By Mike Allen and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 14, 2004; Page A01

President Bush will announce Monday that he plans to pull 70,000 to 100,000 troops out of Europe and Asia in the first major reconfiguration of overseas military deployments by the United States since the Cold War ended, White House officials said yesterday.

Bush, who will reveal his plan in a speech to the annual convention of the 2.6 million-member Veterans of Foreign Wars in Cincinnati, plans to say that the change is necessary to adapt the nation's military to the demands of the global war on terrorism and to take advantage of new technologies, said a senior aide involved in developing the plan.

Two-thirds of the reduction will come from Europe, most of them Army soldiers in Germany, and most of the troops will be reassigned to bases in the United States, the aide said. Officials said exact details of the moves have not been finalized, but some of the troops from Germany and South Korea will be moved to expansion countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in Eastern Europe.

The plan is the latest iteration of a discussion that has been going on for several years between the Pentagon and the White House about reconfiguring troops abroad now that the Soviet Union is extinct and the United States is the world's lone superpower. Administration officials have talked for more than two years about their intention to move 60,000 troops out of Europe, mostly from Germany, and 30,000 from East Asia, mostly from Japan and South Korea.

"We are reshaping our military to meet the threats of the 21st century in a way that is considerate to the military and friendly to military families," the aide said.

Bush's aides said he will use his speech at the Republican National Convention in New York next month to cast himself as the only candidate who can keep the nation safe and who understands the stakes in the war on terror. Officials said his Monday speech is designed to broaden his vision of national security beyond the war on terror, and he will frame the realignment of the military as an effort by the United Statesto keep its new commitments around the world.

The latest version of the plan was first reported yesterday on the Web site of the Financial Times of London.

The official would not say how long the redeployment would take but said it would involve lengthy negotiations with the countries where the troops are stationed. The administration has been discussing the plans for months with several of the governments, including South Korea, and details went out to some embassies in cables late yesterday, administration officials said.

The new plan flows from the notion that U.S. Army bases in Germany no longer serve a genuine military purpose. While the U.S. government believes it is important to retain at least one major air base in Germany -- primarily as a way station for U.S. troops en route to Europe and the Middle East -- the belief is that moving ground troops further east is a natural consequence of the post-Cold War expansion of NATO.

Eastern European nations -- most notably Poland and Bulgaria -- have been far more enthusiastic supporters of U.S. policy in Iraq than have been older NATO allies and Belgium. Also, U.S. commanders long had chafed at environmental rules that have severely restricted training and maneuvers on German soil.

In East Asia, U.S. commanders recently have taken moves to reshape the U.S. military presence in South Korea, both moving troops from downtown Seoul and also redeploying troops southward from posts along the Demilitarized Zone to bases in the middle of South Korea.

The VFW's 105th annual convention has drawn more than 15,000 members to Ohio, a crucial swing state for Bush where Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has shown strength because of lost manufacturing jobs.

(Source: Washington Post)

I think this is to extend something to the Libertarians...To get them to vote for Bush.

The LP has been calling for years to get our troops out of Europe and Asia, where money is just being dumped, basically.

I don't know about Obliv, Lots of conservatives want to pull our troops out, do to the reactions of some of the Countries the USA has troops in.

Oh, puh-leeeeze.

Like JD Harris said, conservatives have been wanting to do this for years. The only thing new is that a president actually pulled the trigger, so to speak, to do it.

Very ineteresting.
Fact: BRACC (Base Realignment And Closure Comittee) Pulled 4 Divisions, and 2 Regiments out of Europe between 92-96.
Beer math 4x30k + 2x5K = more than 70 -100K.

Fact: There are only 2 Divisions left in Europe, 1 is currently Down Range, the other just returned after a prolonged extension. Only 1 is leaving.
Beer math 1x30k does not equal 70-100K.

Fact: Korea (Asia) only has 2 BDE's, and 1 DIV Cav assigned to it. 1 is currently down range. Only 1 Bde will leave.
Beer math 1x7500, + above still does not equal 70-100K.

So, in conclusion, it appears the clinton administration who devastated the military by a reduction of 8 Divisions does not get the credit for the cold war draw down.

But the current regime, who is building the force back up by an estimated 30K, not a Division, but each Division gets a 4th active component BDE is getting the draw down scenario.

The reshaping is a thing to come. It is called BUA (Brigade Units of Action) 3ID has transformed, trained, and will re-deploy down range in this new set up. You can read about it here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...y/bua-list.htm

<font color="#7c9bc4"> Over the last few years low-key talks have been taking place about transferring some of the Korean and Japanese facilities to new bases in Australia. The muted anti USA reaction to these discussions as opposed to the demonstrations against US bases in the 70's and 80's have allowed the plans to flourish to something more concrete. After this years elections in both countries are out of the way expect to see the USA main pacific / Asia base based in Australia.

On one hand it will be better for the USA to have its bases in a more friendly and 'in tune' country and of course it offers succour to the Australian defence force by default. For your info the 4th largest nation (and a Muslim one at that) is right on our doorstep. Jakarta (Indonesia) has already voiced its displeasure at the planned relocation. Another not insignificant factor is the boost to our economy :D

On the other hand is the possibility of upsetting the general Australian public by having to relax its anti nuclear stance of ships in our harbours and the increase in the likelihood of Australia becoming a terrorist target. It of course leaves the problem of a bigger / better equipped army than our own on our soil. Would the people accept that situation? And once here how would we get the USA to leave if our relationship soured and they did not want to go?

My prediction .. … Small bases built first to keep political opposition minimal, then a quick ramp up of the size and equipment till within 10 years the main USA base in the Asia / Pacific region will be in Australia.
</font>

[ 08-15-2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: wellard ]

I wouldn't worry about the USA not leaving if asked, we left the Philipines(sp?) when they wanted us to. we've left anywhere we've been that the host country has wanted us to leave, with the exception of Gitmo in Cuba, because Gitmo is the best natural harbor in the Caribian/Gulf of Mexico region. And we didn't want the Commies to get it. Pensacola bay in Florida is the second best natural Harbor and we already have that. ;)

I'll take your word on the feelings of the Australian population, see'ns how I don't live there and all that. ;) Your idea about a gradual build up might be the best way to do it.

I did not see the restructure plan for the Marines. I don't think we are ready to leave Japan yet, therefore, going into Australia may be further down range than one might anticipate. The Soldiers will go to their home base after they finish their tour down range. The other Bde will be outfitted with Stryker and head into the cool zone of Alaska.

Marines and Sailors Downunder, was it not that way 60 years ago? I remember my Pops telling me about some down time spent their. He was a Seebee, built all those airstrips so the Japs could have something to bomb, so they could rebuild them, if you follow the old story their.

If you look at a Navy ship, and it's exhaust stack is very clean, it might be nuclear powered. If you happen upon a submarine that has come to the surface for some strange reason, and you see cyndrilical ports along the aft, she might be nuclear powered. So, you think they could 'steam' into port?

I'm 100% behind having a US base here, because:
-The F-111s are finally being phased out by 2010
-The F/A-18 hornets are scheduled to be phased out by 2012-2015
-The Joint Strike fighter will more than likely not be ready by the time the hornets are phased out
-The Indonesian’s are buying new migs.

Its most definitely in our interests to have a US base here, we would be crazy not to. And to those who say having a US base here will make us a bigger terrorist target: We already have a US base here its called Pine Gap(will be a part of the missile defense shield). And since we are already a terrorist target (rich/western/big christian pop/east timor/iraq -> bali) it isnt going to make a difference.

Which is just another reason to have a US base here not to mention thats its a breeding ground for terrorists.

Mostly its just a small number of greenies who protest every time a US nuclear ship sails into fremantle/or any other port. Its also the same said greenies who stir up fear over nuclear power plants even though we could build them out in the hundreds of thousands of miles of desert so even if they did blow up it wouldnt matter as much.

[ 08-16-2004, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: dragon_lord ]

I'm for leaving. Sure lessons the stress families go thru. I used to be in the Army way back then, it was rough not being in the States. Anyway, the foreign populace hates us, i would to if there was an army of occupation. if they don't like us, then forget it. they can defend they're own turf. so can we.