Decisions to be Made, Prices to be Paid

[Annie]

U.S. weighs cutback in forces in Germany
Michael R. Gordon/IHT ~~article_owner~~
Friday, June 04, 2004


Biggest shift since cold war reviewed

WASHINGTON In a major overhaul of the U.S. military presence overseas, the Pentagon has drawn up plans to withdraw the two U.S. Army divisions from Germany and undertake an array of other changes in its European-based forces, according to American and allied officials.

The withdrawal of the divisions is intended to be part of the most significant rearrangement of American forces around the world since the onset of the cold war. Pentagon policy makers say the moves aim to afford maximum flexibility in dispatching forces to the Middle East, Central Asia and other potential battlegrounds.

But critics are concerned that the moves, which involve repositioning forces in Asia as well as Europe, may weaken the United States' relations with its allies and reduce American influence at a time when sentiments abroad are running high against the United States. cont'd http://www.iht.com/articles/523242.html

Reasons to question our 'allies'? In light of the fact that the Iraqis may ask us to stay longer, to prevent the civil war?

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/reuters20040602_411.html

 

[5stringJeff]

I'm all for it. We are not going to fight in the Fulda Gap against the Soviet hordes; we are fighting with a more mobile strategy. Bring those divisions back to CONUS.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm all for military realignment. New times,new enemies and new allies require flexibilty. The ability to adapt is a vital and powerful asset. It may also require that some "allies" take responsibilty for thier own security which would lessen the burden on the US to police the world. Whenever you assume responsibilty for something you must be ready to be blamed for everything that goes wrong.

 

[dmp]

I'm quite certain there are not two divisions - but elements of two divisions there.


The over-all army global footprint will change drastically from what we know it, in the coming decade.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by -=d=-
I'm quite certain there are not two divisions - but elements of two divisions there.

The US 7th Army is stationed in Germany. There are seven divisions and support units stationed there. As the article in the link below points out, the actual strength is more equivalent to five division.

http://www.usarmygermany.com/Sont.htm

My intent is not to quibble over numbers, but to point out that the presence of a large contingent of American soldiers has an impact on the German economy roughly the equivalent to the impact of a military base in the US on the surrounding civilian community.

In other words, stationing American soldiers overseas is a form of foreign aid. Given the current attitudes in Germany, this seems to me that this is as good a time as any to pull the plug on this conduit of American money into the German economy.

There have been strong anti-American sentiment in Germany for the last two decades (at least). Given that there is no longer a threat from the Soviets, it is time that we direct our efforts elsewhere. Re-deployment of these troops to other countries in the region would be far more productive on many levels.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
The US 7th Army is stationed in Germany. There are seven divisions and support units stationed there. As the article in the link below points out, the actual strength is more equivalent to five division.

http://www.usarmygermany.com/Sont.htm

My intent is not to quibble over numbers, but to point out that the presence of a large contingent of American soldiers has an impact on the German economy roughly the equivalent to the impact of a military base in the US on the surrounding civilian community.

In other words, stationing American soldiers overseas is a form of foreign aid. Given the current attitudes in Germany, this seems to me that this is as good a time as any to pull the plug on this conduit of American money into the German economy.

There have been strong anti-American sentiment in Germany for the last two decades (at least). Given that there is no longer a threat from the Soviets, it is time that we direct our efforts elsewhere. Re-deployment of these troops to other countries in the region would be far more productive on many levels.

There are NOT 7 full divisions in Germany/Europe. Impossible.

Two manuever divsions - 1st Armored Division (-), and 1st Infantry Divsion (-). There are many support elements, and associated troops.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by -=d=-
There are NOT 7 full divisions in Germany/Europe. Impossible.

I believe that the site I provided states that there are five divisions there. Here is additional data from the USAREUR site.

If you want to challenge their figures, I suggest you contact them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The command eventually deployed more than 75,000 personnel plus 1,200 tanks, 1,700 armored combat vehicles, more than 650 pieces of artillery, and more than 325 aircraft. When the war ended, many USAREUR soldiers remained to complete the logistical cleanup; others were deployed to northern Iraq or Turkey to aid refugees. Upon return to Europe, many also found that their units were in the process of either relocating to CONUS or inactivating.

In 1992 alone, about 70,000 soldiers redeployed to CONUS with about 90,000 family members. The command shrank from 213,000 soldiers in 1990 to 122,000 in 1992. From 858 installations in 1990, USAREUR went down to only 415 in 1993 with more scheduled to close in the years ahead.




After the Gulf War and the subsequent drawdowns, USAREUR faced a wholly different challenge in Europe. The command was engaged in humanitarian support operations, to include disaster relief and rescue and recovery, peacekeeping and non-combatant evacuations. Between 1990 and 1993 the command supported 42 deployments, which involved a total of 95,579 personnel.




Civil war in the Balkans quickly became USAREUR’s main point of interest. From 1990 to 1995 the command was involved in the area with mostly humanitarian operations. In October 1992 a MASH was sent to Zagreb to take care of United Nations casualties. In June 1993 the command began supporting Task Force Able Sentry in Macedonia. In April 1994 USAREUR supported Bosnian evacuee relief operations.




After a Balkans peace agreement was signed on Dec. 14, 1995, USAREUR’s 1st Armored Division, as part of the NATO Allied Command Europe’s Rapid Reaction Corps, was ordered to Bosnia-Herzegovina as part of Operation Joint Endeavor. Along with support troops, many of them reserve component soldiers, the division formed Task Force Eagle and assumed control of its area of responsibility. It was the first time a NATO sponsored force had deployed operationally outside the NATO boundaries.




Task Force Eagle enforced the cease-fire, supervised the marking of boundaries and the zone of separation between the former warring factions, enforced the withdrawal of the combatants to their barracks, and the movement of heavy weapons to storage sites. Operations to keep the peace in Bosnia have changed names, units and size, but the mission continues today.

Then, on Feb. 4, 1999, Task Force Falcon was activated under the command of USAREUR’s 1st Infantry Division. The task force was charged with separating warring factions in Kosovo, overseeing the withdrawal of Serb forces and interdicting the flow of arms to insurgents. Including elements of the 1st Armored Division, Task Force Falcon entered Kosovo on June 12, 1999. Although many units have rotated through Kosovo, Task Force Falcon continues to preserve peace there today.




On any given day during 2001, about 11,000 USAREUR soldiers and civilians – more than a sixth of the command – were deployed on exercises or operations.




Today, as USAREUR prepares to observe its 60th birthday, the command is still on the leading edge of Army operations. The 1st Infantry Division recently returned for a second rotation in Kosovo. USAREUR units play a major role in U.S. Central Command exercises and operations, including Bright Star and Desert Spring.




The command engages allies in the region via combined exercises and security cooperation partnerships, with activities in Hungary, Poland, Nigeria, Tunisia, Turkey and, most recently, the Republic of Georgia. And, as U.S. forces prosecute the war on terrorism, USAREUR units and individual soldiers have provided support on-the-scene in Afghanistan, in the region and in other parts of the world ensuring the success of each operation.



Entering a seventh decade of service, USAREUR’s prominence continues to be assured by its position in the Army’s forefront, on point for the nation.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
I believe that the site I provided states that there are five divisions there. Here is additional data from the USAREUR site.

If you want to challenge their figures, I suggest you contact them.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How does that lead you to believe we have 5 divisions in Europe?

60,000? US forces (Active and Civilian) in Europe could be the SIZE of 5 divisions - however, there are TWO maneuver divisions, as I stated. There are ELEMENTS of other divisions, I'd guess -


This may help:

V (that's 5th, not 'vee') Corps is the primary command within Europe - it claims ~40,000 soldiers AND civilians - plus family members.

To make FIVE divisions, I (1st) Corps and V Corps would have to co-locate.

Where is gop_jeff w/ some clarification??

 

[5stringJeff]

-=d=-. you are correct, there are elements of two divisions there: 1st Infantry and 1st Armored. To be specific, the div HQ and all but one maneuver brigade of each division is there. (The missing brigades are based at Ft. Riley, KS.)

Merlin is correct in saying that 60K troops is the equivalent of five divisions. However, those extra troops are in HQ V Corps, USAREUR HQ, HQ 7th Army, plus the multiple corps- and army-level support units over there, and not assigned to any divisions.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
-=d=-. you are correct, there are elements of two divisions there: 1st Infantry and 1st Armored. To be specific, the div HQ and all but one maneuver brigade of each division is there. (The missing brigades are based at Ft. Riley, KS.)

Merlin is correct in saying that 60K troops is the equivalent of five divisions. However, those extra troops are in HQ V Corps, USAREUR HQ, HQ 7th Army, plus the multiple corps- and army-level support units over there, and not assigned to any divisions.

Right.




My contention was it's incorrect to claim 'there are 5 divisions' in Europe...

Enough soldiers/civilians to FILL 5 divisions is something different.

 

[Merlin1047]

Not sure how we got side-tracked into arguing about the number of divisions in Germany. That's not the point.

The point is that, regardless of numbers of divisions, there is a sufficient presence of US military personnel in Germany to affect the economy should they be removed.

I believe that our presence and our money would be appreciated far more in a number of other countries in Europe such as Poland. Additionally, these countries are the future of Europe as they begin to develop follow their emancipation from the former Soviet Union. We might as well get in on the ground floor.

 

[DKSuddeth]

eh, who cares about europe. theres not a smidgen of trouble over there anyway otherwise they'd have a marine unit stationed over there. :

 

[Annie]

Not just Europe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3782213.stm

"The United States has proposed withdrawing 12,500 of its 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea by 2006.
US officials told South Korean counterparts of the plans ahead of talks in Seoul on troop movements.

The reduction would include 3,600 troops which Washington has already earmarked for redeployment to Iraq.

The US has said it needs to modernise its forces, but the proposed speed and scale of the move may leave the South feeling vulnerable to North Korea."

Too bad, it's what they wanted, no?

http://www.koreanwar.net/protest1.htm

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
eh, who cares about europe. theres not a smidgen of trouble over there anyway otherwise they'd have a marine unit stationed over there. :

Oh yeah?

Well, do you know why Congress created the Marine Corps?











So sailors would have someone to dance with.:teeth:

BTW - I have not seen a comment on my response to your GOP question. I worked hard on those (at least 15 minutes).

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Oh yeah?

Well, do you know why Congress created the Marine Corps?

So sailors would have someone to dance with.:teeth:

BTW - I have not seen a comment on my response to your GOP question. I worked hard on those (at least 15 minutes).

which GOP question? link me because I have forgotten.

 

[dmp]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Not just Europe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3782213.stm

"The United States has proposed withdrawing 12,500 of its 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea by 2006.
US officials told South Korean counterparts of the plans ahead of talks in Seoul on troop movements.

The reduction would include 3,600 troops which Washington has already earmarked for redeployment to Iraq.

The US has said it needs to modernise its forces, but the proposed speed and scale of the move may leave the South feeling vulnerable to North Korea."

Too bad, it's what they wanted, no?

http://www.koreanwar.net/protest1.htm

As I pointed out in another thread - Korea will be fine; removing forces which wouldn't have even SLOWED North Korean forces out of theatre won't change korea's level of protection, signifigantly.

 

[Annie]

I think they ALL will be fine, or not. Really not our problem. As long as our interests and friends are protected, I say they can all go at it.

 

[007]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Not just Europe:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3782213.stm

"The United States has proposed withdrawing 12,500 of its 37,000 troops stationed in South Korea by 2006.
US officials told South Korean counterparts of the plans ahead of talks in Seoul on troop movements.

The reduction would include 3,600 troops which Washington has already earmarked for redeployment to Iraq.

The US has said it needs to modernise its forces, but the proposed speed and scale of the move may leave the South feeling vulnerable to North Korea."

Too bad, it's what they wanted, no?

http://www.koreanwar.net/protest1.htm

Let China take over responsability for South Korea.

 

[Annie]

China and Russia, they created that mess.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
which GOP question? link me because I have forgotten.

Have not figure out how to work those links yet. It's on the Political Races board, entitled "A majority GOP future"