The US to withdraw 11.000 troops from Europe

Globe · #1 by **Globe** » Feb 17, 2012 11:51 am

http://news.yahoo.com/us-withdraw-more- ... 11300.html

The United States vowed Thursday to retain close military ties to its European allies after unveiling plans to withdraw more than 11,000 troops from Germany and Italy as part of a strategic shift to Asia.

"No one should equate lower numbers of US troops permanently stationed in Europe with declining engagement with our European partners," Pentagon press secretary George Little told reporters.

The details of the troop reduction, which include two Army brigades and two air squadrons, were announced as Defense Secretary Leon Panetta hosted his German counterpart, Thomas de Maiziere, for talks at the Pentagon.

We are less occupied now???
About time in my opinion.
WWII ended 67 years ago and the wall fell 23 years ago.

Peter Brown · #2 by **Peter Brown** » Feb 17, 2012 11:07 pm

More to the point, why does the Pentagon think Asia needs 10,000 potential troops to act a beach head?

Joe09 · #3 by **Joe09** » Feb 17, 2012 11:12 pm

china is the new threat, russia was so 60years ago

Made of Stars · #4 by **Made of Stars** » Feb 17, 2012 11:12 pm

It will be interesting to see if this makes the Russians think they have a freer hand to screw the rest of Europe on gas prices and supply.

Joe09 · #5 by **Joe09** » Feb 18, 2012 12:39 am

i doubt russia gave a shit about the american troops stationed in europe

Warren Dew · #6 by **Warren Dew** » Feb 18, 2012 1:46 am

Not an improvement from the U.S. point of view. Why not just bring them home?

Stormcrow · #7 by **Stormcrow** » Feb 18, 2012 1:53 am

I would wager that Russia has already been screwing Europe on oil and gas just about as much as it thinks it can. Russia could stop up the taps entirely, and America and Europe wouldn't start a shooting war over it. Those troops would do more strategic good if they were in Eastern, rather than Western Europe, but the geopolitical price for moving them closer to Russia is much too high for us to want to do it.

Also, Russia is the frightening boogeyman of yesterday, and they look kind of like us. The Chinese are on the upswing and if it ever turns out to be necessary, it will be much easier to whip up war justifications against them. It's a good idea to move those troops to Asia.

Weaver · #8 by **Weaver** » Feb 18, 2012 3:58 am

Warren Dew wrote:Not an improvement from the U.S. point of view. Why not just bring them home?

Having troops and equipment in Europe makes it a hell of a lot easier to drive to a significant portion of the world.

Look at the entry of US/NATO forces into Bosnia - then think about how much longer it would have taken if we had to drive from the States.

And for those crying "occupation" - yeah, that's right, we forced ourselves on everyone for the past 50 years. None of the host nations had any say in the matter, or has ever requested that we keep troops there. Right ... :nono:

OK, I'm done - continue with the US bashing.

FACT-MAN-2 · #9 by **FACT-MAN-2** » Feb 18, 2012 4:04 am

Stormcrow wrote:I would wager that Russia has already been screwing Europe on oil and gas just about as much as it thinks it can. Russia could stop up the taps entirely, and America and Europe wouldn't start a shooting war over it. Those troops would do more strategic good if they were in Eastern, rather than Western Europe, but the geopolitical price for moving them closer to Russia is much too high for us to want to do it.

Also, Russia is the frightening boogeyman of yesterday, and they look kind of like us. The Chinese are on the upswing and if it ever turns out to be necessary, it will be much easier to whip up war justifications against them. It's a good idea to move those troops to Asia.

The US cannot ever engage China in a land war in Asia, on Chinese soil. That'd be a suicide trip. Hell, we couldn't even subdue a few million Vietnamese, and there's more than a billion Chinese. We handled them reasonably well in the K-War (I know, I was there) but those days are long gone.

In fact, almost any non-nuclear land war anywhere is off the table for the US now. Iran? You'd need an army of more than two million men to pull that off, and even then you might get your ass handed to you.

Stop dreaming, soldier, smell the coffee. :doh:

DougC · **#10** by **DougC** » Feb 18, 2012 4:12 am

Weaver is quite right.
The troops are going, but there will still be tonnes of equipment - just incase.
Reminds me of British policy since 1945. 'Keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out.'

Kingsley · **#11** by **Kingsley** » Feb 18, 2012 4:41 am

Whilst here has been no direct defensive need to having US troops in Europe since the Wall fell, there is a very direct economic effect to be felt by there withdraw. Having large numbers of foreign servicemen spending their disposable income in retail and hospitality establishments generally contributes to the livelihoods of the local natives.

Whilst there are no good moral or national defence reasons to maintain large scale US military presence in Western Europe, the fact is their withdrawal will see an increase in unemployment. Not that I will be sorry to see them go.Just that it will be hard for communities that have relied on their expendable income for years to adjust.

Warren Dew · **#12** by **Warren Dew** » Feb 18, 2012 4:42 am

Weaver wrote:
Warren Dew wrote:Not an improvement from the U.S. point of view. Why not just bring them home?

Having troops and equipment in Europe makes it a hell of a lot easier to drive to a significant portion of the world.

Look at the entry of US/NATO forces into Bosnia - then think about how much longer it would have taken if we had to drive from the States.

I'm pretty sure it would take even longer to send them to Bosnia from Asia.

If we're going to move them, let's move them to the U.S. - or to Poland or other intermaria states that actually want a U.S. presence to help guarantee their safety against Russian influence.

Weaver · **#13** by **Weaver** » Feb 18, 2012 4:45 am

What do you mean Asia?

We will still have lots of troops in Germany and Italy. Both countries are happy to have us there, especially with the support to the local economies our troops give.

Warren Dew · **#14** by **Warren Dew** » Feb 18, 2012 4:57 am

Weaver wrote:What do you mean Asia?

The original post wrote:
plans to withdraw more than 11,000 troops from Germany and Italy as part of a strategic shift to Asia.

Weaver · **#15** by **Weaver** » Feb 18, 2012 5:07 am

Strategic shift =/= deployment.

Just because those troops are being pulled out of Germany doesn't mean they'll be sent to Asia. That's just silly.

The whole National focus is undergoing a strategic shift toward Asia - not those Brigades. Brigades don't do strategic shifts - they do tactical deployments. When the National strategic shift toward Asia indicates that fewer troops are needed on the ground in Europe, that shouldn't be taken to mean that they will be sent to bases anywhere in Asia - but that their overall mission will be focused more toward asia, and that it's no longer cost effective to have them deployed in Europe.

I was wondering where everyone got the silly idea they would be sent to Asia - at least now I know - though I don't really understand. I thought the core basic differences between tactics and strategy were more widely understood.

Made of Stars · **#16** by **Made of Stars** » Feb 18, 2012 5:18 am

The headcount may be sent to Asia - there are plans in place to establish a significant Marine force in northern Australia.

Weaver · **#17** by **Weaver** » Feb 18, 2012 5:25 am

That won't be ten thousand troops - it will be a permanent party presence of probably around 500-1,000 Marines, plus temporary training deployments of likely around a thousand at a time max.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -grow.html

While both actions involve a strategic shift towards Asia, there are still absolutely no plans to forward-deploy anywhere close to the order of 10K troops to Asia.

Made of Stars · **#18** by **Made of Stars** » Feb 18, 2012 5:28 am

So how many regular troops are 1,000 Marines worth?

:hide:

AndreD · **#19** by **AndreD** » Feb 18, 2012 5:28 am

Made of Stars wrote:The headcount may be sent to Asia - there are plans in place to establish a significant Marine force in northern Australia.

Nothing like Europe though. We'll only be getting 2500 Marines.

Edit: Weaver beat me to it. :cheers:

Made of Stars · **#20** by **Made of Stars** » Feb 18, 2012 5:30 am

Yes, that's the number I had in mind. Plenty of tourist dollars for the top end.