy for you to go and attack those place eventually create a base.

e.g. :Afganistan is got by U.s.,u have a base there making it easier for you to transport troops to any of that region if incase there's a war.

You are not angel like ,Just keep on aiding countries in need and get nothing in return.

Kuwait was helped ,in return of their oil supply.

So,Iraq in this case wanted to be different,
i.e.
(Why should i give my oil to u.s. alone,there are other countries i can give them for less price,I'm not bothered about the loss since it's my oil).

Later on we've seen what has happend.

ANSWER TO SOME OF UR'S QOUTE:

"It's true that the US supports the Saudi Royal Family"

BECOZ

THE ROYAL FAMILY CONTROLS THE WHOLE OF SAUDI ARABIA,WHAT THEIR MOUTH SAY IS THE LAW OVER THERE, WHY NOT SUPPORT THE ROYAL FAMILY-SO THAT MY DIRTY IDEA ALSO CAN BE THE LAW.

"The US only imports about 15% of our oil from the ME"

THAT'S ONLY PEN AND PAPER FIGURE, U AND GOD ALONE KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE.

Talking about american people,let me give u a story,

I was in macdonalds once,There was an american family.when the boy was ordering for food,his mother was shouthing and telling him that "use all your canadian money and coins here".who doesn't know that in canada i have to use canadian currency.What are canadian coins cheap?If u really wanted u r son to use up canadian coin u could've told him quietly. The way they acted as if honor were dripping from their body,(u know u r from america the best country in world,all others are backward cheap people) they didn't even bother to think if there were distrubing someone in the store.

There are good and bad people everywhere.I agree there are good people in america,but talking about american politics won't really suit to an average american.

 

[highsea]

i understand you point of view but most americans will say the same. but you have to live away from the US to know whats going on in the real world. the american media has made american people think like that.

I have spent much time out of the US. Also, I read news from all over the world every day, including the news from Pakistan and the ME, al-jazeera, etc. I could easily argue that the Arab world is the one controlled by their media, as they have only one real independent source (al-jazeera, which freely admits it's anti-US bias). Most others (Iran, KSA, Egypt, etc.) are State controlled. So who is more likely to have access to all sides of the argument?

back to the topic of 70000 troops being redeployed. i think it's a step towards world domination not that my understanding of america is low it's just that this is a fact. even military analysts say it. you answer these questions now. i'll answer them as well

I'll try. But I wonder which analysts say this.

was the iraq war just? no it was for the oil and to make that country into a arabian military base as saudi arabia is getting a little tired of america.

I cannot be the arbiter of justice, I'm not qualified. I can speak only from my own perspective. The first Gulf War, we were asked to intervene to help Kuwait. They were an ally, and we did. We liberated Kuwait, and went home. We did not steal their oil, nor did we steal Iraq's. KSA also felt threatened by Saddam, and the Iraqi Army did make incursions into Saudi Arabia in 1991, which we repelled. Surely you understand that Saddam had designs on controlling all the ME oil, Iran's, Kuwait's, and KSA's. What do you think the result would have been had we not stepped in?

We understood the sentiments of having bases in KSA, and we moved our command to Qatar before the 2nd GW. As part of the cease-fire agreement (in the 1991 war), Saddam agreed to certain terms, which he did not live up to. (He also made an assasination attempt on Bush Sr. during a trip to Kuwait. That's not a very good way to make peace with the US.)

We will not profit from this war financially. In the first place, Iraq's oil will go on the world market, and compete with every other barrel of oil. The money will go into Iraq's treasury. In the second place, we have already allocated 10 billion USD in grants and another 10 billion USD in loans for Iraq's reconstruction. 90% of the loans will be converted to grants, if Iraq's European creditors do the same. That does not count the cost of the war itself.

do you call arming taiwan peace keeping? no its just to contol china (world domination)

We have had an off and on adversarial relationship with China since the Korean war. The US had always been opposed to Communism and Facism. Look at the cold war. That's why we had the troops in Europe to start with, now that that threat is gone, there is no need for the troops. I doubt Russia is going to invade Germany.

Taiwan is a touchy situation. They want democracy and sovereignity. This is something we support in philosophy. Taiwan could never break away from China without outside support. So the question becomes, should the US support the desire of Taiwan for self-determination, or turn our backs on them and allow China to crush them? I don't have the answer, because there are valid arguments for both sides, but emotionally I support the Taiwanese people in their desire for independence and self-rule. Diplomatically, the US and China have settled on a middle ground. We will have a "One China" policy, and China will not invade Taiwan.

why has the crisis in chad (darfur) just been found out now? because oil has been found there.

I don't know how much oil is in Chad. The US is leading the calls in the UN for action in Darfur to end the conflict. The UN is moving much slower than we would prefer. I don't know why they are dragging their feet. You would have to ask Kofi Annan.

why tell others to disarm when it doesn't do that itself? so that with it's thousands of warheads it can dominate earth.

We have greatly reduced our arsenal, along with Russia when the USSR collapsed. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars aiding Russia in the dismantling and securing of weapons, and have followed our own commitments regarding disarmament and the targeting of each other's cities with ICBM's. As the threats to the US decline, our forces decline also. We would rather spend that money elsewhere. That's what this restructuring of our forces is all about.

Now let's go back to oil for a moment. Our main sources of oil imports are Canada and Mexico, our closest neighbors. We do not fight them for it, we buy it from them, and we help them develop their resources. Canada's recently discovered Alberta Oil Sands have a proved reserve of 320 Billion barrels. This is more than Saudi Arabia. You can go to Syncrude Canada's web site and read their annual report if you like.

Given our close proximity to Canada and Mexico, already existing oil and gas pipelines, a stable and friendly political relationship, do you really think it is cheaper for us to go to the ME, take over a country and steal the oil?

Peace
-CM

 

[tatra]

The US does not have the political desire to dominate the world. We have a long history of coming to the aid of other nations. We have never tried to take them over. I assure you, we will be out of Iraq as soon as we can. We don't like being there any more than the Iraqis like us there.

I suppose that this is in part correct, at least from what I know about the US and its people. However, if you look at the world history say from 1945 onwards, then you cannot ignore there are numerous cases where the US has helped come to power and supported highly undemocratic regimes; military regimes in Greece and Turkey, Pinochet dictatorship in Chili, various dictatorships in middle america, Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein of Iraq (yes!) to name but a few.

I think what bugs people about the US is not that they proclaim to be the greatest nation (which is arguable. besides, every nation tends to think that about itself) and are very missionary in their approach to the world, but that in many cases US assistance does not bring democracy or other good things promised and, indeed, often quite the contrary. While non-US folks at times underestimate the (honest) good intent of the US people, folks from the US at times are a bit naive about their own country's actions in the world.

 

[highsea]

tatra, much of what you say is true. The post WW2 policies of the US were primarily a consequence of the cold war. Sometimes a nation is faced with the Hobson's choice of the lesser of 2 evils.

I'm not defending the decisions, just asking for a little understanding of the position that the US was in when the decisions were made. We are in the same type of situation now with North Korea. i.e., Do we make concessions with a regime that is not, shall we say, the most democratic in the world in order to achieve the more important goal (to the US) of eliminating the nuclear threat to the US that NK poses?

That the people of North Korea are suffering terribly under a despotic regime is undeniable. But the US cannot expect NK to disarm without concessions on our part, which would serve to cement Kim Jong Il's position. So if we act to protect ourselves, the people of NK will continue to suffer. If we don't act, we have to accept the possibility of a Nuclear strike on our west coast.

Peace
-CM

 

[tatra]

I'm not defending the decisions, just asking for a little understanding of the position that the US was in when the decisions were made.

Roger that. But that request goes both ways

 

[neel24neo]

The post WW2 policies of the US were primarily a consequence of the cold war. Sometimes a nation is faced with the Hobson's choice of the lesser of 2 evils.

for most part,the cold war was a result of intolerance of capitalist economies towards communism(and vice versa).you see it as evil(parallels can be drawn b/w ur perception of communism and islam),never even trying to understand the idea of collectivism as opposed to induvidualism.i am not saying that communism is right,just this that ur country was outright hostile and that for me is not the best way to deal with problems.u could have dealt with whatever problems there was with compromises on both sides.it could have been done through dialogue.there was even an instance when general de gaulle called for a four nation summit at paris where he hoped to chalkout a plan towards a stable europe(a reduced threat of MAD) and guess what ur CIA did...they go on a u2 spyplane mission from peshawar with a civilian pilot with clear instructions on what to do when he gets shot down(destroying sensitive equipment ,etc,etc....he was even criticised for not killing himself to avoid capture).general eisenhower feigned ignorance of any mission like that.anyway it certainly derailed the talks....my point is that for most part the cold war was avoidable...if u really had peace in your mind.but no,u couldnt let the soviet union take over the world from u,could u?that drive my friend is known as world domination.
as i see it the problem with americans is that ur far too intolerant to other cultures.and most of that intolerance stems from ignorance of how people live elsewhere.you say yours is the land of liberty,but for most part you seldom see the restraining bonds that you have.you are wearing blinders buddy.