WP: Bush's Withdrawal From the World

[kskiska]

Harry Truman must be turning over in his grave.

The planned withdrawal of U.S. troops from Europe and Asia that President Bush announced this week, if allowed to stand, could lead to the demise of the United States' key alliances across the globe, including the one that Truman considered his greatest foreign policy accomplishment: NATO.

The president proposes something that generations of U.S. diplomats and soldiers fought to prevent and that our adversaries sought unsuccessfully to achieve: radical reduction of U.S. political and military influence on the European and Asian continents. The Bush message, delivered at a campaign rally, also smells of political opportunism. Under pressure but unable to withdraw troops from Iraq, the president has instead reached for what his advisers hope is the next best thing politically -- a pledge to bring the boys home from Europe and Asia.

Whether this is good or bad politics remains to be seen. But there is little doubt that it is bad strategy and bad diplomacy, for which the United States is likely to pay a heavy price. The reasons are fairly simple. In Europe after the Cold War, the United States decided to significantly reduce its former troop levels but to leave sufficient military forces on the ground to accomplish three objectives: help ensure that peace and stability on the continent would endure; have the capacity to support NATO and European Union expansion and project the communities of democracies eastward; and provide the political and military glue to enable our allies to reorient themselves militarily and prepare, together with the United States, to address new conflicts beyond the continent's borders.

(snip)

The president's plan is unfortunately further evidence of the strategic myopia that has afflicted this administration and is undercutting the United States' standing in the world. At a time when we should be mobilizing and reinvigorating our alliances in Europe and Asia, we are dismantling them. Instead of creating multilateral structures to mobilize the world in a common struggle against terrorism and new anti-Western ideologies and movements, we opt for a unilateral course that leaves us with fewer friends. As opposed to balancing the political and military requirements of a new era and coming up with a new troop deployment plan that meets both needs, the administration allows the Pentagon to ride roughshod over broader U.S. strategy and diplomacy and destroy the work of generations of diplomats and soldiers.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9784-2004Aug17.html

[PartyPooper]

1. He's rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

But, in the end, what goes up must come down.

:dunce:

[coloradodem2005]

2. This is stupid.

The troops in Europe and Asia are certainly not in as imminent danger as the many that are in Iraq. Instead, he is just going to shoot this country in the foot AGAIN.

[Born Free]

26. Not really stupid

He fears his own people, his ignorance has cost too many Americans and future generations both finacially and personal safety. He needs the troops here to keep Americans in line as more an dmore Americans start questioning his poor decisions.

[truthisfreedom]

3. bush breaks stuff. basically, that's all he knows how to do. he broke the

election, broke his election promises, broke his face multiple times, broke the law over and over, broke the constitution, and broke the economy. now he's breaking our relationships all over the world. bush and family are all about breaking things. why do you think carlisle is so powerful? they break companies by interfering in contracts with the military to eliminate the need for something, then snatch the company for pennies on the dollar and get the contracts rolling again so they can claim they "fixed" what was broken. but basically all they did was break something.

[Cronus Protagonist]

5. He broke a few important treaties too

I think the really believes he's the end-times messiah.

[wuushew]

4. I disagree with this article...I say U.S. out of everywhere

We seem really good at running over South Korean school girls and raping Okinawan women. NATO is superfluous and all our Asian and European allies are wealthy enough to field their their own armies supplied with our military hardware at the very least.
Our remaining bases in central Asia are just mechanisms to control the rich oil and gas resources that flow through that region.

Our global presence is costing us countless dollars better spent on domestic programs.

I fault Bush not for the actual implementation of this strategy but rather the crass political positioning of this announcement.

[Voltaire99]

15. I agree with you

The WP is just flexing its imperialist muscles with this piece, worrying that Murrica won't have a finger in every pie.

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Pulling our troops out of places like Germany

Japan and South Korea will cost us billions, since we will no longer receive the financial support from these countries, that they now give us to support these troops.

[rpannier]

24. I Strongly Disagree...

I live in Korea and your analysis of the role of US forces in Korea is so wrong. First off, the Korean government picks up approx 60% of the costs associated with the US presence. Returning the forces to the US, would cost the US taxpayers more than having the forces in Korea. (Janes Military Magazine) The protection that the US provides cannot be understated -- ever. For people who say that the US role is overstated--try coming over here for yourself, it's an enlightening experience. I have lived in Korea since 98 -- and I can honestly say, "You are wrong."

[wuushew]

33. Why the previous move seems to have saved money

The first step is to pull one brigade, most combat support units, and all Army families out of Korea. South Korea is five times more powerful than the North, and the continuing presence of American soldiers costs $5 billion a year and hampers reunification. Read "The Mythical North Korean Threat" for details. The Army should cancel insane plans to build 1066 new family housing units in Seoul, which is opposed by the city government who wants the US Army out. If Seoul is truly in danger of massive attack as many threat-mongers claim, why endanger more American families? The Army can leave behind one symbolic brigade for now, but it needs to close most camps and bring one brigade home for use elsewhere. This can save some $2 billion a year and free another 13,000 base and support troops and thousands of civilians for service elsewhere.


http://www.g2mil.com/July2002.htm

[wuushew]

35. Here is the counterpoint in favor of staying

A report by the Congressional Budget Office, which crunches the numbers for domestic relocation. My point is still valid as I desire overall American military strength to be reduced. That way the costs of building new bases here is a mute point.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=0

[dweller]

6. the *moron needs them here at home

before NOV/02

martial law, et al.
dp

[ze_dscherman]

19. NO chance they come back that fast

The withdrawal will take some years at least.

[poliguru]

7. Backed himself into a corner, he has

The Iraq situation is spiraling out of control, and it'll take more troops just to somewhat keep the lid on until the election. He can't exactly call for a draft right before the election (oh, but I'd just love for him to try that - Congress would shoot it down and Bush would be handily defeated). So he's given himself no choice but to take troops from other parts of the world, bring them home to say hi to families, and then redeploy them to Iraq. I'm sure their families will be thrilled. I hope this cuts into his military votes.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

11. Right on the nose...

...with that observation. They will be stationed "stateside" while undergoing desert training "just for something to do until your commitment is over" and then sent to Iraq after the election, with new or existing stop-loss orders in effect.

[Swamp Rat]

8. This is definately going to undo Bush&Co. It's over for them.

Time for Smirky to go back to Crawford and drink himself into oblivion.

[Nordic]

10. I don't think he was ever actually FROM Crawford

I've never understood the "send him back to Crawford" thing.

Maybe "send him back to Connecticut" or "send him back to an executive office wet-bar in Houston"

[Swamp Rat]

12. Just a manner of speaking... we could send him to Venice, CA if you like.

Welcome to DU :toast:

[Nordic]

13. That's okay.

But thanks for the welcome! I like this place!

[calico1]

29. No please!

Don't send him back to CT!

[The_Casual_Observer]

9. This proclamation smacks of the "road map to peace"

and the "trip to mars"

[Scairp]

14. This writer is right on

This is yet another glaring example of this administration's inability to think globally. Bush appears to be going towards an isolationist philosophy, something that cannot occur if we ever hope to track down and dismantle terrorist organizations. This president will end up getting us all killed unless we can get rid of him. Kerry has his faults Lord knows, but he won't intentionally (or even unintentionally) alienate our allies. I believe that he will work much, much harder than Shrub ever thought about to rally the world in fighting terrorism.

[wuushew]

36. Fighting terrorism does not involve bombs and tanks

Well what is it? A law enforcement task or a military task?

[leftchick]

16. Hasn't every fucking thing they have done since they stole the WH ...

had to do with "smells of political opportunism"... and I mean EVERYTHING!!!!

[Tight_rope]

25. DON'T YOU JUST WANNA

:spank: *USH

[tlcandie]

18. Damned .. disappointed yet again!!!

I thought he actually WAS withdrawing from the world himself!!!! :cry:

[gatlingforme]

20. Opportunism sounds like the right word here. I am not sure how

this will effect our international standing that remains to be seen. and stating that, I wonder if they actually took the time to study the consequesces of this action. hmmm, just like they did with Iraq.

[teryang]

21. Converting the US Armed Forces to a colonial charter

...for corporate conquests. The Pentagon should now be called the British East India Company.

[Justice]

22. Wrong Move; Won't Save Money or Lives

We won't see any savings for decades, if at all. To bring the troops back to the US will costs millions - building housing and services for them will cost millions (although at least the work will be done here in the US hopefully by US workers).

Rumsfield yesterday kept saying that we could not equate strength with troop numbers - that we had to realize we could do more with fewer troops, so long as they were well trained and acted strategically. That was Rumsfield's mantra going into Iraq - we did not need large numbers, we had the equipment, the strategy to do it with less. And look where that has gotten us.

So Rumsfield (whether or not he stays on as DOD) is leaving his fingerprints on the military - at the same time he is balking at the idea of a NID.

[anarchy1999]

23. Calling Nostamj and his toons. Says it all.

Sorry, so sorry, sorry. How many more 1200 year old graves can we blow up and expect to be loved?

This family is a serious threat to this country. Everyone around the world is scared, and they keep waiting for us (the citizens of this democracy) to pull a Venzuela. If we don't, we are screwed, period.

If Bush, Inc. wins in November, RUN!!!!!!!!!!!

[90-percent]

27. The worst President in American History

Every move this idiot makes seems to point to this being the main goal of shrub's administration.

I cannot see another explanation.

-85%

[0007]

28. Who do you think will man those 14 military installation that are

being build in Iraq?

Wake up goddamnit!

[tlcandie]

30. Great point plus we still have to invade Iran, Syria and who

else? Damned I can't keep up with all this moving of the peanut shells!

[0007]

31. The man with the extra hand playing five card monte.

[seafan]

32. Note that this article is buried on page A19.

Can't allow the frightening truth to get too close to the front pages... oh, no.


We are in for some serious trouble the longer * is at the controls.

[JPZenger]

34. Move of Troops Won't Save Much Money in Next Few Years

There was an interesting story in the Philadelphia Inquirer about how this move of troops from overseas might not save much money. This is because it will cost billions to construct facilities in the U.S. to house these troops and their equipment, plus large expenses for new bases in Poland and former Soviet Republics which George Bush is proposing, plus billions in additional capacity for airlift and sea transport because fewer troops will be forward deployed near trouble spots, plus high expenses to move troops and equipment back and forth for training exercises.

In addition, the movement of U.S. troops closer to Russia may help spur hardliners in Russia to re-militarize.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

37. PNAC all the way....

This is another page taken directly out of the PNAC playbook -- move troops from the European arena to the NEW forward positions in the ME and the former Soviet Union.

They write about it in one of their reports available online.

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.