What other newspaper, besides the Star Tribune, published Doug Feith's

[lebkuchen]

editorial? The man is mad, and I don't mean angry.

U.S. troop redeployment will better serve our post-Cold War world

The new U.S. global force posture President Bush announced on Monday will strengthen our military, invigorate U.S. alliances and improve the lives of our military personnel.

Our new posture will allow us to deploy capable forces rapidly anywhere in the world on short notice. It will push more military capability forward, while shifting 60,000 to 70,000 service members from foreign to U.S. bases. It will create a lighter U.S. "footprint" abroad, consolidate scattered facilities, remedy irritants in our relations with host nations, and, in numerous ways, make it easier for the United States to work well with allies and friends on military operations -- to train and operate, to develop military doctrine and tactics, and to exploit new military technologies with them.

The new posture acknowledges (finally) that the Cold War has ended. It anticipates the emergence of new threats. It recognizes new strategic facts, including the entry of former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO. And it capitalizes on new technologies.

more...

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4939469.html

[denverguy]

1. what part of it is 'mad'?

do you feel we still need troops in Germany maybe?

[lebkuchen]

2. Do you feel we need troops in Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Uzbekestan and

the Republic of Georgia?

Feith's realignment has nothing to do with sending our troops back to the US and keeping them with their loved ones. And certainly, dependent family members do not have a greater support base stateside than they do in Germany, nor will they, ever. For starters, Rumsfeld plans to close stateside base schools and have military kids fend for themselves in public schools, unsupported by federal funds. Then there is the lack of stateside spousal support that is readily available from the BSB's overseas.

You will never meet a miltary spouse who feels that support is greater stateside than it is on an overseas military base. Feith has never been in the military, so he wouldn't know.

BTW, how do you think the Russians feel about all this troop movement into their territory, especially after they spent 10 years and who knows how many tens of thousands of soldiers' lives (they claim 15,000, but surely it was more) trying to control Afghanistan's natural wealth?

[denverguy]

3. if there is a need in

Romania, Poland, Bulgaria et al and the nations are agreeable, it makes sense.

We certainly don't need as many troops in Germany anymore.

And, why are these nations Russia's territory? Sphere of influence maybe, but not territory.

why would military kids be 'fending for themselves' in public schools?

[lebkuchen]

4. "sphere of influence" like Cuba is America's "sphere of influence"

The school districts in the southern states are broke and cannot accomodate the added population of DoD students, certainly not without "leaving kids behind." The federal govt, last I heard, has no intention of funding them, and school district supervisors in southern states are very concerned about how this will affect everyone's quality of life.

The most important issue, perhaps, is the incentive for anyone to want to join the army anymore. If 1) schools for DoD children are of poor quality, and 2) as the unaccompanied deployments increase to multiple rotational 12-15 month tours to fight "the war on terror," with 3) family separation/hazardous duty pay cut, and 4) as unaccompanied tours to third world countries like Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Uzbekestan, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. replace more appealing accompanied tours to first world democracies like Germany, 5) whose bases offer a support system unmatched by any stateside base, why would anyone want to join the army?

Would you?

http://www.cfr.org/pub6172/lawrence_j_korb/the_pentagons_eastern_obsession.php

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=22923&archive=true

[denverguy]

5. yes, I probably would still want to join, but that's just me

no necessary correlation with the decisions of others.

It's like base closing in the US: when it's proposed to close a base the locals and congressmen get upset about the impact on the local economy and such...but the purpose of bases is not to prop up local economies, it's to serve a defense purpose. If these redeployments make military service less atrtractive that's an issue that will have to be addressed, but we shouldn't keep bases in Germany (for instance) because it's a nice place to be than Poland (which at this point is an opinion)

[lebkuchen]

6. Why not Germany over Poland?

I can drive to Poland in five hours. BFD. Is it really worth all the US tax dollars spent to rebuild?

Read Lawrence Korb's NYT's piece and then get back to me. He doesn't get into the no-bid Halliburton construction projects that this gigantic move will entail, but face it, it's just another excuse to fleece the US taxpayer.

Incidentally, (re)enlistments are down, drastically. I live on a base in Germany. Orders recently cut for a second 12-15 month tour of Afghanistan or Iraq aren't playing well in the "family values" arena over here, or stateside.

The draft is imminent under another four years of Bush foreign policy, and this time, it will include the girls as well as the boys.

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/america_at_war/article/0,1299,DRMN_2116_2961385,00.html

[denverguy]

7. Germany over Poland? I don't know.

why A over B? someone thinks it makes more strategic sense I imagine..and I agree a draft is coming, though I'm not yet convinced it will include females

Have a good evening