It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US planning to cut forces stationed in Europe.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   

FORT BLISS, Tex. — The Obama administration has decided to remove two of the four U.S. Army brigades remaining in Europe as part of a broader effort to cut $487 billion from the Pentagon’s budget over the next decade, said senior U.S. officials.

The reductions in Army forces, which have not been formally announced, are likely to concern European officials, who worry that the smaller American presence reflects a waning of interest in the decades-long U.S.-NATO partnership in Europe.

Top Pentagon officials have sought to allay the concerns by telling their NATO allies in private meetings that the United States will continue to rotate Army units through Europe on training missions to augment the presence of the remaining two brigades.


Source: www.washingtonpost.com...

This is perhaps the most glorious news I have heard in months, perhaps even years. There is no good reason in this day and age for the US to have a single soldier stationed outside our borders; the only nations that even have a claim to protection by us should be permitted to reform their various military forces and take over their defense full-time. I honestly don't even care if a single European is concerned about the US pulling out in terms of not wanting it, because their safety is not our concern; its a job for their respective governments!




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
There is no threat to the US from Europe. This was a no braqiner, in fact I am suprised it wasn't done after the Berlin wall came down.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   
There isn't much threat of invasion in Europe, not like there arguably was during the Cold War. I too am surprised it wasn't done after the wall was toppled and the curtain was lifted.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Just like Obama. First cut and run from Afghanistan now Europe. He won't stop until this country is defenseless.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Seems to me Ron Pauls policies are starting to have some effect and are becoming more mainstream,way overdue IMHO



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


Cutting 100% of the forces in Europe won't overly impact the defense of the US, just its projected power across the globe which honestly is not our problem to defend. The money this will save is worth it considering the economy is still in the crapper and going nowhere fast.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Pretty sensible really.

The purpose was to stop soviet tanks rolling across germany. There aren't any soviet tanks anymore. (It was always curious anyway since the WW3 hot war scenario in europe would always have ended up with europe a blasted nuclear wasteland).

The troops would be better off in the continental USA spending their money in their local communities rather than Germany.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helig
reply to post by buster2010
 


Cutting 100% of the forces in Europe won't overly impact the defense of the US, just its projected power across the globe which honestly is not our problem to defend. The money this will save is worth it considering the economy is still in the crapper and going nowhere fast.





posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



Just like Obama. First cut and run from Afghanistan now Europe. He won't stop until this country is defenseless

there is no threat from Europe its common business sense. Britain is reducing its total defense bill by 20%,my brother has 8 years to go from a 22 year contract and has been offered 30k redundancy..he has refused but may be forced due to the huge pension he will get if he completes his full 22 years



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


makes perfect sense , with germany reunited and poland in the EU and NATO - europe no longer needs US troops

the only presence the US needs in europe is strategic air bases like ramstien and the staff at NATO hq / liason staffs

will only stick with this thread to read the crazy responses



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Lets hope there is no sinister reason now to do this, in other words, take them out of there and have more troops available in the event of a Ass backward attempt to support the efforts against Iran.
It's made to look like a cost cutting effort... maybe.. maybe not.

I don't trust the timing in this.

Jesse



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Who needs troops in Europe when the enemy is in the Middle East.

Then again, gotta keep those troops abroad and away from the real enemy... the government



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I imagine the US will still be keeping troops in Europe for the STAR WARS missile defense system and for their "listening in/communication" bases linked to GCHQ.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Bilder
 


Bilder
My thoughts as well.. pick apart what he has expressed (Paul) and add it to their false entent to be that person. That would fold, weaken him over all.. why? Because his Humanity goes beyound those that don't listen,don't want to change it.... Simple solution it is... however, my vote won't be considered
Because.. Paul can do it all... no one else can.. but that does not work for the few. hum.....
Don't fear the change, fear those that prevent it!!

Jesse



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 


How does drawing down troops in Europe endanger us? Seriously, it's long over due. ...and contrary to what seems to be a popular opinion about me, I'm in favor of bringing them all home from the Middle East, too. Though that's a bit more problematic...

South Korea comes to mind, as well... ...and Japan.

But yes, Europe should be able to, if and when the need ever arises, defend themselves. Not to say the U.S. shouldn't help, or wouldn't...but we don't need garrisons there, or anywhere else.

Bring 'em home.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 


Why ever would you think the US National Security is not threaten beyond our own boarders.
Many things define our National Security
Economics names one.

Lets play it your way for even 30 days.
Day 1 US pulls all troops home gives them pink slips
Day 10 unsettled GI's cause panic as unemployment soars to 15%
Day 11 All Oil Trade move to Gold while New Global Currency is sought
Day 12 Wall Street looses 3000pts with a run on Bonds
Day 13 Wall Street looses 5000pts and a panics hits main street USA
Day 14 Soldiers Recalled and Martial Law emplaced
Day 20 Streets in America burn Streets in Europe also burn as Dollar collapse effects depleted Euro
Day 25 Vacuum of US presence has destabilized the Globe Ethnic Cleansing Clashes run rampant
Day 30 China declares war on India Tactical Nukes use which by the end of the day created Global Nuclear War. EMP's cause global power outages Day 31 will not be necessary to report. There wont be a day 31

edit on 5-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 



...and having troops garrisoned in Europe aids this scenario how exactly? In no way am I advocating ignoring world events to the detriment of the safety of my nation. I just don't see the point in defending nations who, if they wished it, could defend themselves, at least long enough for U.S. military forces to arrive to aid them.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by rebellender
 



...and having troops garrisoned in Europe aids this scenario how exactly? In no way am I advocating ignoring world events to the detriment of the safety of my nation. I just don't see the point in defending nations who, if they wished it, could defend themselves, at least long enough for U.S. military forces to arrive to aid them.




I think the commonly quoted phrase fits " Keeping the honest people honest"
Go ahead. Pull the troops and the foreign aid. Destabilize the world because YOU FEEL defending nations is pointless. Go ahead , run it through your head. see what happens Hypothetically speaking.

added: remove the only real US gross domestic product.. War Profiteering see what happens
edit on 5-2-2012 by rebellender because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Good and bad....

At the end of the cold war, the US Army had 5 divisions, 3 brigades, and 2 armored cavalry regiments, plus Corp HQs (2) and additional aviation, engineering, artillery, air defense and support brigades in Germany. That's about 200,000 plus troops (not counting the USAF presence). After Desert Storm that was cut by about half. By 2000 the forces were 1 division and a couple of the seperate and support Brigades. Currently there are 3 combat brigades in Germany. The 170th and 172nd Mechanized Infantry Brigades, and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (brigade combat team) which is Stryker equiped. The 173rd Airborne Brigade is just over the boarder of Austria in Italy. About 5 or so supporting brigades are also in Europe.

So the argument of "we haven't ever cut down since the Cold War" is bogus. It's been tapering down for over 20 years. The largest reason it was slow was there was no basing for these units in the US, they had been in Europe since WWII. Most of the units were destablished (many after deploying to Desert Storm, and later the Balkins) and did not actually "return" to the US. In the early 90's there was also a concern of the Russians going back to a hard line state, and so the forces were kept in the region should that happen. Still a (semi) valid reason today.

We keep these forces as part of our commitment to NATO. They make deploying to any NATO/UN/crisis in Europe easier and less expensive. The Mech Brigades have been planning to leave in 2012 and 14 since about 08', although the Germans have been asking that they stay for a varity of reasons, joint training being on major benefit, local economic stimulation another. The Cav Regiment and the Airborne in Italy will likely be there a long time.

We could probably bring one, maybe two of these four units home. But being that our national interests (especially economic) are intertwined with Europe, I think keeping this size (or slightly smaller) contingent in Europe is important.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


On point for the nation!

Sad as it is to people like me, who grew up overseas, it is in the best interests of the US and Europe to downsize.

In the future there will be rotational unaccompained tours, so my entire childhood existence will be throughly wiped out in the next 10 to 20 years like I was never even there! but I have been watching it die a slow death, so this is really nothing new for me. I have so many happy memories of my childhood, and it is funny to think future military brats will never have that experience.

I am happy for Germany that they are finally no longer under the shadow of WW2 anymore, and I think it is healthy for them as a nation to say good bye to the Americans. The older ones might be a bit nostalgic as well, but the younger ones are not going to cry too many tears over the "Amis" pulling out.

But I do think it would be foolish to pull everyone out....we are allies and we need to maintain strong stragetic and military ties with our friends in Europe. I think that is one reason they beefed up the training at Graf so much.....we want to coordinate with our NATO partners. The Graf area was always a training site, so it only makes sense to keep it. Ramstein has to stay for a number of reasons, but as for the rest, say tschuess!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join