World Tribune.com


Weighing the impact of removing 30,000 U.S. troops from Germany


See the John Metzler archive

By John Metzler
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

Friday, August 27, 2004

PARIS Ñ President George W. BushÕs announcement that 70,000 U.S. military forces will be gradually withdrawn from overseas bases, brought the usual kudos and criticisms from both Congress and foreign allies. The fact that large numbers of American troops remain in Germany nearly sixty years after WWII and fifteen years after the Cold War ended, on the face of it appears incongruous. But the timing of the redeployments is equally disconcerting to many Europeans in NATO.

American forces in Germany have already been massively cut from the mid-1990Õs. ÒFor the military communities, the upcoming withdrawal will be a rerun of sorts,Ó stated the influential Frankfurter Allgemeine newspaper adding, ÒAt the end of the Cold War, the United States had 250,000 service members in Germany. In the years since, the total has hit about 70,000.Ó

In the wake of the Iraq war and strained political relations between Washington and Berlin, the cuts could appear as much as a political payback to the Schroeder government as an overdue restructuring. Yet BerlinÕs conservative Die Welt newspaper opined that it Òrejects the rumorsÓ that the pullout is intended to punish Germany for opposition to the Iraq war. The German government contributes $1 billion annually towards support for American bases.

Germany will bear the brunt of the redeployment with cuts of 30,000 troops and base closings. This should come as no surprise as a network of bases comprised the nexus of NATO defense. For example next yearÕs phase out of the U.S. Air Force facility at the Rhein/Main airport in Frankfurt Ñ a mega-hub of commercial air traffic Ñ seems logical given that many operations will be transferred to the huge Ramstein air base.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld correctly believes that a lighter, more mobile military is needed to respond to current threat postures. He recently told Congressional hearings that ÒWeÕve decided that itÕs time to shift our posture in Europe and Asia and around the world and move from static defense, which does not make much sense today, to a more deployable and usable set of capabilities.Ó

The logic goes that we need a leaner, meaner military force; this plan naturally has a nice political ring as well. Such sentiments, by the way, pre-dated the September 11th terrorist attacks.

Recall that in 1994, the overall size of the U.S. military stood at 1.65 million Ñ by 1999 defense cuts by the Clinton Administration brought it down to 1.37 million. It was the same in France where cuts to the top heavy land forces were slashed even further from 410,000 a decade ago to 317,000 in 1999.

Indeed America stations 190,000 of its 1.4 million forces overseas. But the heavy armored and infantry units from Germany will be transferred to the USA. While satisfying many Congressional delegations in search of the bottomless Pentagon pork barrel, such moves may not adequately address the evolving risk profile. Somehow I donÕt see a land threat coming from Canada nor an amphibious invasion from Cuba.

The point is that the arc of crisis we face stretches from the Middle East and extends to the Far East. American military deployments in Germany clearly offer an invaluable springboard to the Middle East, while at the same time utilizing an extraordinary infra-structural system our military has set up over the decades. Pre-positioned assets, munitions and military medical facilities are part of the package. ItÕs all about time, space and geography. Moreover earlier enthusiasm that American forces would be switched from western Germany to former Soviet bases in Eastern Europe has seen little formal follow through.

On the divided Korean peninsula thereÕs a different dynamic. Force cuts in South Korea and redeployment of military units farther south from the Demilitarized Zone bears more merit. The controversial concept of American forces along the DMZ with communist North Korea acting as a Òtrip-wireÓ to a ground attack, can be redefined with some units being shifted farther south. Other troops being removed from South Korea for political reasons, should however remain in region and be redeployed to Japan which clearly has become the lynchpin of AmericaÕs defense posture in the Pacific.

In this strategic shell game, moving American armed forced to achieve maximum mobility and punch should be the clear objective. Nonetheless an active defense is based on forward force posturing Ñ closer to the Middle and Far East.

John J. Metzler is a U.N. correspondent covering diplomatic and defense issues. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com.




See current edition of

Return toWorld Tribune.com's Front Cover
Your window on the world

Contact World Tribune.com at world@worldtribune.com