Shut down.
US European Command.
US Army Europe.
US Air Force Europe.
US Navy Europe.
USMC Europe.
Why am I so convinced that this is the proper course of action? Check out this chart from Wikipedia just covering USAF bases in Europe. While you're looking at it consider the economic activity that could be generated from bringing just the USAF home, building housing for them and the extra business that would be generated in whatever base they're sent to.
Operating bases via Wikipedia.
The command has five main operating bases along with 80 geographically separated locations. These are:
|
|
|
|
That my friends is just the USAF!
Bring all our forces home. Let Europe be responsible for Europe and lets get some common sense back into our defense spending.
UPDATE:
Don't think that I would stop at shutting down bases in Europe. I'm talking about a global re-alignment. Shut down bases in S. Korea (they can handle N. Korea just fine thank you)...Shut down bases in Japan. Guam is fine. The only new base I would seek is one in the Northern Territories of Australia. Northern Australia is lightly populated and I would ask the Australians if they would look kindly on a joint base housing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Units on it. I would also seek to make use of the vast terrain for training opportunities.
Alright, I'll bite.
ReplyDeleteSuppose the North African Arabs turn radical and close the Suez.
The US, as a maritime nation, would have to protect its merchants passing the Suez, and its many-many cargo ships leaving with to/from Europe (trade is still the moneymaker, wherever you live).
Africa may be mostly dirt poor, but its minerals and ores are of strategic value (ask the Chinese) but those African nations still don't want a semi-permanent US presence.
If Syria attacks Israel, the US would have to deploy forces from the other side of the globe.
Possible, but would take a long while.
If Iran starts to seriously become a pain in the ass, from where could the US surge forces? (The Gulf States, really?)
Russia may be nothing like its former Soviet self, but still has many nukes - something the US is still weary about and wants to keep an eye on. If not in Europe, where would the US base its intel assets?
There's nothing wrong with reducing the US military footprint in Europe (which btw is funded by the European host countries) and moving one's focus to Asia (we all do that), but unfortunately a lot of actual and potential flashpoints - those which may affect the US - are nearer Europe than the Americas (not counting the mess in Mexico ofcourse).
Then of course (staying with the air force theme) those strategic runways at the Azores, Cyprus, Diego Garcia, Greenland etc. etc.
and let me bite back. if the suez is closed down then we either pay higher prices or we let our European friends who are also maritime nations deal with.
ReplyDeleteif Iran becomes a pain then we simply deal with it with our aircraft carriers and long range bombers or we sit back and let them act out or we let our European friends handle it.
we need to CLOSE DOWN BASES IN EUROPE. and we need to do it now.
Seriously Sol, do you really expect Washington to just sit by and do nothing...?
ReplyDeletePS For your consideration - http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/united-states/
yeah i do.
ReplyDeletei am so tired of subsidizing European defense that i can't see straight. additionally i can't wrap my head around the attitudes i see in Europe. hey you don't want us or appreciate us then fine...we're gone. you guys deal with it.
oh and i could care less about enhancing trade with Europe. its not a two way street.
The US is hardly subsidizing EU defense. The US taxpayer isn't paying the wages of the European militaries, or paying the upkeep for its vehicles. That the Europeans aren't paying enough is a matter of perspective. Again, you're talking about a bunch of countries with their own strategic needs and ambitions and budgets.
ReplyDelete"hey you don't want us or appreciate us then fine...we're gone."
LOL where did that came from?
Yes, some folks don't like the US. Some folks also don't like icecream.
What can I say? It's life.
And trade *is* a two way street, it was just to illustrate that the US and Europe benefit from mutual trade: win-win for both.
Final "rant" about this whole European thing:
think about being European as you yourself being an American, as coming from the American continent, and not from the USA.
So when I say "American" I could easily mean a Mexican or Bolivian, since they all are from "America".
I have little in common with an Albanian or Cypriot - different culture, language, history, yet we're all considered "European". I know, it's weird and difficult, so imagine OUR chagrin when we're being called European! :)
i can be specific if you like and say European Union but we both know what i mean.
ReplyDeletethis win-win that is supposedly free trade isn't...at least not for the United States.
if you look at my post below you'll see that just by removing USAF troops and bases and returning them from Europe then you'll see tremendous economies because of the natural need to provide goods and services to those troops...not just the fact that it will remove us from a treat obligation that i'm not sure is applicable anymore.
additionally if you multiply that across all the services then you're talking real money.
lastly if the US isn't subsidizing European defense then why are we developing a European missile shield? they can do it for themselves.
its been a good run but its time to pick up sticks and come home. the EU can take care of itself.
Hello Solomon,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you.
There really is no need for American combat forces in Europe and if American forces are to be cut then Europe is the place to start cutting.
However,some of those bases,R.A.F. Menwith Hill for example,exist primarily for the benefit of the United States.
Moron in Spain is a tanker base that plays a big part in a lot of American air operations.
It might be sensible to withdraw combat forces but keep those facilities used to provide intelligence and logistic support to American operations.
GrandLogistics.
my fear is that talk of even preserving one base will open the door to keeping more than half of them open. better to have some type of understanding where forces pass through rather than have them permanently stationed.
ReplyDeletethe RAF, RN, Singapore, Netherlands, Spain, Italy and a couple more nations come out to Arizona and Nevada to do training.
if we need to arrange an agreement for the same type of deal with European bases then awesome. but lets not leave even one open.
well sol some bases like ramstein in Germany provide a logistics hub to our forces in Afghanistan, those in Iraq, etc. Also we pre-position significant naval forces that need to be forward deployed. i definitely agree large scale back of our forces and a massive consolidation of bases, but we can keep some key bases open, and pre-position equipment, and bring the people home and just surge when necessary. Keeping ramstein gives us a great way to surge in the region, and also keep landstuhl (sp?) hospital which is a key hospital of wounded GI's coming from Afghanistan. Also many of the old soviet bloc countries are building up their militaries and want our help (Poland in particular), Ukraine is also becoming more friendly to us, along with Czech Republic, etc.
ReplyDeleteRamstien is the FIRST base i would close. the idea of overseas bases the way that we currently have them is a cold war anachronism.
ReplyDeletesomething we should cast off as soon as possible. its allowed our forces to mutate into something that they shouldn't be.
how did we get a fighter centric air force? forward basing. how did we get such a heavy Marine Corps? forward basing.
but its not just Europe that would face my budget axe.
S. Korea can more than handle N. Korea. pull those troops back. Guam is fine. shut down bases in Japan.
what about moving our troops from afghanistan to home? ramstein is a key base of logistics transit. also given chinas military rise, we have a need to stay in asia. i am not saying stay in S. Korea, they can defend themselves, but basing in Japan, Diego Garcia, Guam gives us key positions to keep our allies in the pacific rim support. China is becoming far more aggressive in the S. China Sea and will be a key flashpoint in the coming years.
ReplyDeletewe need a transit point joe, not a base. we can use any airport and contract facilities for our troops to use.
ReplyDeleteChina is a creation of our own consumerism. my America first plan would soon starve that beast and have them dealing with internal problems that they've been able to ignore due to their booming economy.
hungry peasants make for the seeds of a revolution. China still has a bunch of hungry peasants. if we slap a 100% tariff on their goods then guess what. some of that cheap crap starts getting built here. China goes into a depression and all is right with the world again.
yeah a bunch of industrialist will have their asses handed to them but we're in it to win right? besides, many state that what we're facing now has the hallmarks of a depression, not a recession. the history isn't written but i would bet that this will be called the 2nd great depression in the future.
unfortunatley those tariffs would be ruled illegal by the world trade organization would be my guess, also you see a massive spike in prices here, which would mean inflation would go crazy, and you would hurt alot of people, including our own economy. china will have its day of reckoning, it has many internal problems that will be dealt with and your right they have many problems but huge tariffs are not the answer. protectionism hasnt worked in the past. companies will find another cheap country to find labor, go to another south asian nation or africa.
ReplyDeleteand who cares what the world trade organization has to say?
ReplyDeletethese foreign bodies are a joke! has the UN stopped the fighting in Syria? how about starvation in Africa?
these groups have failed everytime they've been tried and the only reason why they haven't been acknowledged as failures is that they have a followers among academics and elites.
free trade is a joke. protectionism hasn't hurt us...it saved our industry in the past and it can in the future.
your liberalism is showing and your flawed thinking is leading you to not only false conclusions but false choices.
the economy today is far different than in the past. the nations economies are globalized, theres no way to seperate it via nations boundaries anymore, if we become protectionist other nations will follow and a trade war wont help. do you have any recent evidence trade protectionism helps?
ReplyDeletethey're globalized because it sold to be a better way.
ReplyDeleteit hasn't proven to be so if they've been joined, they can be parted.
one simply case would be to reset the way that we handle staples. futures on oil, food? why? a global market place for the same ...why? America can produce all the food it needs and doesn't need to import a darn thing. we produce oil here and ship it to China. why?
because we've allowed a global market place to take precedence over a national perspective.
America first.
america first is a good idea but with trade the way it is we cant produce everything americans want, and given the high cost of producing it here, companies will go elsewhere, it would be nice to do everything country by country but we cant, its hard to stop a train thats already at full speed.
ReplyDeletedo you so readily accept that things are the way that they are in your own life or do you push to make them different.
ReplyDeletei push.
i chafe at the weak, politically correct minded drones that i see around the world.
your stating that the train has left is a recipe for America's decline. i refuse to accept that.
choose your direction. if its with those timid, meek, gentle souls that will go along with the masses cause its politically correct then so be it.
i refuse to join you and to decouple ourselves from the fallacy that is the world economy would be a great start.
i am unsure what you mean by America's decline, we still have the largest economy in the world, we spend almost half of all defense money spent in the world, we have unprecedented military access around the world. We have our ups and downs but i am unsure that a global economy will usher in our decline. just because we are working closer with other nations, our companies are working with other nations. power today doesnt come from conquering territory but economic power, and if we start to become protectionist, the world will leave us behind, and that will spell our decline.
ReplyDeletespare me that nonsense....the other economies will leave us behind! what stupidity!
ReplyDeleteprotectionism is what China is currently practicing but everyone is so enamored of the Chinese Dragon that they don't see it.
China is stealing intellectual property, hacking computer systems....China is actively doing what I propose we do...America first.
Maintain Spangdahlem AB and RAF Lakenheath but move tanker units to each, also maintain the bases in Spain, Portugal, Italy and Cyprus but remove the units from them except whats needed for the bases upkeep and move the remaining units back to the states. Then cut the rest and to heck with NATO.
ReplyDeletewhy does everyone want to keep even ONE base open!
ReplyDeletei'm not understanding it. if we MUST (and that's a huge if) then lets move it to Romania....or Georgia....or even Poland IF WE MUST.
but you're going to have to sell me on the why we should keep a base open.
and future operations in the middle east isn't a good enough reason.
contingency plans if things go bad in Iraq or Afghanistan isn't a good enough reason.
time to pull out completely boys and girls. time to pull our troops back home.
We are worried about keeping European bases open to deal with flame ups in Africa and the Middle while the Chinese sink their economic claws into the continent and region.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the point of building all theses carriers if carrier air power doesn't figure into these calculations?
thank you!
ReplyDeletewhy have this formidable carrier force (that is the envy of nations like the UK that pissed theres away) if it isn't to allow amphibious landings or cover for airborne ops?
we have forcible entry forces.
we have capable engineers that can build airstrips in days.
we don't need these bases.
we do need to get out of Europe.
Be careful what you wish for.
ReplyDeletenothing to be careful about. this base structure that we have world wide (i'm repeating myself) is a product of the cold war which should be dismantled.
ReplyDeletemaybe others will pick up the mantle and if they don't then we deal with the aftermath.
we're already doing that now. Libya is attacked but Syria is left alone...Yemen is in turmoil and instead of assisting any side we continue to go after AQ....
we should have followed the biden model and simply gone straight special forces in afghanistan.
we're nation building not fighting terrorist there now.
Having to admit Biden was actually right about something makes me ill.
ReplyDeleteoh trust me ... i totally understand!
ReplyDeletetotally!
I'm pretty much with you on this one. I think I'm a little less extreme than you ref a couple things though:
ReplyDeleteRef having bases or facilities or whatever to allow for a US surge: to some extent we get into semantics here, is it a US base or is it a home country "reserve facility" or whatever but these are important for contingency planning. I am on board with you to the extent that I think these should be owned by the host country with little or no permanent US presence.
I think there's got to be some infrastructure for Spec Ops, drones etc. These would be small and specialized but more like actual US bases, to allow the home country plausible deniability if nothing else.
I also think we can start saying that there are large areas, like anything in the EUs sphere and S. Korea, where we just aren't going to send any ground troops for the foreseeable future. Airplanes? maybe. Ships? Maybe. Those are areas where we can bring a lot of unique capability and can offset any regional players that are trying to box outside their weight. Any plan to send ground troops to South Korea is carrying coals to Newcastle and any to the EU's sphere just facilitates their inability.