Well, if we want to present ourselves (us being NATO and the "West" in general) as a united front against potential or real enemies, this troop withdrawal is not a smart move at all. Of course, in real terms, one might discuss whether the current troop levels and force structure is still relevant to the threats we're facing today.
However, as I've written earlier, this call for withdrawal clearly has its roots in domestic politics (read: the upcoming elections) rather than a true strategic background. Even though some here will undoubtedly accuse me of anti-American bias again, the currenct incumbent really does not care about geostrategy though - and this has been known well before the recent Bolton "revelations". It is just sad, really, because we have been increasing our spending levels constantly for over six years now, and rightfully so. Is it enough? Surely not, but, the current president's decisions only serve to crush the gently increasing awareness for defense policy in Germany, making it easy for certain factions to paint every defense budget increase and equipment purchase as an "appeasement to the irrational in the White House".
The current malarkey is counter-productive in immediate "real world" terms as well, because all it does is delay or block the planned purchases of Super Hornets/Growlers, CH-47/CH-53K and, possibly, P-8As - all systems which we either intend to procure (fast jets/helos) or that are real contenders for an upcoming tender (Poseidon).
On a less serious note: all the Allies wanted in 1945/1949 was to create a de-militarized Germany, unable to have a strong military. Well: you reap what you sow, one might say. I am certainly not arguing in that direction, but it is food for thought at least.