Krauthammer makes some good criticisms in this article

[BlackJack8324]

On Monday, President Bush formally unveiled plans to withdraw 60,000 to 70,000 American troops from obsolete battle stations. Some are to come home. Others are to be redeployed to Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Southeast Asia to smaller, more flexible bases closer to the new front of the new war, the war on terrorism.

The move is long overdue. The U.S. military presence in Germany was meant to anchor an American commitment to defend Europe against Soviet invasion. The Soviet Union disappeared 13 years ago. What in God's name are two heavy divisions still doing there?

During the Cold War their purpose was "to keep America in, Russia out and Germany down." Well, Russia is not exactly set to invade Europe. It is not America's job to keep Germany down.

The Democrats' response is a classic demonstration of reactionary liberalism, the reflexive defense of the status quo long after its raison d'être has evaporated. John Kerry adviser Wesley Clark protested vigorously: "As we face a global war on terror with Al Qaeda active in more than 60 countries, now is not the time to pull-back our forces."

He cannot be serious. How exactly are the 72,000 American troops in Germany fighting al Qaeda? A lot of good they did in uncovering the al Qaeda cell in Hamburg that carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. This hugely expensive deployment -- with its large logistics tail and tens of thousands of dependents added to the bill -- could be put to infinitely better use elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17281-2004Aug19.html



The problem is I'm betting these troops will come home only to be sent to Iraq.

[Jim Sagle]

1. Krauthammer's an idiot.

[Cocoa]

11. he's a psycho too

[BlackJack8324]

13. great argument

Nice way to debate his points.

[Cocoa]

14. no way in hell I'm going to read another Krauthammer column

dishonest, violent, psycho Krauthammer.

[snippy]

2. Some of the troops to be withdrawn from Germany will be based in

Poland. What is the point of that? I wonder whether there is a company that needs contracts to build new US bases in Poland? If so, I wonder what company that might be.

[olddem43]

4. Poland is about to be invaded -

Based on recently acquired intelligence, Hitler and Stalin are suspected.

[UpInArms]

3. Krauthammer is a lying piece of garbage

that works for the reich-wing spew factory.

Anything that passes from his pen is worse than the smell from eleven burning tires.

[BlackJack8324]

5. he's right on this..

Kerry is just plain wrong when he says this move will harm national security. I doubt U.S. troops in Germany is necessary to fight Al Qaeda.

[Classical_Liberal]

6. True but Krauthammer is equally self serving in that he would

be outraged by this pullout if we didn't need soldiers in Iraq. Krauthammer was a main propaganidist for the war of international hegemoney and in the end this war is doing precisely the opposite. The only thing good about this article is that the pullout indicates how desperate the neocons are.

[BlackJack8324]

8. the pullout is something that was going to happen...

Sooner or later. However it doesn't change the fact we have 155,000 troops in Iraq. Honestly I think Bush instituting this policy is to either shift these troops to Iraq or make it look like he's reducing the burden on troops.

[snippy]

7. What is the benefit of moving troops from Germany to Poland? n/t

[secretshopper]

10. I can think of two benefits, and a third positive lie

It bones the Germans, because the USA spends a ton of money both directly and indirectly in the economy around our bases. Even soldiers on leave gas up and hit the tourist sites all over Europe, dropping dollars as they go.

Also, Poland is cheaper, and possibly easier to influence. It moves the geopolitical center of gravity away from "Old Europe" and closer to some of the former communist countries.

Remember also, Poland did send troops to Iraq in the Coalition of the Indentured, losing 9 soldiers there. This may be an attempt to rein them in. As of 5 August, they are still on the rolls, cf. http://www.cjtf7.com/the-coalition/coalition-forces.htm but they are planning to pull their troops out. There's an article on the planned pull-out at http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2004/0420/3783682793HM1SCALLY.html

So, it screws over a long term partner who disagreed with us, shores up a vaccillating one, and makes it sound like * is sensitive to troops.

And, new Office of Special Plans intelligence indicates Hitler and Stalin may have something planned for early September...

Secret Shopper

[pmbryant]

15. North Korea

Pulling large numbers of troops out of Korea is supposed to help national security how?

And further alienating countries like Germany whose help we need to combat Al Qaeda is supposed to help national security how?

Peter

EDIT: I reluctantly read Krauthammer's piece, and his points on Korea are nonsensical:

Critics are particularly vociferous about drawing down 12,500 of our troops in South Korea. We all know what our troops are doing there. They are intended to be sitting ducks. Thirty-seven thousand Americans are not going to repel a million-man North Korean army. Their purpose is to die in the first hours of a North Korean invasion -- setting off a tripwire that forces the United States to enter the war.

This invitation to suicide might have made sense when South Korea was weak, impoverished and war-ravaged. Today it is an industrialized tiger with a large and superbly equipped army. It makes far more sense to redeploy these troops to where they are really needed -- to support weak, impoverished and war-ravaged countries in the Middle East whose governments cannot yet carry the burden of their own defense.

"Their purpose is to die"!? Has Krauthammer forgotten what the word "deterrence" means? Their purpose is not to die, their purpose is to remind the North Koreans know that the U.S. will fight to protect South Korea, and thus to deter them from ever launching an attack.

Anyway, Krauthammer's argument is self-contradictory, because if SK's army is indeed so "large and superbly equipped", the American troops there wouldn't be mere "sitting ducks: even if NK does attack.

Finally, what "weak, impoverished, war-ravaged countries in the Middle East" does Krauthammer have in mind. I can certainly think of one. Why is he beating around the Bush? Why doesn't he just come out and say "Iraq"?

Peter

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

16. Locking.

See DU RULES:

"{o}nce the Democratic party officially nominates its candidate for president, then the time for
fighting is over and the negative attacks against candidates must stop. The administrators of this website
do not wish for our message board to be used as a platform to attack and tear down the only progressive
on the planet with any hope of defeating George W. Bush. Constructive criticism and even outright disappointment with the candidate may be expressed, but partisan negative attacks will not be welcome."