What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why Are U.S. Troops Still Stationed In Europe?

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,056
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
by War News Updates Editor @ War News Updates: Why Are U.S. Troops Still Stationed In Europe?

Why Are American Troops Still Stationed In Europe? -- Doug Bandow, Forbes

REGENSBURG, GERMANY—Washington has sharply reduced the number of American combat forces in Europe since the end of the Cold War, but a large U.S. military footprint remains. The Soviet “Evil Empire” has collapsed, Eastern Europe has switched sides, and America’s European allies now possess a collective GDP and population larger than the U.S. Why are American military personnel still stationed on the continent?

Regensburg once was a Roman garrison town and is a celebrated tourist site. More important for Americans, nearby sits the U.S. Army’s Hohenfels training facility.

Read more ....Why Are American Troops Still Stationed In Europe? - Forbes

My Comment: I agree with the above question .... why are American troops still stationed in Europe? If the roles were reversed .... Russian troops in eastern Europe .... we would all be asking ourselves .... what is that all about. But in this case .... the Russians are smarter. They are not spending (and wasting) money on defending Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, etc .... we are.

Having spent twelve years serving in France, Germany, and Austria, I've been asking the same question for more than 30 years!!!!! :cool:
 
Last edited:

mememe

Rookie
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
81
Points
0
Why Are U.S. Troops Still Stationed In Europe?


Because European countries are US vassals, and it needs to control them;
Because US needs to dismember Russia and take its natural resources (as it did with the USSR), hence Russia is getting surrounded by NATO belt;
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
3,040
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
mememe, et al,

I don't think this is quite correct. The US doesn't control Europe and Russia doesn't need dismantled. Russia actually plays a very role in maintaining the US hegemony, although not in the way you might think.

Why Are U.S. Troops Still Stationed In Europe?

Because European countries are US vassals, and it needs to control them;
Because US needs to dismember Russia and take its natural resources (as it did with the USSR), hence Russia is getting surrounded by NATO belt;
(COMMENT)

There is no question that, from a political-military standpoint, Russia must feel the pressure of being gradually enclosed. But it is more than normal that nations are enclosed; surrounded by nations that serve nothing but their own best interest.

The US exerts its influence in the world by means of its extended political-military hegemony; the grand stick to the soft words of diplomacy. NATO, and the US contingent, is but one component of the US influence.

The US must see to it that the military portion of NATO [the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) / the Allied Command Europe (ACE)] maintains a coherent and totally compatible with the US Military unified commands; that SHAPE/ACE is not left rudderless or indecisive in this vein. That requires a strong military presence in both men, material and supporting capacity, BUT also, in the command structure [the position of Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR)]. To that end, the US investment in defense outstrips the combined contributions of the entire rest of the alliance in order to maintain the advancement of just this one (Euro-Atlantic) hegemony that has grown in influence beyond the Middle East and into Asia.

But let there be no mistake, that NATO has two components; the military (SHAPE/ACE in Mons, Belgium) whose strength is in the Central Army Group and the Mediterranean Sea Fleet, and the political arm (NATO/OTAN Brussels, Belgium), wherein the strength rests with the member nations. And the political arm is much more influenced by the European nations than the voice of the US. And that is where the diplomatic skills and bribery come into play.

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
to maintain a hegemony as the armorer of the world. Maintain the corporatocracy/plutocracy. If the US protects people under their umbrella, the other countries have no incentive to dump 10's/100's billions into weapons development
 

mememe

Rookie
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
81
Points
0
mememe, et al,

I don't think this is quite correct. The US doesn't control Europe and Russia doesn't need dismantled. Russia actually plays a very role in maintaining the US hegemony, although not in the way you might think.

Why Are U.S. Troops Still Stationed In Europe?

Because European countries are US vassals, and it needs to control them;
Because US needs to dismember Russia and take its natural resources (as it did with the USSR), hence Russia is getting surrounded by NATO belt;
(COMMENT)

There is no question that, from a political-military standpoint, Russia must feel the pressure of being gradually enclosed. But it is more than normal that nations are enclosed; surrounded by nations that serve nothing but their own best interest.

The US exerts its influence in the world by means of its extended political-military hegemony; the grand stick to the soft words of diplomacy. NATO, and the US contingent, is but one component of the US influence.

The US must see to it that the military portion of NATO [the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) / the Allied Command Europe (ACE)] maintains a coherent and totally compatible with the US Military unified commands; that SHAPE/ACE is not left rudderless or indecisive in this vein. That requires a strong military presence in both men, material and supporting capacity, BUT also, in the command structure [the position of Supreme Allied Commander (SACEUR)]. To that end, the US investment in defense outstrips the combined contributions of the entire rest of the alliance in order to maintain the advancement of just this one (Euro-Atlantic) hegemony that has grown in influence beyond the Middle East and into Asia.

But let there be no mistake, that NATO has two components; the military (SHAPE/ACE in Mons, Belgium) whose strength is in the Central Army Group and the Mediterranean Sea Fleet, and the political arm (NATO/OTAN Brussels, Belgium), wherein the strength rests with the member nations. And the political arm is much more influenced by the European nations than the voice of the US. And that is where the diplomatic skills and bribery come into play.

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on this matter.

Brussels (Europeans) are a DEPENDENT part of the global US ($) empire. They can get stroppy, or even ambitious, but they are restricted by the length of the leash the US allows them. As Brzezinski put it: "Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power...

... it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America...

In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources...

Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above...

...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together...

Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power."
That is the reason the US is still in Europe.


As for the need to dismantle Russia and plunder its natural resources... Let me just say: the dismantlement and plunder of the resources of the USSR kept the crisis of the capitalist system at bay for over 10 years.
 

Mad Scientist

Feels Good!
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
24,196
Reaction score
5,426
Points
270
Because the Military Industrial Complex benefits from it.
 

mememe

Rookie
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
81
Points
0

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,336
Reaction score
1,723
Points
205
So they know who's boss.
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
528
Points
93
So they know who's boss.

US installations in Germany are mostly in remote areas, and a lot of them are in Municipalities with less than 10.000 inhabitants.
These are "village type"-structures and these places collect taxes. The soldier is going out, buying things. These places also lack the money to re-develop the areal unit used by the US-Army for civilian use.
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,336
Reaction score
1,723
Points
205
So they know who's boss.

US installations in Germany are mostly in remote areas, and a lot of them are in Municipalities with less than 10.000 inhabitants.
These are "village type"-structures and these places collect taxes. The soldier is going out, buying things. These places also lack the money to re-develop the areal unit used by the US-Army for civilian use.

And?
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
528
Points
93
So they know who's boss.

US installations in Germany are mostly in remote areas, and a lot of them are in Municipalities with less than 10.000 inhabitants.
These are "village type"-structures and these places collect taxes. The soldier is going out, buying things. These places also lack the money to re-develop the areal unit used by the US-Army for civilian use.

And?

You said, that "they know who is boss".
Germany is fully capable to kick out US Army out of Germany.
But there are economic considerations, and the municipalities the US Army has installations in might not have an interest to kick the US Army out.
 

RoccoR

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
10,985
Reaction score
3,040
Points
290
Location
Reynoldsburg, OH
mememe, et al,

Of course this is a view.

Brussels (Europeans) are a DEPENDENT part of the global US ($) empire. They can get stroppy, or even ambitious, but they are restricted by the length of the leash the US allows them. As Brzezinski put it: "Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power...
(COMMENT)

I'm not sure that "Eurasia" is the center of "world power;" at least not just yet. And 500 years ago, the just prior to the 1500's, Ming China, the Ottoman empire, the Moghuls, Russia and Japan were all more advanced than Europe. Each regional area has some sort of impact on the geo-economic linkage. And few countries, east of Moscow, could have predicted the re-emergence of the Western Civilizations (Europe).

Today, Russia is a declining power, and the political-military hegemonies of the US are slowly but surely being replaced (as the more influential) by the political-economic relationships being established by the industrial giants in China (the largest foreign holder of US debt) and expanding mini-dragons of Asia-Pacific region (the largest recipients of US outsourced industrial might and production capability).

... it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America...
(COMMENT)

This is more clearly 20th Century thinking, and not taking into account the dynamics of the 21st Century. It is foolish for the US to attempt to hold back Eurasia because the US is having trouble being competitive, or securing a competitive advantage.

In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources...
(COMMENT)

I would suggest that the current adverse reputation the US holds, and the trouble that has spawned from that reputation has a direct relationship to the open idea that the US must manage Eurasia and other critical resource holdings.

Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above...
(COMMENT)

It is this type of enunciated strategies that furthers the image - that the US is imperialistic and that all global policies must be in the best interest of the US. While that is an ideal condition, it doesn't promote that the US is an honest broker deserving of holding world leadership. And as soon as the rest of the world spies a new emerging leader, it will begin to attach to those new coat tails. Alliances with the US are not seen as a matter of loyalty, but arrangements of convenience that alleviate the pressure that the American Hegemony exerts in its attempt to establish its control. And that has to change in this new century.

Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power."
(COMMENT)

Yes, this is very descriptive.

If the US was viewed as an honest broker, economically, politically, militarily, or industrially, there would not be a need to worry about it being pushed out of global power. The regional powers would see that cooperation with the US would be in their best interest.

Most Respectfully,
R
 

Kevin_Kennedy

Defend Liberty
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
18,336
Reaction score
1,723
Points
205
US installations in Germany are mostly in remote areas, and a lot of them are in Municipalities with less than 10.000 inhabitants.
These are "village type"-structures and these places collect taxes. The soldier is going out, buying things. These places also lack the money to re-develop the areal unit used by the US-Army for civilian use.

And?

You said, that "they know who is boss".
Germany is fully capable to kick out US Army out of Germany.
But there are economic considerations, and the municipalities the US Army has installations in might not have an interest to kick the US Army out.

I didn't say Germany had a problem kissing the U.S. government's boot.
 

ekrem

Silver Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2005
Messages
7,727
Reaction score
528
Points
93
I didn't say Germany had a problem kissing the U.S. government's boot.

Given that Germany exports twice the amount of goods into USA than USA exports to Germany the Germans probably "kissed" the right boots.
 

emptystep

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
3,654
Reaction score
220
Points
83
I believe that reducing the size of our military overall is a good policy. I would advocate for reducing our overseas presence at roughly the same rate as the overall reduction. A sudden and complete pull back all our overseas forces would cause more harm than good.
 

Politico

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
13,855
Reaction score
942
Points
175
Because we need someone to man the bases silly.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$191.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top