US threatens to withdraw troops from Germany
About 20 years ago, a bit more maybe, the US was looking to reduce its footprint in a variety of areas beyond the massive movement of VIIth Corps out of Europe via the Mid East in 1990 - 1991.
Regardless of how much that footprint was to go down, the capacity to deploy if stuff gets hot again needed to be retained.
The ability to access bases both North and South of the Alps through which, and into which, move CONUS based forces was retained.
The concept of ops from JCS was "CONUS based/deployable" which has met with mixed success.
A variety of ops since 2000 have benefitted from the simple fact of 'there are bases there."
IMO, Exhorder has put his finger on it nicely.
The number of combat formations, particularly north of the alps, is waay down.
Basing rights and the capacity to train with allies in a comonly funded base has value for operations in area and out of area.
That the Poles are interested in a cushier security blanket may not matter to the Spanish, but it matters to the Poles.
Air ports of entry and sea points of entry, most of the latter in the NATO Southern Region, are a strategic capability that you can't make at home.
Remember what the real estate gurus talk about: location, location, location.
The arguments are, and remain, how much of the bill each member of this club pays.
As I noted, above, that's nothing new.
Retaining the relationships and the capacity to move "across the pond" is, so far, still a desired strategic capability.
But, the bigger pond on the other side of our nation is a pressing strategic priority.
And getting moreso by the week.
Regardless of how much that footprint was to go down, the capacity to deploy if stuff gets hot again needed to be retained.
The ability to access bases both North and South of the Alps through which, and into which, move CONUS based forces was retained.
The concept of ops from JCS was "CONUS based/deployable" which has met with mixed success.
A variety of ops since 2000 have benefitted from the simple fact of 'there are bases there."
IMO, Exhorder has put his finger on it nicely.
The number of combat formations, particularly north of the alps, is waay down.
Basing rights and the capacity to train with allies in a comonly funded base has value for operations in area and out of area.
That the Poles are interested in a cushier security blanket may not matter to the Spanish, but it matters to the Poles.
Air ports of entry and sea points of entry, most of the latter in the NATO Southern Region, are a strategic capability that you can't make at home.
Remember what the real estate gurus talk about: location, location, location.
The arguments are, and remain, how much of the bill each member of this club pays.
As I noted, above, that's nothing new.
Retaining the relationships and the capacity to move "across the pond" is, so far, still a desired strategic capability.
But, the bigger pond on the other side of our nation is a pressing strategic priority.
And getting moreso by the week.
I agree. Which is what I meant when I wrote "So, as usual, there is some truth to the comments of the current US president". It's not like the German defense spending malaise hasn't been addressed time and time again over the years, by various "real" presidents as well. It took the whole Crimea/Eastern Ukraine malarkey for us to wake up, at least to a certain degree.
However, as usual with the way the current president is doing things, he is doing more harm than good with his tone and the impulsive nature of his decisions - which, in turn, makes it easy for German politicians to dismiss his remarks. Especially since he, in truth, does not give the slightest of f*cks about defense and foreign policy, if it does not serve the purpose of increasing his re-election chances. Sorry for the political rant.
However, as usual with the way the current president is doing things, he is doing more harm than good with his tone and the impulsive nature of his decisions - which, in turn, makes it easy for German politicians to dismiss his remarks. Especially since he, in truth, does not give the slightest of f*cks about defense and foreign policy, if it does not serve the purpose of increasing his re-election chances. Sorry for the political rant.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that is why I wrote "It's not like the German defense spending malaise hasn't been addressed time and time again over the years". In fact, we have been increase defense spending by quite a lot since 2014, with the largest surge actually happening in 2019.
To be absolutely clear, there is still a lot to do, not the least improving spending efficiency - meaning that currently, a lot of funds are wasted for bureaucratic calamities, but then again, this is not an exclusive problem on this side of the pond. However, the manner in which the sitting president addresses the issue is counterproductive, to put it mildly, because it provides certain German political factions a perfect excuse to sabotage the defense budget strategy that had been agreed upon earlier. The end result is a growing rift between the US and the Europeans, which goes against both sides' interests, and which only diminishes the effectiveness of "the Western world" vis-à-vis Russia and China.
To be absolutely clear, there is still a lot to do, not the least improving spending efficiency - meaning that currently, a lot of funds are wasted for bureaucratic calamities, but then again, this is not an exclusive problem on this side of the pond. However, the manner in which the sitting president addresses the issue is counterproductive, to put it mildly, because it provides certain German political factions a perfect excuse to sabotage the defense budget strategy that had been agreed upon earlier. The end result is a growing rift between the US and the Europeans, which goes against both sides' interests, and which only diminishes the effectiveness of "the Western world" vis-à-vis Russia and China.
Genuine question. What is your aviation and/or military aviation background? I'm not saying you shouldn't post. Far from it. I've always been curious seeing as I know you are a doctor. I'm not from the US but I post on the Hamsterwheel site as I have a vested interest having spent a lot of my time over the past few years there.
I agree with you and WC on this. The US has far more pressing concerns with China to its west. Its time for Europe to step up to the mark to look at its own security and defence to its east. Long gone are the days of the Fulda Gap and also, I hope, long gone are the days of a Coalition of the Willing.
Thats the easy part. The hard part is getting a bunch of nations used to having a US led Command to somehow form a coherent workable joint defence plan and Command without US involvement and money!
Last edited by Toadstool; 19th Jun 2020 at 12:39.
TBH I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. From what I've heard many ordinary Germans aren't really that bothered and can see the sense of moving the troops east. It won't be such a good gig for the soldiers though - the nightlife in Poland is a shadow of that in Germany.
Regarding the wider debate about the US's role in NATO, the likes of Ramstein plays a role in the US's wider ops beyond Europe (i.e. in the ME or Africa) from a logistics/medevac etc perspective. It would be a long ol' haul to tank fighters etc non-stop to/from the US or to evacuate critical casualties back to the US, for example. Also, there must be considerable lobbying pressure from the big US defence companies, who benefit handsomely from all those multilateral defence programmes with major European participation (F35, P8 etc).
Regarding the wider debate about the US's role in NATO, the likes of Ramstein plays a role in the US's wider ops beyond Europe (i.e. in the ME or Africa) from a logistics/medevac etc perspective. It would be a long ol' haul to tank fighters etc non-stop to/from the US or to evacuate critical casualties back to the US, for example. Also, there must be considerable lobbying pressure from the big US defence companies, who benefit handsomely from all those multilateral defence programmes with major European participation (F35, P8 etc).
Yes, that is why I wrote "It's not like the German defense spending malaise hasn't been addressed time and time again over the years". In fact, we have been increase defense spending by quite a lot since 2014, with the largest surge actually happening in 2019.
To be absolutely clear, there is still a lot to do, not the least improving spending efficiency - meaning that currently, a lot of funds are wasted for bureaucratic calamities, but then again, this is not an exclusive problem on this side of the pond. However, the manner in which the sitting president addresses the issue is counterproductive, to put it mildly, because it provides certain German political factions a perfect excuse to sabotage the defense budget strategy that had been agreed upon earlier. The end result is a growing rift between the US and the Europeans, which goes against both sides' interests, and which only diminishes the effectiveness of "the Western world" vis-à-vis Russia and China.
To be absolutely clear, there is still a lot to do, not the least improving spending efficiency - meaning that currently, a lot of funds are wasted for bureaucratic calamities, but then again, this is not an exclusive problem on this side of the pond. However, the manner in which the sitting president addresses the issue is counterproductive, to put it mildly, because it provides certain German political factions a perfect excuse to sabotage the defense budget strategy that had been agreed upon earlier. The end result is a growing rift between the US and the Europeans, which goes against both sides' interests, and which only diminishes the effectiveness of "the Western world" vis-à-vis Russia and China.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toadstool, I'll answer your question, though there is no real necessity for me to.
Me? PPL, instrument rated, that's it. No military, not secretive about that either. But for that reason you seldom see me post anywhere beyond USPolitics. Medical, at times, if I can help. Never on professional flying topics.
However in the same way you explain posting on the US Politics thread, I posted here as it headed into the realm of anti-US, and anti-Trump. As usual. My opinion in those aspects is as valid as anyone else, military or not.
You won't find me commenting on how you military guys should or should not do your jobs. I have too much respect for you all, regardless of nationality.
Me? PPL, instrument rated, that's it. No military, not secretive about that either. But for that reason you seldom see me post anywhere beyond USPolitics. Medical, at times, if I can help. Never on professional flying topics.
However in the same way you explain posting on the US Politics thread, I posted here as it headed into the realm of anti-US, and anti-Trump. As usual. My opinion in those aspects is as valid as anyone else, military or not.
You won't find me commenting on how you military guys should or should not do your jobs. I have too much respect for you all, regardless of nationality.
politics as usual
How do our German colleagues feel about this?
Happy, sad, indifferent?
I remember a British colonel responding to a German complaint about British and American troops in his homeland:
"The Army of Occupation arrived in 1945. We are not sure that it's safe to leave yet."
(This was in the mid 1990's).
Maybe it is 'safe to leave' now?
I'd still recommend keeping the air bases open/present, but that's a personal bias and I've no influence in DC.
As Trump confirmed rumored plans to draw down American military personnel levels in Germany in the coming months, a bipartisan group of senators led by Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney proposed an amendment to the Senate’s version of the annual defense policy bill that would freeze troop numbers in Germany. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., said separately Tuesday that the plan seemed strategically unsound and that Congress should block the administration until it makes its case. Legislative action is likely in the House on Wednesday when Smith’s panel marks up the HASC version of the bill.
Happy, sad, indifferent?
I remember a British colonel responding to a German complaint about British and American troops in his homeland:
"The Army of Occupation arrived in 1945. We are not sure that it's safe to leave yet."
(This was in the mid 1990's). Maybe it is 'safe to leave' now?
I'd still recommend keeping the air bases open/present, but that's a personal bias and I've no influence in DC.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Germany
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Read Bolton's book - Trump sees everything through the lens of a small town property developer............ someone else should be forced to pay for everything
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you view it from the Russian angle, the EU has already "annexed" The Baltics, Poland, Hungary, Romania, the two now-separate parts of Czechoslovakia and parts of Yugoslavia (Slovenia, Croatia).
The EU then started making big overtures to Ukraine... yet the West gets upset at the Russians taking action to protect their Black Sea Fleet base in the Crimea...
I in no way condone the Russian aggression in Crimea, but I can see why they've got rattled... and with their economy going to rat-****, it offers a useful distraction.
The german bases in former west Germany are agreed with Russia since the Cold War days. Moving them east permanently might open some can of worms now. It's therefore smarter to only rotate non-permanent troops to Poland and the Baltic States and exchange them for new ones after some time. Not sure if the president is aware of considerations like this at all?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some movement
06/26/20 12:41 PMUpdate: 6/27/20 4:38 PM
77 helicopters that are part of the United States Army are returning to the US via Eindhoven Airport and the Port of Rotterdam, the Ministry of Defense reports.
The helicopters fly from Eindhoven to Rotterdam in groups between 1 and 24 July. There they are prepared for sea transport to the US.
The helicopters were part of an enhanced presence of the United States in Eastern Europe. That presence has been there since 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea.
US Army helicopters to Eindhoven via Eindhoven and Rotterdam
06/26/20 12:41 PMUpdate: 6/27/20 4:38 PM
77 helicopters that are part of the United States Army are returning to the US via Eindhoven Airport and the Port of Rotterdam, the Ministry of Defense reports.
The helicopters fly from Eindhoven to Rotterdam in groups between 1 and 24 July. There they are prepared for sea transport to the US.
The helicopters were part of an enhanced presence of the United States in Eastern Europe. That presence has been there since 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire
Age: 69
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Army Movements in Holland.
The Helicopters currently flying into Holland, are not part of a withdrawal. They are returning home, having been on TDY, in Europe for the last six to nine months or so.
Their replacements, a similar number. Are due to arrive, by sea at La Rochelle later this month. For their TDY period.
This, has happened, for the last two or three years.
Hopefully, this is of interest to some.
Their replacements, a similar number. Are due to arrive, by sea at La Rochelle later this month. For their TDY period.
This, has happened, for the last two or three years.
Hopefully, this is of interest to some.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-t...ry-delinquent/
US to pull 12,000 troops from Germany after Trump calls country ‘delinquent’
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Wednesday laid out a plan to shift nearly 12,000 service members out of Germany after President Donald Trump repeatedly said the country was "delinquent" on defense spending.
Top defense leaders said the plan, which would bring 6,400 service members home and reposition nearly 5,600 to other countries in Europe, is part of the Pentagon's broader effort to redistribute U.S. forces across the world to better compete with new threats from Russia and China. The move will leave 24,000 troops in Germany, where the United States has stationed a significant number of forces since the end of the Cold War...... The move will cost in the “single-digit” billions of dollars, Esper said, and will begin in the coming weeks......
The plan involves moving the headquarters of U.S. European Command and that of Special Operations Command Europe from Germany to Belgium, said EUCOM Commander Gen. Tod Wolters. In the future, the headquarters of U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Special Operations Command Africa could also move from Germany to a new location, he said.
Esper and other top officials argued that the new approach of deploying more rotational forces, as opposed to troops permanently stationed abroad, will enhance deterrence against Russia, improving the readiness of the deployed forces and providing a more flexible, “enduring” presence, particularly in the Black Sea and on NATO’s southeastern flank.....
Many of the 6,400 troops who return to the U.S. will begin conducting rotational deployments. The 4,500 members of the Second Cavalry Regiment in Germany will return to the U.S. as other Stryker units begin rotations in the Black Sea region.
Of the 5,600 troops in Germany who will deploy elsewhere in Europe, roughly 2,000 will go to Belgium to do headquarters work. Another 2,500 airmen currently scheduled to deploy to Germany from the U.K. will remain in the U.K. And a fighter squadron and elements of a fighter wing will be sent to Italy.
Once Warsaw signs a defense cooperation agreement and burden-sharing deal, the U.S. will also rotate a major Army unit to Poland, Esper said. There may be additional opportunities to move forces into Poland and the Baltics in future, he said.
Right now there are no plans to move any of the troops to the Indo-Pacific, Esper said, despite an op-ed in June by national security adviser Robert O’Brien that floated that possibility......
US to pull 12,000 troops from Germany after Trump calls country ‘delinquent’
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Wednesday laid out a plan to shift nearly 12,000 service members out of Germany after President Donald Trump repeatedly said the country was "delinquent" on defense spending.
Top defense leaders said the plan, which would bring 6,400 service members home and reposition nearly 5,600 to other countries in Europe, is part of the Pentagon's broader effort to redistribute U.S. forces across the world to better compete with new threats from Russia and China. The move will leave 24,000 troops in Germany, where the United States has stationed a significant number of forces since the end of the Cold War...... The move will cost in the “single-digit” billions of dollars, Esper said, and will begin in the coming weeks......
The plan involves moving the headquarters of U.S. European Command and that of Special Operations Command Europe from Germany to Belgium, said EUCOM Commander Gen. Tod Wolters. In the future, the headquarters of U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Special Operations Command Africa could also move from Germany to a new location, he said.
Esper and other top officials argued that the new approach of deploying more rotational forces, as opposed to troops permanently stationed abroad, will enhance deterrence against Russia, improving the readiness of the deployed forces and providing a more flexible, “enduring” presence, particularly in the Black Sea and on NATO’s southeastern flank.....
Many of the 6,400 troops who return to the U.S. will begin conducting rotational deployments. The 4,500 members of the Second Cavalry Regiment in Germany will return to the U.S. as other Stryker units begin rotations in the Black Sea region.
Of the 5,600 troops in Germany who will deploy elsewhere in Europe, roughly 2,000 will go to Belgium to do headquarters work. Another 2,500 airmen currently scheduled to deploy to Germany from the U.K. will remain in the U.K. And a fighter squadron and elements of a fighter wing will be sent to Italy.
Once Warsaw signs a defense cooperation agreement and burden-sharing deal, the U.S. will also rotate a major Army unit to Poland, Esper said. There may be additional opportunities to move forces into Poland and the Baltics in future, he said.
Right now there are no plans to move any of the troops to the Indo-Pacific, Esper said, despite an op-ed in June by national security adviser Robert O’Brien that floated that possibility......
