First this...
Moving the brigade would weaken the NATO alliance, said Ståle Ulriksen, chair of the Security and Conflict Management Department at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. Norway, for instance, went to Afghanistan, like the other European nations, "to show solidarity and to stay on the good side of the U.S. -- to be an ally," he said.and then this...
Ulriksen said that "free-riding" on the U.S. had enabled Europeans to avoid devising their own coordinated defense structures and that they should "grow up and take responsibility."
But he also said a European alliance was hard to imagine without the U.S. as leader.
"It's a kind of a comfortable situation. You have a leader no one disputes," he said. "What would be the alternative -- the British? The French? The Germans?"
In the House, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., spearheaded a plan last year to eliminate an Air Force fighter wing overseas, two Marine Corps infantry battalions on Okinawa -- and one Army brigade in Europe.Long story short.
"NATO was a wonderful concept. But 61 years later, I think it's time to say our Western European allies should be on their own. We'll cooperate with them, but we shouldn't be subsidizing their defense," Frank said.
In the Senate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, whose state stands to gain troops at Fort Bliss in the restructuring, was advocating similarly.
"For the future security posture of U.S. military forces and for the fiscal health of our nation, [the] military construction agenda should be guided by these words: build in America," she wrote in Politico last year. "Some argue that the U.S. overseas presence provides assurance to our allies and deterrence to our adversaries. History has proven otherwise."
US forces will be coming home. Europe will have to stand on its own two feet. The alliance, if its to survive, must evolve.
Notice one thing.
You have a prominent Republican and Democrat saying the same thing. They're reading the political winds. Forward deployed forces on even allied soil is something that the American people are tiring of.
I agree with what the Senator and Barney Frank are saying but, when Frank says to eliminate a USAF fighter wing does he mean bring it home or scrap it?
ReplyDeleteI'm all in favor of reducing our footprint in Europe, but I would caution taking forces out of Asia. It is too strategically important, and with rising tensions with China and North Korea it would be wise to maintain at least our current precense in the region. I'd also caution against completely closing bases in Europe, just in case we have to surge forces in the region for something like a Balkan or Libyan op.
ReplyDelete@USSHelm: Considering Barney Frank has advocated British-like cuts to the military, he is probably advocating scrapping the fighter wing. Liberals tend to think for some reason that Air and Naval forces can be quickly raised and trained while it takes years to similiarly equip and train a land force. I think this is just to rationalize thier desire to cut the most expensive components of modern militaries. There's been good discussion on this topic at Information Dissemination before.
I would not trust what ANY politician says about US force structure. They are usually saying something to be popular with constituents or for some other reason than logical force reductions. In the case of Barney Frank, he only wants to cut defense in order to spend more on social programs.
ReplyDeleteI would echo what Patrick said about cutting forces in the Pacific basin. China and North Korean are both deadly enemies.