U.S. to Cut Forces in Europe, Asia

[Dreamer128]

Update:

Bush plans US troop moves

Agencies
Monday August 16, 2004

The US will bring up to 70,000 troops home from bases in Europe and Asia over the next few years, moving soldiers away from cold war positions, the US president, George Bush, said today.
Mr Bush also announced that another 100,000 family members and civilian support staff would return as overseas bases were closed and consolidated in areas where heavy troop presence was no longer deemed essential.

"For decades, American troops have remained largely where the wars of the last century ended," the president told members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars organisation in Ohio.

With the threat shifting from feared Soviet aggression to instability in the Middle East and terrorism, Mr Bush said he wanted to reposition troops to create a "more flexible and agile force".

He said more US troops would be stationed in the US rather than being moved around overseas bases, meaning "more predictability and fewer moves over a career".

That might win Mr Bush election year applause from military families - but it will not ease the strain on the 150,000 US soldiers battling violent factions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"The world has changed a great deal, and our posture must change with it - for the sake of our military families, for the sake of our taxpayers, and so we can be more effective at projecting our strength and spreading freedom and peace," he said.

Mr Bush added that the repositioning of forces would help reduce the amount of taxpayers' money spent on maintaining bases overseas. A significant number of soldiers would be sent to bases in the US, although others could be shifted to posts in eastern Europe, White House officials said.

A US military official in Berlin today struck a note of caution as the president spoke, saying any shift of major US military units out of western Europe and Asia would take years and would require further negotiation.

Even with Mr Bush's endorsement, the plan would be likely to be put into practice only at some time between 2006 and 2011, the official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

The official added that "pretty specific details" had been discussed with the affected countries, but that more talks would be needed to settle details on the "units, dates and specific numbers".

US armed forces stationed abroad in places other than Iraq and Afghanistan number around 200,000, with around half of those in Europe.

Earlier this year, the Pentagon advised German officials that it was considering removing two army divisions from Germany and replacing them with smaller, more mobile units.

(The Guardian)

[Oblivion437]

I wasn't making that contention seriously...Neither the GOP nor DNC are capable of extending some plankage from the Libertarians. It's like trying to fit a fifty-foot square peg and a two-foot round hole.

Anyways, I doubt we'll pull forces away from S.Korea, as there's a certain border tension you might have heard about...

[wellard]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dragon_lord:
[QB] 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.

The fact that the f-111s / hornets are still flying is a disgrace. We have been very lax in setting up replacements IMO. I hope that when the American bases arive (and they will) we dont try to save on aircraft replacement "because the yanks will look after us" That would be a sad and dangerous trap to fall into.

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.

The pine gap facility for those that don’t know is a joint OZ-US over the horizon radar and general electronic wizardry base out in the middle of nowhere. Very hi tech but low on personnel, more a military target than a terrorist one I would guess. As pointed out there will be many benefits for Australia with larger US bases down here, so many in fact that they tend to outweigh my doubts.

As for Australia sending its troops into Indonesia to free east Timor.... where the hell was the USA then? I seem to recall Australia being side by side in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq(1) when the USA needed a friend. We were left high and dry and in my eyes wiser to fickle one sided friendships. Thankfully the operation was a military and political success but thing could have easily turned sour very quickly and where was the defenders of the western Christian values then? [img]graemlins/dunno.gif[/img]

[Khazadman Risen]

Actually Felix, I think all US subs are nuclear. As are most of the carriers.

[dragon_lord]

Originally posted by wellard: The fact that the f-111s / hornets are still flying is a disgrace. We have been very lax in setting up replacements IMO. I hope that when the American bases arive (and they will) we dont try to save on aircraft replacement "because the yanks will look after us" That would be a sad and dangerous trap to fall into.

Yep it is pretty disgraceful (the fact that the queen is still the head of state is also pretty disgraceful!), thats why the government spends 500 million - 1 billion a year keeping them up to date and maintained. We have 100 JSF on order but I'm also concerned, other than them being late, that the specs will change too much (eg the US decides it doesnt want something on it anymore - i believe something like that has already happened. If the JSF's flight range isnt up to scratch we're boned.) so they wont suit our needs anymore.

As for Australia sending its troops into Indonesia to free east Timor.... where the hell was the USA then? I seem to recall Australia being side by side in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq(1) when the USA needed a friend. We were left high and dry and in my eyes wiser to fickle one sided friendships. Thankfully the operation was a military and political success but thing could have easily turned sour very quickly and where was the defenders of the western Christian values then? [img]graemlins/dunno.gif[/img]

Also where was everyone (australia included) when indonesia invaded in the first place? Although I do know what the US were doing at the time; selling the indonesian's weapons ( ). Which they promptly killed 2 australian journalists with along with 100,000 East Timorese. You can also chalk that one up as another UN failure. Anyone been keeping score?

[Har'oloth]

would be nice for europe
those troops could better go home and find a job in hte normal society

[Magness]

Originally posted by Har'oloth: would be nice for europe those troops could better go home and find a job in hte normal society

If some of those troops are shipped back to the US, it will be to base them *in* the US. It the US military is going to be doing anything in the near term, it will be to expand, not shrink.