America to withdraw troops from EU

gobby

America is planning on removing 70,000 troops from Euope and Asia. Article from the guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1284627,00.html

Charles Heyman, senior defence analyst for Jane's Consultancy Group wrote:

"It does signify a change in the old order, particularly in Europe. It means Europeans are going to have to think very carefully about how Europe is defended in the years to come," he said.

"There many not be any real threats at the moment, but there is still massive instability in the Balkans that could degenerate very quickly."

He said it was difficult to justify US troop levels in Germany, especially since the end of the cold war, but European countries might find the redeployment worrying since "it is effectively the US saying to Europe that it will have to spend its own money on defence and keep their house in order".

Do we really rely that much on America to defend us!? I knew that there were a lot of troops in Germany but as far as I knew they were really just getting paid for sitting around.

Does America have such an active role in defending us?

Might we really be under threat in the near future?

Could we handle a threat?

therecklessone

This was what got my attention:

South Korea, where the US plans to withdraw a third of its 37,000 troops.

Strange, considering NK is part of the so-called Axis of Evil?

Or is it an attempt to reduce tension in the region?

magick

personally i think its a good idea, one of the very few bush made. Its about time the EU doet not have to look for the US on defence, and it should be able to stand on its own 2 feet, though you think from the crap coming out from American comments on the BBCs web site that the German Economy was going to collapse because of the redoployment is laughable, also how some of their comments refer to Germany/France with distain because they didnt join in with lil Georges war.

sovtek

I forsee better crime stats for the relevant EU countries.

Victor

It's a play to domestic ears, not foreign ones. Army bases are big fat pork barrels and some people will be rubbing their hands together with glee at the plan. "Strong of defence types" will see it as "less defense for Euope, more defense for America" and servicemen and families will see it as less time apart (reality is another matter with a 2006-2011 implementation plan).

mike65

magick wrote:

personally i think its a good idea, one of the very few bush made. Its about time the EU doet not have to look for the US on defence, and it should be able to stand on its own 2 feet, though you think from the crap coming out from American comments on the BBCs web site that the German Economy was going to collapse because of the redoployment is laughable, also how some of their comments refer to Germany/France with distain because they didnt join in with lil Georges war.

The troops are being withdrawn from Germany not the EU as the EU never had use of any US troops to begin with. Important distinction as the EU itself has long been guilty of making the same mistake and assuming the US would be in Europe forever and a day. If they see no stratigic reason to be "here"
they wont be.

On the German ecomony its been in the sink now for more than a decade and shows little signs of the re-thinking the social model which is not able to respond to the 21st century economic environment.

Mike.

mr_angry

I'm a little surprised at the move, to be honest, since its not long ago that we were hearing how desperate the US were to use bases like Rammstein, and re-fueling stopovers in Ireland and Turkey to support troop movements in the Middle East. Are the US abandoning any rights / needs to use these support platforms in the future? I'd be very surprised.

Hobbes

They are running low on troops in Iraq, and if Bush gets in for another term they will be going into *liberate* Iran.

Sparks

So.... does this mean the US won't be using Shannon anymore?

keu

They are running low on troops in Iraq, and if Bush gets in for another term they will be going into *liberate* Iran.

I thought the *liberation* of China was next on the agenda?

gandalf

Maybe they are planning World *liberation*

Hobbes

keu wrote:

I thought the *liberation* of China was next on the agenda?

The US couldn't take on China, but Iran... well it is only next door to Iraq.

ferdi

magick wrote:

personally i think its a good idea, one of the very few bush made.

bush has never made a decision in his life

keu

The US couldn't take on China

shhhh...don't ruin the element of suprise...

mike65

keu wrote:

I thought the *liberation* of China was next on the agenda?

Eh? China does'nt need liberating anymore, by general agreement.

Mike.

ColoradoGal

"personally i think its a good idea, one of the very few bush made. Its about time the EU doet not have to look for the US on defence, and it should be able to stand on its own 2 feet"

There is a point to that. Chiraq and Schroeder certaily have been walking the walk lately! (and for the record, I agreed with them on Iraq) Also, I resent having the US being the main ones going into messes like Serbia/Kosovo. That's a European mess, and we got blamed for intervening after nobody else was doing anything to stop the genocide! Although I think highly of the current Germany, I'm sure I'm not alone in being cautious of a unified Germany growing a large army again though.

keu

Although I think highly of the current Germany, I'm sure I'm not alone in being cautious of a unified Germany growing a large army again though.

really?

I was just thinking how boring things would be if there wsa nothing to war about.

Victor

I wonder how many will actually be leaving hte EU to go to places like Poland Hungary and Romania. Oh, damn, theya re in the EU also.

ColoradoGal wrote:

There is a point to that. Chiraq and Schroeder certaily have been walking the walk lately!..... That's a European mess.....

Interesting that you had "Sheron" (Ariel Sharon?) there for a moment instead of "Schroeder". Freudian? Whose problem would he be?

ColoradoGal wrote:

Also, I resent having the US being the main ones going into messes like Serbia/Kosovo.

You resent. You **RESENT** helping people in trouble.

mike65

ColoradoGal wrote:

Also, I resent having the US being the main ones going into messes like Serbia/Kosovo. That's a European mess, and we got blamed for intervening after nobody else was doing anything to stop the genocide! Although I think highly of the current Germany, I'm sure I'm not alone in being cautious of a unified Germany growing a large army again though.

I dont think too many except the usual left-wing anti-war types blamed the US/NATO for wading into Kosovo, after all the EU/UN failure in Bosnia (would you another cup of tea Mr Milosovich?) made that conflict far more deadly than should have been the case. What you mean about Germany though. Do you think Tutonic expansionism is in the blood?

Mike.

keu

did you mean teutonic expansionism?

mike65

No, I meant tectonic expansionism

Mike.

thejollyrodger

I’m sorry to see US troops leave Europe. They have done a magnificent job in protecting Europeans, without complaint and have conducted themselves impeccably. It was primarily the US that dealt with the Balkans, a disgrace that Europeans couldnt do it themselves.

Without US troops in Europe, we would have to pay for defence ourselves and governments like France or Germany wouldn’t have had the cash for the numerous social programs.


The same lousy countries have been complaining about US troops in Europe, now the want compensation when the troops leave. The hypocrisy is sickening.

God Bless America, its the only country in the world that is standing up to terrorists. Redeploying troops on a war footing to meet the terrorthreat will hopefully help the war against terror and evil dictators.

bizmark

Er france and germany are far from defenceless with out the yanks

France has a standing army of 200,000 germany 100,000 iirc

keu

It was primarily the US that dealt with the Balkans, a disgrace that Europeans couldnt do it themselves.

to hell with diplomacy, lets build ourselves a vast army and do it like the Americans.

[mike..I'll bet you can make the earth move]

Hobbes

Also, I resent having the US being the main ones going into messes like Serbia/Kosovo. That's a European mess

Last time I checked Serbia/Kosovo were never part of the EU. So please explain how it was our mess? UN prehaps.

I’m sorry to see US troops leave Europe. They have done a magnificent job in protecting Europeans, without complaint and have conducted themselves impeccably.

Protecting them from what? Since when? Prehaps post WWII, but now.. Most of the Military posts in Europe are cushy jobs compared to say Iraq.

The same lousy countries have been complaining about US troops in Europe, now the want compensation when the troops leave. The hypocrisy is sickening.

Do you have a link on that? I don't recall seeing anything about compensation. I do remember that the South Koreans were worried about the pull out of a large amount of troops. Not because NK might invade, but they feared that US would be more inclined to nuke NK as their troops wouldn't be in the fallout line.

gandalf

"We've decided that it's time to shift our posture in Europe and Asia and around the world and move from static defence, which does not make much sense today, to a more deployable and usable set of capabilities."

Well if they were interested in being more deployable they would keep some bases in Europe however I suppose they will be redeploying them to the Middle East bases they have in Iraq and soon to have in South Central Tehran.

Unfortunately this is nothing more than cynical electioneering and the troops they are "bringing back" to the US will find that they are shipped off to Iraq once the election winds are gone to protect the Neo-Cons Black Nectar.

thejollyrodger

France has a standing army of 200,000 germany 100,000 iirc

yeah, thats a standing army. Those countries dont have any strategic air lift and thus cant go anywhere;)

Protecting them from what? Since when? Prehaps post WWII, but now.. Most of the Military posts in Europe are cushy jobs compared to say Iraq.

Oh my god ! Have you not heard about the cold war thing ?

The US wants to pull its troops out, but has been looking for the proper stance, now they have found it ,,, problem solved

Sparks

Those countries dont have any strategic air lift and thus cant go anywhere

You say that like it's a bad thing....

Tommy Vercetti

keu wrote:

to hell with diplomacy, lets build ourselves a vast army and do it like the Americans.

To hell with vast armies that NOBODY needs or wants. Let's waste our money on ourselves and not on the war industry.

thejollyrodger

You say that like it's a bad thing....

ahh, whats that place called ... Rwanda ??

To hell with vast armies that NOBODY needs or wants

FFS, Give violance a chance!

keu

FFS, Give violance a chance!

right on!!
I would think with the recent expansion of the EU, Europe is on the verge of becomming the global super power, the euro is nice and strong...now all we need is a crushing army and liberate places like Alaska, then we could rid the world of fundemental religions which just get in the way of the economy and in doing so put an end to all terrorist activities.

gandalf

thejollyrodger wrote:

yeah, thats a standing army. Those countries dont have any strategic air lift and thus cant go anywhere;)

Well alot of European Countries have older C-130's but I suppose the 197 A400M's discussed here could help as well :rolleyes:

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/pressrelease.html#182001

Hobbes

thejollyrodger wrote:

Oh my god ! Have you not heard about the cold war thing ?

Yes, but I heard it ended in 1991, so your telling me the US couldn't withdraw because they couldn't think of an excuse for 13 years?

By the way, still waiting on that link about compensation.

You want the truth? The US isn't the superpower it once was. The $ is worth crap in Europe (and most of the rest of the world), which means spiralling expenses to host people in Europe. Add to that fighting a war which can't be maintained without troop movements or conscription (which the US public won't stand for).

While the US has lifting abilities, it still requires refuellng points. It can't do that without forward bases. Also a lot of stratigic defense of the US is based on having forward bases (eg. Missile Defense Shield, First Strike).

chewy

"(and for the record, I agreed with them on Iraq)"

you mean you went all antiwar cos you wanted a slice of the (iraqi) pie and didn't think the americans should have it all?

did someone not say recently on another that most of the genoicde occurred after the us/un bombing started? so us didn't sort that one out prefectlly


what is it about transport, strategic airlift etc ya think britain only had a hanglider and dingy?

its been referred to with gulf and sundan why is it that amerca or the only ones able to get anywhere what is it they have that non-one else does?

ionapaul

chewy wrote:

what is it about transport, strategic airlift etc ya think britain only had a hanglider and dingy?

its been referred to with gulf and sundan why is it that amerca or the only ones able to get anywhere what is it they have that non-one else does?

Well the truth of the matter seems to be that despite all the talk, when people look for an army to go in and 'clean up' Sudan, they are going to look at the US and the UK, 'cause we all know the French and Germans can't/won't get involved, let alone the members of the African Union. Same with Kosovo, if the Americans didn't go in, the Europeans certainly weren't going to! God forbid Ireland ever needed military intervention (amazingly unlikely, civil war could be the only instance remotely imaginable), you know we'd all be screaming for the Americans or Brits to help us out.
Not that the pluses of a large and effective American military necessarily outweigh the negatives, just saying...better one of our closest allies than an indifferent or ideologically-opposite country.

Sand

I guess its been on the cards for a long time - The Cold War has ended and the troops that helped secure democratic Europe from the Soviets are now smugly dismissed as loafers in cushy jobs. The bases arent really a benefit to the US, in that Europe is not a potentially important theatre anymore and they can get bases in friendlier nations elsewhere.

The same is true of South Korea. Troops that helped ensure the South Koreans arent ruled over by a certain North Korean dictator are now apparently part of the problem. Again it cant be cheap to maintain those troops and they do tie the US into protecting SK, whether they want to or not ( and whether the SKs want them to or not, which isnt clear these days ), so its best to start pulling them out and redeploy them elsewhere.

The troops in Europe might have granted the US unusual influence in European politics when the Soviets were massing on the borders, but since that threat has vanished so has the influence derived from the troops. Several European leaders have since then been doing their best to push the US out of their way, and sadly this is another sign of the US reacting to that. In their quest for a European superstate, which is first and forement "not the US ", some politicans are breaking apart a democratic alliance thats held together since WW2.

You resent. You **RESENT** helping people in trouble.

Thats not what she said and you know it. Her point that despite the Balkans being on the very doorstep of the EU, the US had to be the main one to try and end the wars there. Its a valid point. And if you look at Chewys comment

did someone not say recently on another that most of the genoicde occurred after the us/un bombing started? so us didn't sort that one out prefectlly

theyre still getting flak for it, despite the EU miserably failing to do anything about it. That I imagine is where the resentment springs from. Stop with the pretence of indignation.

chewy

its not indignation it just there was too may the us saved the balkans (fullstop) posts for my liking

and in the same post i slaged of france and germany too for being self interested

--

so it taken 50 years for large numbers of troops to leave germany and we're supposed to believe america will be out of iraq in 5 yrs?

keu

re Sudan :Military regimes favoring Islamic-oriented governments have dominated national politics since independence from the UK in 1956. Sudan has been embroiled in a civil war for all but 10 years of this period (1972-82). The wars are rooted in northern economic, political, and social domination of non-Muslim, non-Arab southern Sudanese. Since 1983, the war and war- and famine-related effects have led to more than 2 million deaths and over 4 million people displaced. The ruling regime is a mixture of military elite and an Islamist party that came to power in a 1989 coup. Some northern opposition parties have made common cause with the southern rebels and entered the war as a part of an anti-government alliance. Peace talks gained momentum in 2002-03 with the signing of several accords, including a cease-fire agreement.

me wonders who brokerd such a peace deal

"Sudan has turned around a struggling economy with sound economic policies and infrastructure investments, but it still faces formidable economic problems, starting from its low level of per capita output. From 1997 to date, Sudan has been implementing IMF macroeconomic reforms. In 1999, Sudan began exporting crude oil and in the last quarter of 1999 recorded its first trade surplus, which, along with monetary policy, has stabilized the exchange rate."

Both the UK and US have vested interests in Sudan.
(and most of the other situations they choose to get into)

I have always been under the impression that europe supports diplomacy in an effort to resolve differences and provide "peace keeping forces" as oppose to military might. (Ireland included)

linky

keu

and personally, I think the sentiments of both world wars still lingers amid europe with regard to the balkans. Any military action on europes part would seem like the beginning of WW3.
(and then America could come in and save us all again)

the balkans
1995
"American pressure to end the war eventually led to the Dayton agreement of November 1995 which created two self-governing entities within Bosnia - the Bosnian Serb Republic and the Muslim(Bosnjak)-Croat Federation. The settlement's aims were to bring about the reintegration of Bosnia and to protect the human rights but the agreement has been criticised for not reversing the results of ethnic cleansing. A man carrying an injured child in Sarajevo The Muslim-Croat and Serb entities have their own governments, parliaments and armies. A Nato-led peacekeeping force is charged with implementing the military aspects of the peace agreement, primarily overseeing the separation of forces. But the force was also granted extensive additional powers, including the authority to arrest indicted war criminals when encountered in the normal course of its duties."


1999
"Threats of military action by the West over the crisis culminated in the launching of Nato air strikes against Yugoslavia in March 1999, the first attack on a sovereign European country in the alliance's history. The strikes focused primarily on military targets in Kosovo and Serbia, but extended to a wide range of other facilities, including bridges, oil refineries, power supplies and communications."

2000
"Slobodan Milosevic lost a presidential election in 2000. He refused to accept the result but was forced out of office by strikes and massive street protests, which culminated in the storming of parliament. He was handed over to a UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague, and put on trial for crimes against humanity and genocide. Kosovo itself became a UN protectorate"

"Conflict between Serbs and ethnic Albanians threatened to erupt in late 2000 in the Presevo valley, on the Serbian side of the Kosovo border, but dialogue between Albanian guerrillas and the new democratic authorities in Belgrade allowed tensions to evaporate. There was, however, a major outbreak of inter-ethnic violence in Macedonia in 2001, again involving the Albanian minority. This was contained by Nato peacekeepers and ultimately resolved by political means."

2003
"Yugoslavia has disappeared from the map of Europe, after 83 years of existence, to be replaced by a looser union called simply Serbia and Montenegro, after the two remaining republics.
The arrangement was reached under pressure from the European Union, which wanted to halt Montenegro’s progress towards full independence. However, Montenegrin politicians say they will hold a referendum on independence in 2006."


linky

mike65

chewy wrote:

its not indignation it just there was too may the us saved the balkans (fullstop) posts for my liking

?

And now in English....

Mike.

chewy

europe favours diplmacy cos its doenst' ahve the might

i never forget when somesaid said with pride that ireland had never invaded anyone (not historically true) but this is because we're a small country and don't have the resources too ?

The Corinthian

Europe has been abdicating her military responsibility for far too long. It is a good thing, in my opinion, that the US is beginning to pull out of Europe as it may finally engender us to stand on our own feet again militarily.

Captain Trips

keu wrote:

I thought the *liberation* of China was next on the agenda?

As long as the Chinese keep moving troops around in small groups of 2 million on the Korean border I'd say the US would be a little overstretched to go for that "sleeping dragon"

Captain Trips

thejollyrodger wrote:

I’m sorry to see US troops leave Europe. They have done a magnificent job in protecting Europeans, without complaint and have conducted themselves impeccably. It was primarily the US that dealt with the Balkans, a disgrace that Europeans couldnt do it themselves.

YEs, because after all Europe is one of the most despised collection of countries/states, under "constant" terror threat and involves itself in aggressive expansionism.

Nothing to do with actually involving itself in the UN and international diplomacy, creation of the largest single currency bloc in the world and incorporating old eastern bloc countries to a single union.

keu

europe favours diplmacy cos its doenst' ahve the might
europe favours diplomacy because it decided that was the only way forward after WW2.

keu

"Nothing to do with actually involving itself in the UN and international diplomacy, creation of the largest single currency bloc in the world and incorporating old eastern bloc countries to a single union."

but was this done by voilent means? Were guns put to the heads of the new member states forcing them to join the Eu?
we got to vote..remember?
I wouldn't consider this agressive expansionism.

aye..the pen is mightier than the sword.

keu

I’m sorry to see US troops leave Europe. They have done a magnificent job in protecting Europeans, without complaint and have conducted themselves impeccably. It was primarily the US that dealt with the Balkans, a disgrace that Europeans couldnt do it themselves.

what the hell is this? It was primarily Nato who dealt with the Balkans, this was a conjoined effort.
what am I missing here?

sceptre

keu wrote:

but was this done by voilent means? Were guns put to the heads of the new member states forcing them to join the Eu?
we got to vote..remember?
I wouldn't consider this agressive expansionism.

Check the battery on your sarcasm/irony/too bloody right detector

keu

lol..yea i know I'm starting to believe myself.

adjodlo

ColoradoGal wrote:

"personally i think its a good idea, one of the very few bush made. Its about time the EU doet not have to look for the US on defence, and it should be able to stand on its own 2 feet"

There is a point to that. Chiraq and Schroeder certaily have been walking the walk lately! (and for the record, I agreed with them on Iraq) Also, I resent having the US being the main ones going into messes like Serbia/Kosovo. That's a European mess, and we got blamed for intervening after nobody else was doing anything to stop the genocide! Although I think highly of the current Germany, I'm sure I'm not alone in being cautious of a unified Germany growing a large army again though.

Colorado eh. Don't worry, like you said you're probably not alone :rolleyes:

ColoradoGal

"what the hell is this? It was primarily Nato who dealt with the Balkans, this was a conjoined effort. what am I missing here?"

Well yes it certainly was a shared effort, but the US spent over 12 billion dollars in that endeavor and more troops if I'm not mistaken. Americans and Bill Clinton also got the most "heat" for it among Serbians and others who opposed the intervention. I personally was against bombing all their historic bridges and using weapons with depleated uranium, by the by.

Ironically, GW Bush ran in 2000 as a non-interventionalist! He specifically spoke out against Nation Building!! Now who's the "flip-flopper"?

Adjodlo, thanks for concurring with me above - hey, maybe you can pump up my ratings here. I've only got a lousy 1 Star user rating on these boards, yikes! :rolleyes: