Um.. Opposing Troop Withdrawl from Europe?

[Mick Knox]

Can someone please tell my why Sen Kerry and Gen Clark are opposing this?

:wtf:


The cold war is WAY over. WAY over.

Bringing troops home from Europe, Iraq, etc etc Is GOOD..

[movonne]

1. No ... we have terrorist all over the world and need our troops their.

Besides this is just a political ploy...it will take years to do this.

[Mick Knox]

3. why is that?

they are stationed there. If they are needed, they can fly from the USA as good as from europe; its not like they walk or drive their tanks to where they are needed.

Why oppose it?

Anyway, this wasnt chimpy's idea.. Clinton started this ball rolling; it was a good idea then, and it still is.

:wtf:

Its a ploy to oppose it IMO, because there is no logic in it.. none.

[vivalarev]

6. So in your opinion

its definetely a political motive? and if so, do you think it was a "rove" plot to get kerry to go against it?

i bet bush does a new political ad showing john kerry saying hes against bring troops home.

[Mick Knox]

7. Could very well be

I dont see anything bad.

These dont deploy.. they are stationed there. If they do deploy, they fly there.

All that can be done in the USA.

It was a win win for roveco

Agree = See Kerry agrees on everything we do .. why change
Oppose = See Kerry opposes something that is obviously good (or whatever they are going to invent).

I dont see a downside to pulling them out.

[vivalarev]

2. I believe their question was...

motive? clarke suggested that they wanted more troops for "quick deployment to the perpetual middle east war" (not exact quote, but close). i would assume kerry is thinking the same thing. plus, one of the countries that they plan to withdraw troops from was korea. of all the places in the world where we should have troops, south korea should top the list. i guess theres points to be made both ways though, but personally i agree with clark and kerry on this one.

[mhollis]

4. Lots of reasons.

Shrub states that bringing troops deployed to Europe home will get them back to their families -- obviously he is poorly advised that World War II is over. Many families of troops have moved to Europe to be with their loved ones.

Germany, South Korea and Japan actually pay us to station troops in their countries. This means there is no savings to bringing them home, there is a net loss.

To the extent our troops are overseas in friendly countries, they are at "jumping off points" where they can get to trouble spots faster. Many of the troops in Germany were quickly deployed to the Iraqi theater, complete with their command structure.

NATO forces really benefit from the presence of American bases in Europe, as they can take part in combined operations and exercises while we are there.

Pres. Mitterand has been telling the Europeans that the US is leaving Europe after signing solemn declarations of support. From a diplomatic standpoint, this is proving his point exactly. This is not a good move.

Taking troops out of South Korea without bargaining with the North Koreans decreases the number of bargaining chips we have. This announcement gives them plenty of proof that we are not serious in our negotiations with them. North Korea actually does have weapons of mass destruction and is making more while starving their citizenry to do it. So, rather than hold our military posture and try to help those starving North Koreans, we pull out. I can think of no better way to strengthen Kim Jong Il's hand.

Shrub mentioned nothing about Iraq. He mentioned nothing about Afghanistan (where the war on terror is actually being fought. And he does not mean to bring those troops home. He's making this announcement to confuse the issue, acting like the troops who are experiencing distress due to an overseas assignment are in friendly countries, not the countries where the natives are shooting at us. This is typical of his lying behavior.

Yes, the Cold War is over. You are correct, sir. And there have been planned troop reductions in Europe for the past twelve years. Shrub wants to accelerate that, at considerable cost to the readiness of our troops and to our international mission.

[Kimber Scott]

19. Yes, they act like being stationed in Europe is some kind of hardship

when many people join the military for precisely that opportunity. I loved living in Germany and would go back in a minute if I could - with my family.

This is some kind of weird, twisted logic made up for a news soundbite. "Bush wins applause for bringing troops home." These people are very good at what they do. It's so scary.

[incapsulated]

5. Clark and Holbrooke on the Subject

MATTHEWS: General Wesley Clark was a Democratic candidate for president. He‘s now a John Kerry supporter. General Clark, is this a way to avoid a draft, by reducing our commitments in Europe and Asia so we can put what we have in terms of forces into the Middle East?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK, U.S. ARMY (RET.), KERRY-EDWARDS CAMPAIGN ADVISER:

Well, I think a lot of the forces in Europe are already in the Middle East, Chris. They‘re on a rotation schedule. What this plan gives is a rationale for pulling one brigade from the Korea two-brigade force structure. So it gives us an additional brigade to throw into Iraq.

I think the plan damages U.S. national security. I don‘t think it does a thing to offset the kinds of pressures that are leading people to talk about a draft. And worse than that, in the immediate near future, it undercuts our ability to deal with the North Korean problem and further deepens the split with our traditional allies in Europe.

MATTHEWS: Is this making us into a Mideast power, rather than a Pacific power and a European power?

CLARK: Well, it...

MATTHEWS: It looks like it. It looks like we‘re shifting our national intent to almost permanent war in the Middle East.

CLARK: It makes us more of an imperial power and more of a unilateral power because what it does is it pulls away the props of these two alliances and leaves us there to focus on more fighting in Iraq and more trouble in Iraq. I think it‘s a short-sighted move. I think it‘s misplaced and actually endangers American security. It‘s obviously political.




Clark insisted the new plan will
only burden military families

Troop pullouts

A pullout from Europe, he said, would further strain relations with NATO allies, "be interpreted as the distancing of the US from NATO, and will set back US efforts to encourage greater NATO participation in Iraq."

Clark disputed Bush's argument that US troops could be deployed to hotspots much faster from the continental United States, and said the plan would do nothing to ease the burden on overstretched American forces.

"Worse, it will increase the burden on many military families as troops will be separated from their families during more frequent and unaccompanied deployments to Eastern Europe," he said.

Holbrooke, a former ambassador to Germany as well as assistant secretary of state for Asia, said Bush's plan to redeploy troops and make them into a more mobile force to fight terrorism and other threats was "pretty alarming."

Unilateralism

"There is no question in my mind that this will weaken our national security," said Holbrooke, who has been tipped as a potential secretary of state if Kerry wins the White House in the November election.

"This is another example of the administration's unilateralism. ... It is not going to save us money. It will cost billions of dollars to bring these troops home," he said in an interview with CNN.

"There is no question in my mind that this will weaken our national security"

Richard Holbrooke,
adviser to John Kerry

Holbrooke said both the Germans and South Koreans would be very unhappy with Bush's announcement that a total of 60,000 to 70,000 US troops would be repatriated.

"How can we withdraw troops from Korea while engaged in a delicate negotiation with the North Koreans?" he asked. "There's a country that really does have weapons of mass destruction."

"Germany, South Korea and Japan, which will see the biggest cuts, all spend billions of dollars to support the troops. And I am very concerned about this."

Weakening of ties

Holbrooke also rejected the president's assertion that bringing the troops home will make it easier to dispatch them to trouble spots. He called bases in Germany, South Korea and Okinawa "essential" along with other forward deployments.

"Even in the modern world, airplanes take time to get places," Holbrooke said. "This is a weakening of our traditional ties to our closest allies just when we need them most."

[goclark]

21. Gen. Clark speaks his mind and I trust him

Bushco are idiots and they don't ever have the best interest of soldiers at heart.

If they did they would end this drama in Iraq and bring our soldiers home NOW!

[Andromeda]

22. Clarke and Holbrooke are exactly right.

This is a dangerous move and I hope President Kerry can stop it.

[Mick Knox]

8. Why do we need them in Korea?

If NK is going to nuke us.. and we nuke them.. well what are the troops for.

I really dont understand.

NK is not invading SK, SK has a huge military.

[Lefty Pragmatist]

11. NK could invade SK

and then what do you do? Do you nuke them?

Withdrawing from Europe is a good idea. Withdrawing from SK is probably not a good idea, especially because it will probably make this administration more aggressive (fewer American lives at risk).

[Lefty Pragmatist]

9. Apparently McCain opposes it too.

I missed everything but the teaser on MSNBC Live, but they had McCain looking glum and noted that he was poking holes in Rove's, er, Rumsfeld's ploy, er, plan.

[blondeatlast]

10. How do you feel about withdrawing troops from S. Korea?

Surely you understand why that is just inane.

[blondeatlast]

12. Well, let's start with this pesky little NATO agreement...

then go from there.

First though, perhaps you should hit the history books...

[Mick Knox]

13. you worried about Germany

attacking other countries?

Out of curiosity.

[mhollis]

15. The NATO alliance

Was not formed in order to keep then-partitioned Germany from attacking anyone. After World War II, the German people did not run their own country. It was after the Occupying Powers allowed them to self-govern in 1948 that the West was reunited from three seperate partitions, (the English Zone, The French Zone and the American Zone). The Eastern part was "allowed" "self-rule" in 1949 under the Communist System to the extent that the people of East Germany voted for a Communist government and later Russia cut the East off.

NATO "The North Atlantic Treaty Organization." was formed in 1949 with charter member nations United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France West Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Italy Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal.

Basically, the West Germans understood that the new threat was from the East and they strongly desired that a permanent NATO base should exist in their country. The US has bases there as does the United Kingdom.

From what I have seen, I don't think anyone ought to feel that they can easily take on the German Army (they're really good and with less than our army) but we do exercises regularly with them. I'm sure we "school" them as much as they teach us.

NATO exercises are all about a long-standing alliance and treaty. Pulling out our troops from Europe would belittle the recent relationships we formed with former Eastern Bloc countries. This is not a good idea. While we can reduce the size of our forces in Europe -- we have all ready to send them to Iraq -- we would lose the billions of Euros we receive from Germany to house our forces there. We would lose a great relationship with European commanders. We would take a serious diplomatic "hit," but Shrub doesn't really care about this as he has more than proven that he does not care much for anything like "diplomacy." Our European allies know that Shrub ought to wear a shirt with a large printed warning: "Does Not Play Well With Others"

[Mick Knox]

14. Maybe those who want to keep troops in SK and Germany

should sign up and volunteer to go there. You want to be a speed bump to a million man NK army?

I can look up an enlistment contract for you.

Let SK defend itself!

It is a waste.. and I want to see our good women and men in the military come home.. from useless billets like SK and Germany and from godforsaken wars in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan et al.

Bring em Home NOW!

[A_Possum]

16. I thought a lot of military families liked living in Europe

correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that one of the recruiting enticements?

[Kimber Scott]

20. You're exactly right. Military families pray for European deployments.

It is THE major perk of military life. Most people don't like to go to Korea. Well, some do, but many have to go for a year without their families. My daughter-in-law had to go for a year when her baby was barely a year old. She didn't like that, at all. Now, she's in Iraq.

Anyway, with most European deployments, you get to take your family and it is an experience most Americans would never get, without the military. It's biggest benefit is it opens us up to cultures outside our own. We need to learn their are other people in the world, without having to kill them in the process.

This whole thing is a very bad idea, in my opinion. The military will lose one of its biggest recruiting enticements, the American military personnel will lose the benefit of exposure to other cultures in a friendly environment, and thus we will lose the benefit of their experience when they come home. We will lose diplomatically and militarily. It takes a lot less time to fly from Frankfurt to Baghdad than it does to fly from Georgia to Baghdad. (Of course, we shouldn't be in Baghdad, but that's a different question.)

[dansolo]

17. Maybe because the troops aren't coming home.

They will be redeployed to the middle east.

[Sparkly]

18. I agree.

Not only Iraq, but also Iran.

This smells bad. It's distancing ourselves from places where we need to remain connected and from allies the Chimp has already succeeded in alienating. It's not about security or rational military strategy, seems to me. It's about politics ("I brought the troops home!") and PNAC plans for the future with a stretched-thin military.

As General Clark said, keep doing this and you won't be able to buy an army. It'll take a draft.