Major cuts may be coming to US military in Europe..

[DCBob]

From Stars and Stripes...

“The U.S. military’s force posture in Europe will, of necessity, continue to adapt and evolve to meet new challenges and opportunities, particularly in light of the security needs of the continent relative to the emerging strategic priorities that we face elsewhere,” Panetta said in introducing the defense strategic review at a news conference.

However, when asked specifically if that meant cuts, Panetta said only that the U.S. would maintain its commitments to Europe and develop an “innovative presence.”

While Panetta avoided quantifying the size of pending force reductions, the defense secretary’s counterpart from Britain on Thursday offered a possible glimpse at the Pentagon’s European plan.

“My understanding is that there will remain two brigades (in Europe),” British Defense chief Philip Hammond said in an interview with Bloomberg on Thursday after meeting with Panetta.

more: http://www.stripes.com/news/force-numbers-in-europe-answers-expected-in-feb-budget-proposal-1.165288

===============

If two brigades are cut then that would be a 50% reduction since there are four there now. This is further evidence the Obama administration is serious about reducing the size of the military. Contrary to some on left who have insisted Obama is just a pawn of the MIC.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. "Innovative Presence" is an Ambiguos word ,

50% is a factual number and a commitment to us, and not NWO .

[DCBob]

3. That's an interesting choice or words by Panetta.

I suspect it means more focus on high-tech weapons, surveilance and intelligence rather than bodies and heavy armour.

[MichaelMcGuire]

15. 50% in Europe

From the OP
//strategic priorities that we face elsewhere//

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

2. It's about time. We have been carrying their water for far too long.

[izquierdista]

8. "Carrying their water"?

There is a word for someone who carries buckets of water around a housing development with indoor plumbing -- idiot.

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

11. Or a physical fitness nut.

The combined defense budgets of the 27 EU member states in 2010 was $299.7 billion--their GDP was $16.07 trillion.

The defense budget of the US in 2010 was $698.1 billion--our GDP was $14.66 trillion.

They have always depended on their big brother to defend them from the bullies. But now, they are a little taller than us--big enough to fend off the bullies all by themselves.

[izquierdista]

16. Big brother?

Wrong novel. They learned what they needed to know from 'All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten'. If you don't get into continual war with all the neighbors on all sides, you don't need much "defense".

[Thaddeus Kosciuszko]

18. Like a neo-con chicken-hawk, you couldn't be more wrong abut what "they learned...in Kindergarten."

You see, the EU lesson plan includes a couple things that affected them far more than it affected us.

During WWI, there were 37,772,681 deaths and casualties. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties#Casualties_by_1914_borders

However, only 2% of the Allied's were borne by the US. (It's closer to 1%, when those of the Central Powers and Neutral Nations are included)

During WWII, it is estimated that there were 62,171,400 to 78,511,500 total deaths!!! The 418,000 Americans who lost their lives was one of the most tragic episodes in US History. Even so, it only accounted for 0.32% of the total deaths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths

So, when I hear a Sean Hannity or a Bill Crystal leading the calls for war, while at the same time placing an order for so-called Freedom Fries, it makes me realize that most Americans don't have a clue when it comes to understanding the horrors of war.

Now, to revisit the topic of discussion: Most of our defense related activity in Europe was effected by the Cold War. But like everything else the governments spends money on, it is extremely difficult to reduce or eliminate funding, when conditions change. However, it appears that fiscal reality is forcing us to re-think our priorities.

And that is a good thing.

[drm604]

4. I wonder if this is actually a cut

or if it's just a reallocation of forces to the Asia-Pacific region.

[DCBob]

6. I was thinking the same thing.

Paneta offered few specifics but I think the overall goal is not only shift focus to Asia-Pac but also to cut costs so one would assume it would not just be an equal reallocation.

[Zalatix]

5. If this leads to a trimming down of US hegemony/imperialism

GREAT!!!

Who says America has to be the world's policeman? The world already doesn't like us.

Go Obama 2012!

[DCBob]

7. Agreed. Its high time we stop be the "world's policeman".

At least not in such a flagrant up-front manner.

[MicaelS]

9. Long, long overdue

This expresses my opinion:

For some time, many military observers in the U.S. have lamented Europe’s lack of investment in its own defense while questioning whether the security offered by the current U.S. force has given Europeans a free ride for too long. To that end, a bipartisan group of senators in October called for a full review of the costs associated with running U.S. military bases overseas, singling out facilities in Europe as obsolete Cold War relics.

Andrew Exum, a scholar at the Center for a New American Security, on his popular military blog Abu Muqawama, said the Defense Strategic Guidance released Thursday puts Europe in proper perspective.

“Europe is so very 20th Century,” Exum wrote. “The United States has a deep appreciation for its European allies, but those same allies are going to have to figure out how to fund and support their own defense. Because in terms of U.S. priorities, Europe ranks lower than ever.”

“Too many countries are failing to meet their financial responsibilities to NATO, and so failing to maintain appropriate and proportionate capabilities,” Hammond said Thursday during an appearance at the Atlantic Council in Washington. “Too many are opting out of operations or contributing but a fraction of what they should be capable of. This is a European problem, not an American one.”

[MichaelMcGuire]

12. I'm no wanting to argue with you but

//For some time, many military observers in the U.S. have lamented Europe’s lack of investment in its own defense while questioning whether the security offered by the current U.S. force has given Europeans a free ride for too long. To that end, a bipartisan group of senators in October called for a full review of the costs associated with running U.S. military bases overseas, singling out facilities in Europe as obsolete Cold War relics.//

This (unless I'm reading it wrong) makes little sense;

Is it asking for Europeans to fund these same bases which they point out as 'obsolete cold war relics'?

[MicaelS]

13. I read it as stating that the Europeans

Already have bases, and they need to expand their own bases and forces, instead of asking to keep defending them, now that the USSR is gone.

[MichaelMcGuire]

14. I don't think there is a need to expand

This need to expand and spend depends on a threat.
USSR is no longer..... and according to what was posted.
These bases are no longer needed.

[MicaelS]

17. What about peacekeeping roles?

Why is it every time there's a need for armed peacekeepers, or enforcing UN sanctions against some country deemed as rogue by the International Community, it's the same countries? Basically it is the US, the UK, and France.

If people want the US the "quit being the world's policeman", then some of these other NATO countries are going to have to step up and put their people in harm's way. And, they are going to have to increase their military budgets.

And here's a final point..

If the US hadn't paid the bulk of the defense needs of Western Europe during the Cold War, then that means Western Europe would have had to pay for it themselves, and THAT means they would not have been able to have the comprehensive social welfare states we envy them for. In other words, the US funded their comprehensive social welfare states at the expense of American citizens having National Health Care and the like.

[MichaelMcGuire]

19. Well

I'm probably the wrong person to ask as I not that keen on NATO
And I don't want to replace the US as the worlds policeman

as for the last point

I can't answer what would have happened as it didn't. I'd think what you state would have been in the US's interests also.

[MichaelMcGuire]

10. K&R