Why does the U. S. have so many troops in Germany?

[Derek_Plumber]

Pentagon set for shift in Germany - World news- msnbc.com

I could not locate accurate, up-to-date estimates of U. S. troop strength in Germany. In 2004 msnbc stated there were about 70,000 U. S. troops in Germany. If you can find an up-to-date record of troops, please link this thread. So, forgiving the lack of current data, how come there are so many U. S. troops in Germany?

 

[dilloduck]

Pentagon set for shift in Germany - World news- msnbc.com

I could not locate accurate, up-to-date estimates of U. S. troop strength in Germany. In 2004 msnbc stated there were about 70,000 U. S. troops in Germany. If you can find an up-to-date record of troops, please link this thread. So, forgiving the lack of current data, how come there are so many U. S. troops in Germany?

Keeps thier economy workin'

 

[Navy1960]

As of 31 March 2008, U.S. Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries.[18] Some of the largest contingents are the 142,000 military personnel in Iraq, the 56,200 in Germany, the 33,122 in Japan, 26,339 in South Korea, 31,100 in Afghanistan and approximately 9,700 each in Italy and the United Kingdom. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

Altogether, 84,488 military personnel are located in Europe, 154 in the former Soviet Union, 70,719 in East Asia and the Pacific, 7,850 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 2,727 are in sub-Saharan Africa with 2,043 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself.

United States armed forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here Derek hopefully this is a bit more up to date. In answer to your question though the United States has many reasons why it is still in Germany among them is our commitment to NATO. Further US Forces in Germany act as a deterrant against any hostile nation namely Russia from acts of aggression in the region. One other reason The United States is there is Germany serves as a major hub for US Army and Military personnel that are transitioning from one area of operation to the other as well as a vital first line of defense for medical services needed by American combat forces engaged in parts of the world.

 

[Derek_Plumber]

As of 31 March 2008, U.S. Forces were...56,200 in Germany.

That 56,200 works. Thanks for the research. What I don't understand is why the United States is putting lives at risk, and footing the bill? Shouldn't we let the Europeans work out their own military situation? Why don't conservatives make noise about this? They are always talking about cutting taxes. Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to want to talk about it. Are we trying to maintain some sort of "Empire" status in Europe?

 

[brownlou]

Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.

 

[Soaring]

Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.

That's almost true. You younguns didn't live through WWII where we had to fight on two major fronts and lost literally tens of thousands of troops to the guns of the Nazis and the Japanese. We also were in the Korean war in order to prevent the South from being taken over by the Northern communists. Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II. They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check. We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese. I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are. If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it. It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.

That's almost true. You younguns didn't live through WWII where we had to fight on two major fronts and lost literally tens of thousands of troops to the guns of the Nazis and the Japanese. We also were in the Korean war in order to prevent the South from being taken over by the Northern communists. Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II. They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check. We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese. I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are. If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it. It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.

you guarantee it?
great. i have a good deal of feeling that you are full of shit.

 

[xotoxi]

Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.

That's almost true. You younguns didn't live through WWII where we had to fight on two major fronts and lost literally tens of thousands of troops to the guns of the Nazis and the Japanese. We also were in the Korean war in order to prevent the South from being taken over by the Northern communists. Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II. They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check. We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese. I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are. If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it. It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.

So the 52,000 US troops in Germany...how are they keeping the Germans in check? Are they walking through the streets with heavy artillery? Are they carefully monitoring the moves of key figures in the German government?

 

[L.K.Eder]

So the 52,000 US troops in Germany...how are they keeping the Germans in check? Are they walking through the streets with heavy artillery? Are they carefully monitoring the moves of key figures in the German government?

they are mighty warriors carrying really big guns.

i guarantee it, youngun.

 

[garyd]

No it has nothing whatever to do with imperialism you freaking tools it has to do with the fact that as WWII and 9/11 demonstrated isolationism fails.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No it has nothing whatever to do with imperialism you freaking tools it has to do with the fact that as WWII and 9/11 demonstrated isolationism fails.

Explaining reality to idiots is a waste of time Garyd.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why do we currently have troops in 130 countries along with Germany? Our empire costs us far too much to maintain, especially with our current economic state.

 

[Gunny]

Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.

It has nothing to do with imperialism. Don't they teach history in school anymore?

 

[Gunny]

Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.

That's almost true. You younguns didn't live through WWII where we had to fight on two major fronts and lost literally tens of thousands of troops to the guns of the Nazis and the Japanese. We also were in the Korean war in order to prevent the South from being taken over by the Northern communists. Our foreign policy dictates that we occupy those countries militarilly in order to prevent them from repeating what they did during WW II. They are both extremely aggressive nations, and need to be kept into check. We don't want another WWI and a WWII episode by the Germans, and we certainly don't want another far eastern aggression by the Japanese. I have lived and worked in both of those countries, and have a good deal of feeling about what their worldwide polital intensions are. If not kept in check, they will start another WW, I guarantee it. It's too bad that the Americans have to bear the cost, but that ain't gonna change anytime soon.

you guarantee it?
great. i have a good deal of feeling that you are full of shit.

The US bases in Europe are due to Cold War defenses against the threat of Soviet invasion. It isn't because we are imperialist, nor is it because we're trying to keep Germany and Japan in check.

They were to keep the Soviet Union in check.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because the US is an imperialist nation. We have many bases in many other countries. Italy, South Korea, and Japan are a few. I am not sure how many others.

It has nothing to do with imperialism. Don't they teach history in school anymore?

Actually no they do not. Not until High School and then very little. They teach Social Studies.

 

[garyd]

Until you get to high school the number of hours of History people teaching history have actually had in college is whatever they are reqired to take as part of their over all degree field which can be as little as six credit hours of college level history classes in which the class is taught not infreqently by some by some bored dude who just got his BS and is busy working on his masters and considers your class a waste of his valuable research time. By the way the same is pretty much true of Math and science below the high school level, which is why the humongous number of errors in many grade and middle school texts go unreported till actual science people check them out and are generally horrified by what they find.

 

[Derek_Plumber]

Now I have cultivated a reputation in this web site as an unforgiving wild eyed liberal, but I am not playing games with this issue. Last Friday Bill Maher with Republicans on his panel questioned the number of troops in Germany. Maher and the panelists were pretty much in agreement. Protection from Russia was mentioned, but that Berlin Wall fell way back on November 9, 1989. Russia is not a world power any more.

I don't get it, the world is filled with crackpot countries. I am more concerned about Iran to Korea than Germany and Japan. Why is the USA always the one to play policeman? Let these European and other countries put their young people in harms way. I don't want to say this too strongly, but there is a fair case here for the United States playing at Imperialism. If we are, we are wrong, and should be spending more time resolving the World Economy. Now there is a way to make friends.

 

[Navy1960]

Derek here is a little information on Russia..

A government official said there would also be more short-range missiles, combat planes, helicopters, tanks and naval vessels.

In all, Russia will spend nearly $140bn (?94.5bn) on buying arms.

Russia plans a massive increase in its weapons procurement for three years beginning in 2009, with 300 tanks, 14 warships and almost 50 airplanes on the shopping list, a senior government official said on Monday.

Vladislav Putilin, deputy head of the military-industrial commission, told journalists after a cabinet meeting the government planned to allocate 4 trillion roubles ($141.5 billion)in 2009-11 to bankroll equipment purchases to modernize its army.

Putilin said that over the three-year period Russia's armed forces would receive more than 400 new types of weapons, including 48 aircraft, six spy drones, 60 helicopters, 14 warships, 300 tanks and more than 2,000 auto vehicles.
Russia has downsized its Armed Forces to about 1.1 million personnel, but military spending has increased dramatically under President Putin. Defense spending is set to total 1.18 trillion rubles ($45 billion) by 2010.



2007. Russia to boost funding of state defense order
Russia's Military Budget 2004 - 2008+ | Russian Arms, Military Technology, Analysis of Russia's Military Forces

The technology for countries like Iran and N. Korea in some cases comes from Russia.
MOSCOW (UPI) - Top Russian and North Korean military officials held talks in Moscow on Friday and signed a military cooperation agreement that will provide the Pyongyang regime with a range of modern weaponry, Russia's state-owned RIA Novosti news agency reported.
Russia, North Korea Sign Arms Deal

So Bill Mahr aside and while well meaning I'm sure, it's prudent for the United States to keep a watchful eye on Russia and if that means keeping a presence in Germany then so be it. Further, what people don't seem to understand. is that the U.S. can be asked to leave by the host country at anytime and thus far Germany has not demanded the United States leave. This is not an example of U.S. desires to dominate anyone, it is a result of prudent defense efforts that have been in place for over 50 years and have worked well and continue to do so.

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :
NATO Official Text: The North Atlantic Treaty

That is why other than , the previous reasons we remain in Germany, unless your advocating we abandon NATO.

 

[Derek_Plumber]

Why can't we station these troops in the empty bases we have in the United States? The troops would be at home, and with their families. It would be good for the economy, and it would cut back on the "Imperialism" accusations.

The whole thing sounds like a Pentagon spending spree.

 

[Navy1960]

Derek, while it's great to want US Forces to be near their loved one's I can't tell you how nice it would have been to have been closer to mine all those years, other than the factors listed above there is another good reason and thats deployment time.

The Army goal is to make these brigades light enough to deploy anywhere in the world in 4 days. Initially, these brigades will supplement the light and heavy forces. Over the next 20 to 30 years, the Army envisions the entire force becoming medium weight, with the ability to deploy by air anywhere in the world. To better understand the requirement for strategic responsiveness, as well as what is achievable, this study sought to answer the following questions: Can the Air Force meet the Army's 4-day deployment goal?

RAND | Monograph/Reports | The Stryker Brigade Combat Team: Rethinking Strategic Responsiveness and Assessing Deployment Options

These light forces that would be in place in 4 days should the need arise, do not include heavy forces like M1-A1 Tanks etc. In that 4 day time, while US Force should they all be moved back to the United States, is at serious risk given the rapid speed of ALB Air Land Battles that it will be over before US Forces are there to stop it. So yes, there is a need to keep these powers in the region in check until such time as we are formally asked by the German Govt. to leave. One more consideration the US Military cannot and should not fight or make deployment decisions based on public opinions but rather on overall US Defense needs. Forgive me Derek, and again, I do understand that it's well meaning to wish American Military men and women be closer to home, but that is the nature of the job and missions in which they are assigned and does not reflect the Military or the Govt.s desire to dominate any country.