Personally, I think it is a good idea that we pull all our troops out of Europe. There is no direct threat in Europe or its immediate environs anymore. We now have Islamofascist threats and Chinese threats to worry about.

Besides, I don’t see why we should be giving the fetid EU any of our money. We spend a ton of cash on bases and support personnel in Europe. We employ all kinds of Europeans at these bases. I am absolutely for eliminating such unnecessary spending. It may hurt the economies of the European nations we leave, but that’s just too bad.

But, what do you guys think? Is it time to begin pulling troops from Europe and shutting down US bases in Europe? Is this good politics, too? Will this hurt our relationship with Europe if we do this?
______________

US plans to cut forces overseas by 70,000

By Peter Spiegel in London

The US is expected to announce on Monday that it is pulling 70,000 troops out of Europe and Asia in the largest restructuring of its global military presence since the second world war.

People briefed on the plan say two-thirds of the reductions will come in Europe, most of them military personnel stationed in Germany who will be sent back to US bases.
An additional 100,000 support staff and military families worldwide will be part of the realignment.

Germany will continue to be home to sophisticated training and command facilities and to a mobile infantry force which will be equipped with the new light-armoured Stryker vehicles and is expected to form the core of a restructured European presence.

There will also be a shift of some European command headquarters. The navy's European HQ, which has been in London since the second world war, will be moved to Naples.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/117d14c8-ed63-11d...000e2511c8.html

I'd have to see it happen to truly believe it, but if it does, then I'm all for it! (...though I'm not sure what you mean by 'fetid'?)

I think its about time that the EU stood on its own feet with regards to its defence and its relationship to America, Russia and the middle east, and I am also of the opinion that once American troops are pulled out of Europe, we can once and for all put the cold war behind us and be truly independent of American interference in our internal politics.

I don't see that Europe's economies will be seriously hurt by the loss of a few military bases. The bases in question may pay the wages of the locals, but on the scale of national economies, such considerations are but of small matter.

I might also anticipate greater European funding towards our own military industries. These have atrophied greatly during the last few decades as American dominance of our defences has led to much of our defence budget's being spent on American hardware.

If you will remember, one of the issues that King George (can we say King George on this board?) had with the Clinton administration was that it razed our military so that we had a "skeleton" military.

So he sends our "skeleton" crew of armed forces to fight a war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If this happens, I, too am all for it. But, don't bring them home, send them to Iraq and send some of our Reservists and Guardsmen and women home.

I'm all for it. Bringing our boys home is a better idea then leaving them in Europe where the threat is non-existant. While it might not have a profound economic impact on Europe when they leave, it will have a positive impact on local economies here at home when they do come back. They can spend their US dollars here in the US instead of in Europe.

Also, this is a good idea because we are stretched thin here at home and having troops here at home from Europe will cure the thinness.

As for our relationship with Europe, i doubt there will be any impact.

I think the EU folks will be happy to see the back of us. Remember, those bases weren't put there after some referendum that pleaded with the US for help. They were imposed and maintained (at first, at least) at bayonet-point. That the Euros came round to our way of thinking-- in fear of the Soviets-- was pleasant happenstance.

Our pull-out will reduce US leverage in Germany, much to the relief of politicos there. Yes, they'll lose a bit of cash. I think they'll find it money well-spent.

As for the domestic political impact, that's altogether less clear. These are mostly First Armored and First Infantry troops. Bringing them back means the area around Fort Riley, Kansas is about to get an injection of cash. The city fathers in those parts won't complain about that, I reckon.

My pet theory (off the cuff) is that the move is an attempt to gain Bush votes among African-Americans and Hispanics, given their large representation in the Army as compared to the general US population. Seventy thousand troops plus 100,000 support and family has got to mean at least 30,000 votes swung to Bush, eh? (I'm low-balling it, since so many were likely to vote Repub anyway.)

We shall see.

I think the real hurt will be to US, not to Europe on this one- having all those folks stationed over there makes the theatre of operations very close to where we need to be. Look how close Germany is to Iraq/Iran/Isreal etc- you only have to look at the map to see that Europe is a very valuable place to have a lot of resources for quicker responses to the worlds "hot spots".

I don't think this would be a terrible idea because I agree with moif that it's about time that Europeans started taking more responsibility for their own defence.

I'm not sure it would be all gravy for the Americans, though. As has been mentioned, most of the airbases that launched the attacks on Iraq are in Europe. While this is now moot, given the presence of US bases in Iraq, people who live near US bases in Europe aren't famed for shooting at them or trying to blow them up, so for anything other than local use the Iraq bases will be useless in the near or medium terms.

And don't let's forget that the USA's closest ally is still the UK (no matter what people think of Israel, they tend not to send troops abroad) and the UK is in Europe. The kind of joint exercises that made the invasion of Iraq possible would be much harder to organise if there are no US service personnel in Britain (since the US has no British forces bases inside it's borders). So Britain might be less willing to support future international operations. This might not be a military barrier, but it's certainly a political inhibitor on an America that cares for international opinion.

The security threat to America may have moved away from Europe since the end of the Cold War. And it may not seem likely to move back there again. If that's the analysis, it makes sense to scale down the US military presence in Europe (though hedge your bets by maybe not remove it altogether).

If, on the other hand, the underlying analysis is to somehow punish France and Germany for not being grateful enough, not supporting the Iraq War, or other such logic, then that's just silly.

The sad thing is, I think both cases are true. I think that sooner or later the US will withdraw most of its troops from Europe, and most domestic opinion in the USA will think of it as a good thing not from a resources point of view, but beceause it "gets back" at Europe for its "disloyalty".

Finally, an aside that just occurred to me. The European bases are a legacy of WW2. On of the results of the War was to make the Soviet Union a serious threat to Americas main international strategic interests, which were at that time mostly in Europe. As a result, America committed large numbers of troops and billions of tax dollars to their presence in Europe.

Now the threat has moved to the Middle East, as have the USA's international strategic interests. Everyone seems to realise that the USA will need to commit forces for some time to the Middle East, but has it occurred to anyone that it might be 60+ years before the threat passes and the bases can be closed?

Julian

It occurs to me that America is not going to pull out of Europe any way. They are simply pushing forwards the frontier into former Soviet territory in the same way that, after Caesar had pacified Gaul, the Romans moved their borders up to the Rhine.

Of late America has looked to open military bases in Poland, Bulgaria and Romania and already has opened a base in Kyrgyzstan which is an uneasy neighbour to a Russian airbase.

I don't think Bush, or any other American leader is prepared to leave Europe. All they intend to do is to redistribute their forces for maximum gain. From Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and their various carrier task forces they can strike at any target in the middle east they care to.

Whether or not Britain is a reliable ally seems to be a moot point to the Bush administration. As Donald Rumsfeld says, they can go it alone if they have to, so their attitude, like that of the Romans, is to rely on their own strength and use allies as political tools rather than logistical or military tools. The fact that they need us more than we need them now is also a factor worthy of some consideration.
America is maintaining an empire without actually holding any territory, at least not officially. Since its strategic interests depend on its ability to exert economic and political pressure, backed up by military power if need be, then America needs co-operative nations to provide territory for its forces. It cannot rely solely on its carrier groups to extend its influence.

The bottom line for the EU is the simple fact that Europe has become superfluous in geo politics. We do not control the most important asset on the planet and neither do we have much influence on those nations that do control it. Despite our geographic advantage over the USA, thanks to Adolf Hitler's legacy America has had the golden opportunity of the post second world war period to consolidate its influence over the European powers to so great an extent that they no longer exist. We have become the Carthaginians.

I see two possibilities ahead of us, and one probability. Either the EU will develop into a single voice or it will continue to stutter. In order for Europe to become a true rival to the USA it must coagulate into one overall culture with one official language. Since we all know which language that is, then obviously the French are going to be our Achilles heal (as usual). What ever happens though, the USA will continue to exert as much influence as it can to prevent the EU from becoming an economic threat, we will see many more trade wars happening in the future as the US continues to try to force the European markets to buy American goods.


cogito ergo sum



No power concedes territory unless it is forced to do so and the United States is no different. It may close down some bases but it is only because it is shifting the concentration of its forces to suit its needs. I do not believe that the USA will suffer from a simple redistribution of its oversea's armed forces. The Bush administration however, will seek to capitalise on the symbolic meaning of shutting down bases in western Europe.

As for America's relationship with Europe, that is moot. The USA already treats Europe as an economic enemy and does all it can to contain the EU. The European governments understand this and attempt to counter such attacks. Due to its internal divisions though, Europe will continue to be both anti and pro American at the same time and will continue to be a mild irritant rather than a direct threat to US geo-political interests.

Until the day you see a French president speaking English to a German audience, then you have nothing to fear from this quarter.

I believe this pullout is a political move by the GOPers.

Something just dawned on too.
We have a longtime friend who has been in the Army for 16 years, his last assignment was in Italy(4 years). He has been reassigned to a base in Georgia, he and his family are now living there, but he told us that he more than likely will be going to Iraq in January.

This "changing of the guard" is coming, folks. Be watching for another big announcement by GWB on this. Why this couldn't have been done months ago, only the Shadow knows.

I couldn't care less about the EU or Asian economy myself.

I don't think it is a political move..but rather a political reality. Who must America defend the world and themselves from in Europe?
So I have no doubt this will occur and I do feel it will be a better thing and I do not feel it will harm the relationship. Tho I am sure some nations or regions in EU nations will suffer.
Although I do find it interesting the focus on American troops ...what about Britain's? She also has approx. 100,000 military personnel stationed in Germany. Will the UK follow the US out?


Oh please who wages war on who? As if Europeans are not great merchants and traders!? The reality is the Europeans taught the US everything she knows..the true masters at the game. I love how some Europeans like to act or play as if they are victims in this game..hardly! Have a look at Africa, the ME or South America if you want an image of victims in this war...Europeans and Americans..one in the same to many are the champions. I think Europe is doing just fine in the economic world of trade.


I think the US is setting it's sights on Asia. Australia will be one too...and already is..that is where I am hoping we will be able to attempt a relocation to!

I should edit to better explain.. I believe it will be Asia.. not Korea or Japan but rather Central and Southern Asia..all the stans.

You've lost me here. What does your friend's oversea assignment, followed by a US assignment, and now a potential tour in Iraq have to do with 'changing of the guard' and political moves by GOPers? If your friend escaped a desert deployment while spending four years in Italy, he should consider himself unbelievably lucky. Troops stationed in Europe deploy to the Middle East, too. My husband did three tours (each several months long), during our two year stay over there.

Per the topic...We are not pulling all of our forces out of Europe (at least not in the near future). We are attempting to balance commitments all around the world, and it is logical to drop superfluous bases that don’t really offer much strategic advantage, and are exceptionally expensive to maintain. These plans have been thrown around for years, and 2/3 of our forces have left Germany since the wall came down, so the idea is hardly new and sensational.

Yes, I think it’s a good move. My only reservation is, I hate to see the government spend millions in overseas facilities, which will likely be closed down in the near future and returned to host-nation governments. The reshuffling in Germany will require a lot of money, because those larger “keeper” bases will require upgrades to absorb that influx of personnel.

QUOTE (UserName @ Aug 15 2004, 05:43 AM)
I believe this pullout is a political move by the GOPers.

Something just dawned on too.
We have a longtime friend who has been in the Army for 16 years, his last assignment was in Italy(4 years). He has been reassigned to a base in Georgia, he and his family are now living there, but he told us that he more than likely will be going to Iraq in January.

This "changing of the guard" is coming, folks. Be watching for another big announcement by GWB on this. Why this couldn't have been done months ago, only the Shadow knows.





Maybe I didn't make myself clear as to my thoughts on this pullout.
People have been yelling for a pullout for months with no luck.
This pullout just seems to me to be a ploy to gain votes for the present administration.

Tom did not escape a desert deployment, he is not trained for infantry. He is a pencil pusher. He also believes he was pulled because deployment in Iraq is imminent.

And, I still say, there will be alot of our guards and reserves returning home soon.

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Votes from who? The returning troops? Soldiers volunteer to go to Europe. It's considered a very lucky assignment, and certainly beats most of the army locations in the states. The local US economies which won't be likely to see benefits for at least another year or two? This restructuring is going to happen over the course of the next two years. Plans are still not finalized. What do you mean no luck with the pullouts? We now have 1/3 as many troops in Germany as we did during the Cold War. We have been pulling out slowly for years...and we are still going to maintain a couple of bases (the largest).

Yes, we need troops in Iraq, but there is nothing nebulous or secretive about that. As to how this factor is supposed to influence the election (in a way that helps Bush), I can't hazard a guess as to what you're thinking.

Edited to add: To offer a bit of an idea of the number of considerations, and expense versus cost savings involved for these overseas base closures, here is the CBO Report. None of this can happen overnight, on the arbitrary whim of a president hoping to get votes for an election.

Bucket



Why is that interesting? British troops are not the same as American troops since Great Britain is a member of the EU, as is Germany. In this case the focus is on US bases because America currently dominates global politics and is in the the process of redistributing its resources to meet existing demands.

Also your numbers are out dated;



http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/...orces%20Germany




Yes, the Europeans wrote the rules, back in the day, but so what? We are debating 2004 and beyond, not 1504. The reality of today is that the EU is a fractured political entity as opposed to an America which speaks and acts with one political agenda. It is there fore in the US's best interests to keep the EU divided and weak.
America does this by numerous means, one of which is to have US troops based in European nations, another is to provoke numerous trade wars.

I don't deny that Europe and the EU wages economic war on the USA. But this thread is not about the ramifications of EU troops being withdrawn from American territory. It is about the ramifications of US troops being pulled from European territory.


editted to add;

Mrs Pigpen

Your linked article states that;


And yet I read of four US bases being built in Iraq; They are at the international airport near Baghdad, at Talil; close to the city of Nassiriya in the south; at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert; and at the Bashur airfield in the Kurdish north.

Those are rudimentary bases, moif, designed to house non-permanent troops...designed for forward-deployed forces, as opposed to forward-based forces.

Mrs. Pigpen,

Votes from American voters, perhaps the undecided.

The troops who are registered to vote will surely vote whether here or there.




You can't? You can't imagine that all of the mothers, fathers, spouses, so's and so forth wouldn't be so grateful to have their loved ones back home that they wouldn't see this as a reason to vote for GWB? I certainly can.

What I think will happen in order to make this possible is the returning troops from Europe and Asia will be re-assigned to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Pulling troops out of bases in Germany has no relation whatsoever with troop rotations to Iraq or A-stan. God willing, it will signal an exit plan for Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia.
Any units that are moved lock, stock and barrel from Germany to the states will be undergoing a monumental task of clearing barracks and bases, uploading equipment and ammunition, railheading and loading onto ships, reams of paperwork for unit historical purposes and personnel manifests, the movement of families and household goods. We're talking about years from start to finish, not to mention train up time, as a unit, that would have to take place prior to any subsequent deployment. And as I've stated before, deployment can and does happen from stateside and overseas.
So, there really is no correlation between this move and more troops to Iraq.

Nor do I think it's a political move. It only makes common sense to either re-deploy troops and bases post cold war, or to reposition them in light of changing threats. I'm of the opinion that people have cast votes on grounds that were dumber than this, but I can't imagine any groundswell of support in the form of votes by this move, no matter if it was made by either candidate.
As Mrs. P said earlier European duty, at least pre-Bosnia, had been a sought after assignment, it certainly was for me. I would rather be stationed in Germany, Poland or Italy....than be in Kansas, Texas or Kentucky, and most parents and family recognize this fact also. I'm sure their sons and daughters don't keep them in the dark on this fact.

Sounds good to me, I was just wondering though: WHY NOW?



I believe the troops and their families will be brought home first.
Cleanup can then begin as support personnel are not that essential to fighting in combat.
It's not going to be like a roadtrip where everybody gets on a bus and leaves together.
I believe there are people besides myself who do think there is a correlation between this move and replacing troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.



I'm glad you brought that up. Repositioning is exactly what I believe is going to happen, where the threat is most dangerous.
I don't share your opinion as to this idea being dumb either. The American public is not so dumb as to not see that this definitely is a political maneuver by the Right Wing. Just as the terror alerts of recent were.



And, your point is?

But if your assertion is that these troops are being re-deployed stateside to simply be deployed to Iraq or A-stan, then it's going to be exactly like a roadtrip. The combat elements of a given unit do not deploy without their support components. It's a long process, not only to plan, but to carry out to completion Certainly, everyone from the German bases won't be on the QEII together sailing back to the states; but neither are any stateside bound units going to be sent to the ME during this ordeal. So who does that leave to clear bases? Who does that leave to upload the units equipment? The military does not have (aside from a few garrison specific commands) a separate non-deploying corps of broom pushers and ditch diggers.


First of all, I am only speculating. As much as I want to see that mission go away, I haven't heard anything about that happening. But, yes why now? Why not Christmas of 1995 when Clinton promised we would be out? I think we should also get out of the MFO peacekeeping mission in the Sinai, but I guess Bush doesn't see numerous votes on this one.
For all of the conspiracy theories hurled against the 'right wing'. I don't see the vote payoff here. And quite frankly, you haven't given put forth a very good case as to why this is a political move.

If they are to be assigned as REPLACEMENTS in Afghanistan and Iraq they will use the support that is already in place, until additional support can be sent.



I seriously doubt any from the German bases will be on the QE2.
Like I said earlier, a unit that been in Italy has been brought home and are looking at being assigned to Iraq next January.



The same ones who usually clear bases. Support personnel, maybe?



I don't recall this being an American campaign.
As long as the US belongs to the UN, then we will have military wherever the UN believes they are needed.



You are kidding, right? Israel's safety and well-being is one of GWB's pet projects. How long do you think it would take for a nuclear war to start between Israel and Egypt if our people were to leave?
You can't be serious.



I'm sorry you can't see it.
And, quite frankly, I believe I have put forth a very good case.
Of course it is only my opinion, so don't bet any real money on it, k?

That won't happen. To do as you suggest, units would have to be de-activated. That's entering into a whole other world of politics. De-activating units is not taken lightly, and as yet, there has been no, I repeat no talk of that. A unit will absolutely not be broken down into individual replacements to Iraq or A-stan, for a myriad of reasons.

QEII.......um...sarcasm......

I thought you would have read my post. What support personnel do you speak of? Who do you think are the ones who clear bases? Our military simply does not have (hypothetically speaking) something like the 5077th Base Clearing Squadron. Well maybe the Air Force...just kidding Mrs. P.


Wow. I just about spewed coke all over my keyboard. I respectfully submit to you, that you may not be well versed in the relationship between the UN and sovereign United States. But that's for another thread.


Dead serious. Ever been to the Sinai? We're not stopping anyone from attacking anyone. War will not erupt from the MFO personnel being taken out of the Sinai. And the mission can stay for all I care (nine other contributing nations), I just want the US out of it. We've been there since 1982, the threat is over, just as it is in Europe.


I certainly meant no ill will, I was trying to draw out a little more factual basis for your argument, it's easier to debate than pure opinion.

Interesting replies.

I feel we Americans should get out of the greater EU areas as much as possible. They are practically our enemies anyway. Our troops in "old" Europe serve little purpose for US interests and the EU has set itself up as our antagonist following the french line of "thinking".

Going into Russia to watch our biggest enemy, China, is a good idea and creating bases to guard oil is a good idea. Wasting troop strength and US money in Germany is not a good idea at all.

I will say that one thing is a bit dangerous, though. Making bases in Russian territory will make China feel we are closing in on them and will antagonize their already paranoid military. We might be making it worse. However, we really have little choice as leaving them wholly alone will empower them. Making them paranoid is better than letting them get arrogant. Bad dilemma.

In any case, we do not need to waste ourselves in Europe. Let them pay for their own military. And if they do, it will be as big a debacle as everything else they attempt.

As a lot of people mentioned, it is rather redundant and unncessary for us to keep our troops in the heart of western europe. At a minimum, I believe that we need to relocate bases to the southeastern part of the continent, since that is where the threats that we face are the greatest. Bases in Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and other nations would still be of great value, so I'm not sure if I'm all on board with this leaving the continent entirely talk. Not only that, but staying in those lower Eur-Asian nations allows us to fly troops in at a moment's notice, and it will also stem the hatred towards us should those troops be relocated in the middle east. It's not secret that our presence really angers them, and having bases near that area of the world will decrease that to a certain extent as opposed to directly stationing more men in say....Riyadh.

It might be an idea for you to take a step back and look at this webpage before you write off the EU as "practically our enemies anyway". There are some good tables toward the bottom that show who supported the Iraq War both politically & with troops, who was neutral, and who opposed it.

As you can see, and as everybody knows, the USA has by far the largest troop commitment, both in raw numbers, and in terms of % of available forces.

The next nations in the list are the UK (EU member), Italy (EU member), Poland (EU member), Ukraine (non-EU European state, but have said they would like to apply in future), Spain (EU member - at the time of this website's creation - July this year - they still hadn't withdrawn their troops, but will unless the UN takes over control of the coalition. I'm not sure, but I think their troops are still there now?); Netherlands (EU member); Australia (non-EU, obviously); Romania (applicant EU member state); Bulgaria (applicant EU member state); Thailand (non-EU); Denmark (EU member); Honduras; El Salvador; Dominican Republic; Hungary (EU member); Japan; Norway (non-EU); Mongolia; Azerbiajan; Portugal (EU); Latvia (EU); [B]Lithuania [/B](EU); Slovakia (EU); Czech Republic (EU); Phillipines; Albania (non-EU); Moldova (EU applicant); Macedonia (EU applicant); Estonia (EU); Canada; Kazakhstan.

So, of the 34 countries in the coalition of the willing, over half (18) are either already EU member states, or are on record as wanting to be.

It's true that of the main opposition countries that opposed the intervention - France, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Russia, and Belarus - four are current EU members (and Belarus has, as far as I know, expressed an interest in joining in the future). But that's 6 against 18. Even if you try to make the split more even by using population (which the US electoral system actively discounts) you're still left with a large majority of the EU that are very far from being America's "enemies".

That's without even considering that France and Germany are not the USA's "enemies" either; that the stated cases they made against going to war (the WMDs were not a danger & longer inspections were required, the Saddam regime's link to terror were tenuous at best, and there was no real plan for the aftermath of war) have largely been made. Worry about the people who ARE trying to kill Americans, not the ones who aren't.

Oh, and "Going into Russia to watch our biggest enemy, China, is a good idea and creating bases to guard oil is a good idea." Do the Russians get any say in this? Is it any wonder that many people think America is an Imperial Power when Americans say things like this?

Mrs Pigpen



Are you so sure? The article I quoted, as well as a good many others I've read refer to the new bases currently under construction as 'dramatically extend[ing] American power in the region' and with good reason. Is it inconceivable that the bases are classed by the military as being 'rudimentary' but in truth they will be there for as long as it is viable for the United States to maintain them?

Either way, the article you posted says; 'the United States has no plans to build elaborate bases to house U.S. forces in Iraq' and it does not make the distinction you do. The article appears to be saying that the USA will not be building any bases in Iraq when clearly four bases have already been established.

The status of these bases as 'rudimentary' means very little in this context since once the base has been built, its classification can very quickly be changed.

Also, given the political reality of Iraq it would be extremely unwise for the United States to openly declare its intentions to use the nation as a permanent base. Rather it makes sense to refer to US military installations within Iraq as temporary regardless of how long they remain in place.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


Dontreadonme



I would argue that any movement of large numbers of troops is a political move, but in this case it is especially so.
Where as the actual logistics may be protracted, as you say, it is the timing of the announcement that betrays the political intent.

Moif..

I am not even going to continue the debate on trade as it has very very little to do with the topic offered for debate.

My apologies for my skewed presentation of numbers of UK troops..but the numbers I had in mind are not old..they are the current amount in DE what was incorrect was the nations they are representing...as it is in fact the US, UK, France and the Netherlands who have a combined total of over 100,000 troops in Germany. I had remembered reading this in a NG a few mos back they had a color coded map and everything. Apparently I hadn't remembered all the details well.

Still I find my question a very valid one to ask and your explanation of it is very puzzling to me. So UK, NL and FR are members of the EU as is DE...and?
What does that have to do with foreign service and nation's troop alignments throughout the world. Very little. Does the EU have any kind of significant military force to even be deploying let alone reshuffling? The US troops (and those from UK,NL,FR) in Germany are leftovers from the Cold War..which was a war the US and Europe ran under the control, guidance and doctrine of NATO which the US happens to be a member of too. So please explain to me exactly why you mention the EU in regards to US and UK troop presence in DE..and make absolutely no mention of NATO?
When did the EU outrank NATO when it came to military actions in Europe?

Again I will ask since I do not feel it was sufficiently answered.... will the UK follow the US out? Will FR? NL? Britain has it's largest foreign troop commitment in DE..why? If the UK plans on continuing her stance and support with the US on the GWOT wouldn't they be acting on this jointly? I was wondering does the NL, FR and UK operate in DE independently or within NATO command, control ? Whose equipment, facilities and resources do they use? I can't imagine it is predominately European as the Kosovo war showed us that..well over half of that war was manned, equipped and procured by the
US..in what was decidedly a European problem.

I feel as if you are trying to present the Europeans again as victims. I can tell you most Americans do not understand why we have so much of our military might vested towards European's protection..and rightfully so. The Europeans are more than capable of defending themselves..they are no longer helpless victims of military aggression..they are no longer war destroyed nations weak and unstable...they have just choose not to better militarize themselves. The US has been slowly pushing the EU to take more self responsibility defense wise..altho I do think they would prefer it to be done through NATO..but nonetheless..the Europeans becoming self defending and more capable of assisting in military operations is not in the least bit considered a bad idea from an American view. Americans just wonder..... will it ever happen. ?

Bucket



In truth, always. The EU is a constitutional union, membership of the EU is legally more binding than membership of NATO. You might just as well ask who has the authority over Texas, the US federal government or NATO?

The political reality however is that Europe is a fractured union and still marred by internal conflicts, most especially between the French and the British.

Since the end of the cold war however, the US has been content to remain in Europe which no one forced them to. They did so because their presence acted as an expedient political tool.





The article I posted makes it very clear that the UK forces have been undergoing a steady pull out for some time now. The UK forces will not be following the US forces because they are actually leading the way.

It may interest you to know that most of the European nations have been gearing up to a considerable restructuring of their military forces in order to meet the sort of global commitments which they were unable to meet in Bosnia and Kosovo. Very few of the European nations have any form of long range deployment capabilities and this is the reason why the US was called upon to intervene in Kosovo. My own country for example, until very recently only had three Hercules transport aeroplanes and these were largely only used for the transportation of supplies to Greenland. For Denmark to take part in post cold war military actions like Afghanistan and Iraq has required a significant amount of restructuring that has been very expensive.

It may seem ridiculous that a nation the size of Germany, with its close proximity to Kosovo (at least in regards to the USA) was unable to intervene when it was needed, but the reality is that Germany did not have the transportation or even the long range military capabilities to move beyond its own borders. The legacy of the second world war and the defense strategy of the cold war meant that all of Germany's considerable military resources were more or less unable to do anything much other than defend against a Soviet first strike.

The EU ought to have its own military. But as I said earlier, the union does not enjoy the political unity required. Nations like France and Britain refuse to give up their own military forces but cannot afford to pay for more than the forces they currently have. This ridiculous state of affairs will continue for as long as politicians like Blair and Chirac use their military forces to further their own national interests over those of the EU.





I'm not trying to present the Europeans as victims. What I'm saying is that Europe is the closest thing to a threat to the USA today and as such it is in the USA's best interests to keep the EU as fractured and dependent on US power as possible.

I do not agree that China is the greatest threat to the United States either. China has very little political influence beyond its own internal borders. It cannot even pacify Taiwan let alone the USA.

Only the EU has the potential to threaten the global interests of the United States because only the European nations have the international infrastructure and technological ability to do so. This threat however, remains hypothetical and depends on European unity to become viable. Currently there is no power in the world that threatens America's position of dominance.


editted to add a missing word

Actually, it does make that distinction, moif. In that very sentence, "the United States has no plans to build elaborate bases to house U.S. forces in Iraq'. We did the same thing in Saudi Arabia, and turned those areas over to the Saudi government when we left. Now, I don't think we'd reject an offer to stay forever with permanent "elaborate" bases...but that doesn't look forthcoming, or even prudent at the moment. So, yes, I have no crystal ball and we might have permanent facilities in Iraq 50 years from now, but the bases they are investing in today are not designed to be permanent (unlike the ones in Germany, for instance)....It simply makes sense to have the facilities necessary for our soldiers since we are likely to be in the area for quite a while.

Moif, feel free to call me dense on this......

What exactly is the political intent that is betrayed by this announcement? This is something that should have been done, IMO during the 90's. By implying that this is a purely political move, is saying that no policy, no change and no agenda should be announced or implemented during an election year. By this definition, every piece of legislation this year must be nothing but posturing for the election. Your link actually had a segment titled 'Impact on the Election', yet spoke not a word of the election.
Again I state, I see no windfall of votes from this move. I may be out of touch with the common voter, but I fail to see anyone voting for Bush because he brought some troops back to the lower 48.

Mrs Pigpen

I don't believe the United States will leave Iraq unless it is forced to do so. Of the bases in questions, one of them is Baghdad airport, so granted it must, by its very nature, be a temporary installation, but of the others at least one is tucked away in the desert where it can be expanded as needs be and another is situated in the north amongst the territory held by the Kurds. As temproary as these two bases may be now, they have obviously been chosen for their long term development with the object of providing the USA with a means to dominate the entire region.

That development will depend on events of course, but there is no way the USA will pull out of Iraq unless it has no other option. No state, not even one as rich as the USA, expends the amount of resources that the Iraq campaign has cost simply to oust a dictator.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


editted to add;

Dontreadonme

I would never call you dense DTOM



I believe there are two political aspects to the timing of the announcement. The first is the fact that by making it now, GW Bush can cater to those voices in America which demand Europe fend for itself. There are plenty of those voices in America today. (There are even plenty of them in this thread and on the rest of AD.)
Bush's supporters can claim that he has paid the European's back for their disloyalty and/ or that it is about time that the US tax payers were freed of the burden of paying for Europe's defence (as indeed cogito ergo sum says in this very thread).

It is my opinion that Europe, and especialy France and the EU are legitimate targets for domestic American scorn and I believe GW Bush is using these sentiments to increase his standing. This is the short term gain of the timing of the announcement.

The second political aspect to moving the bases is far more important and has nothing to do with the election. The troops who will be brought home will be replaced by others else where abroad as America moves its frontiers further afield than central Europe. I have already provided links in this thread to illustrate this point.

Well I would never ask such a question and I don't understand it's relation to the question I asked you. We have a very specific topic of debate here...military deployments. Texas would never independently send troops to foreign nations..it would always be done federally as the US states do not have their own individual military. Yet in the EU European nations do..and they do send and commit their military aborad independent of the EU. As is the case in DE. Those troops there from UK, NL and FR are not their under EU direction, command or doctrine are they? It is NATO..and you made no mention of this and I asked why. Why mention the EU and define it as such ..and then reject the role of NATO? I just don't understand this..it seems to me to be more like wishful thinking than reality.

From all that I gather from your posts and Julian's is that as Europeans you hope to replicate NATO on a EU level..and you feel good will come from further militarization of EUs foreign policies..and it seems even more so in regards to their dealings with the US. It seems you are not content with the EU rivalling the US in trade and diplomacy..but feel it must also do so in military. Why? As a European myself I do not wish this for the EU. I do not wish for them to begin an arms race and to further focus on the actual participation of conflicts rather than the prevention of them. I don't understand your hopes in the future for Europe to be a greater "threat" to America. I do wish for Europe to be more capable of assisting and contributing to conflicts..but I would rather see them doing so in cooperation with the US. I think it is good for the world currently to have the EU nations more focused on security through the means of diplomacy and trade...rather than aggression. I think it is the perfect balance we need and I hope Europe remains true to her role..as it is a very important one..and it is not one to be waged in battle.

I know many feel Bush is a dangerous man playing a dangerous game..but Chirac is too.

First, call me naive, but I don't see the supposed political motivation here (at least that being discussed) at all. Especially not when compared with the other, more germaine issues involved. As has been presented here, this seems more likely to be simply the logical progression of a variety of factors. First, I agree that this is probably, long-term, more of an extension than a pull back (how does this win those votes?). Extending the bases farther forward is general military strategy--nothing surprising there. Second, I think the issues being dealt with over the last few years have either forced or accelerated a rethinking of our troop deployments. How does having these troops in the EU benefit us? Especially if they are possibly going to be so against the uses to which we might employ them--this creates a security concern, not eliminates one. The revamping of the Cold War strategy has been underway for some time now, and the troops in Europe were a large part of that. In the post-Cold War world, there are more beneficial places for these troops to be stationed.

Also, I haven't seen any mention here of the likely political fallout over the economic impact in the areas where these bases are located. Just as it is a big issue here, it will be there as well--the economies will suffer a major setback. So, as much as many Europeans might like the troops to go, I'm sure they will at the very least miss the money, and that will create some political issues that will be have to dealt with. Moif--what can you tell us about any press on this aspect?

Bucket

[quote]Well I would never ask such a question and I don't understand it's relation to the question I asked you. [/quote]

Its perfectly clear. Texas is bound to the US federal government by constitutional law, just as Britain is bound to the UN by constitutional law. Whether or not Texas has a military of its own in this particular instance is besides the point since the point I am making in response to your question is one one of legal precendence pertaining to the nature of Britains relationship to the EU as opposed to Britains relationship to NATO.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[quote]As is the case in DE. Those troops there from UK, NL and FR are not their under EU direction, command or doctrine are they? It is NATO..and you made no mention of this and I asked why. Why mention the EU and define it as such ..and then reject the role of NATO? I just don't understand this..it seems to me to be more like wishful thinking than reality.[/quote]

I did not 'reject' the role of NATO.

I placed my emphasis on the EU, because the EU is the dominant legal entity in Europe. Britain is a member of the EU and the USA is not. I had thought that was clear enough given what I wrote in my initial response to you;

[quote]Why is that interesting? British troops are not the same as American troops since Great Britain is a member of the EU, as is Germany. [/quote]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[quote]From all that I gather from your posts and Julian's is that as Europeans you hope to replicate NATO on a EU level..and you feel good will come from further militarization of EUs foreign policies..and it seems even more so in regards to their dealings with the US. [/quote]

Where did either Julian or myself write that?

Here is what I wrote;

[quote]I think its about time that the EU stood on its own feet with regards to its defence and its relationship to America, Russia and the middle east, and I am also of the opinion that once American troops are pulled out of Europe, we can once and for all put the cold war behind us and be truly independent of American interference in our internal politics. [/quote]

...and here is what Julian wrote;

[quote]I don't think this would be a terrible idea because I agree with moif that it's about time that Europeans started taking more responsibility for their own defence. [/quote]

Please explain to me how expressing a desire for the EU to undertake its own defence translates to (and these are your words not mine);

Europeans hop[ing] to replicate NATO on a EU level

or

hopes in the future for Europe to be a greater "threat" to America.

Neither Julian nor myself expressed any such sentiment. It seems to me that in your eagerness to find offence you have become confused as to what we have written.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[quote]It seems you are not content with the EU rivalling the US in trade and diplomacy..but feel it must also do so in military. Why? [/quote]

There are three forms of power which are needed to make a state truly independent; Economic, Political and Military.

The EU has economic power, and some political power but it lacks military power. For as long as the EU does not have a strong military and for as long as its political power is fractured due to internal divisions, then it will remain subservient to US political interests.

I do not wish my nation, nor my continent to remain in a position of subservience to any one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[quote]As a European myself I do not wish this for the EU. I do not wish for them to begin an arms race and to further focus on the actual participation of conflicts rather than the prevention of them. I don't understand your hopes in the future for Europe to be a greater "threat" to America. [/quote]

The reason you do not understand is because those are not my hopes. They are in fact the manufacture of your own biased understanding of what I wrote. At no point have I expressed a desire for the EU to be a threat to any one. All I want is for the EU to be truly independent.

Today, this is not so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[quote]I do wish for Europe to be more capable of assisting and contributing to conflicts..but I would rather see them doing so in cooperation with the US. I think it is good for the world currently to have the EU nations more focused on security through the means of diplomacy and trade...rather than aggression. I think it is the perfect balance we need and I hope Europe remains true to her role..as it is a very important one..and it is not one to be waged in battle.[/quote]

Your 'perfect balance' requires the EU to continue to be both militarily and politically weak and to remain subservient to the USA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[quote]I know many feel Bush is a dangerous man playing a dangerous game..but Chirac is too. [/quote]

Really? How exactly is Jaques Chirac playing a dangerous game? Is it dangerous to speak out against the United States?


editted to add;

Hobbes

[quote]First, call me naive, but I don't see the supposed political motivation here (at least that being discussed) at all. Especially not when compared with the other, more germaine issues involved. As has been presented here, this seems more likely to be simply the logical progression of a variety of factors. First, I agree that this is probably, long-term, more of an extension than a pull back (how does this win those votes?). [/quote]

By being promoted as a withdrawal from Europe.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[quote]Extending the bases farther forward is general military strategy--nothing surprising there. Second, I think the issues being dealt with over the last few years have either forced or accelerated a rethinking of our troop deployments. How does having these troops in the EU benefit us? Especially if they are possibly going to be so against the uses to which we might employ them--this creates a security concern, not eliminates one. The revamping of the Cold War strategy has been underway for some time now, and the troops in Europe were a large part of that. In the post-Cold War world, there are more beneficial places for these troops to be stationed. [/quote]

Agreed, but being a product of an evolution of events does not mean that the move itself is not of a significant political nature. As you point out, those troops are not really leaving, they are being moved elsewhere. Moving troops about the planet will have significant political ramifications and shift the balance of power in those regions affected.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


[quote]Also, I haven't seen any mention here of the likely political fallout over the economic impact in the areas where these bases are located. Just as it is a big issue here, it will be there as well--the economies will suffer a major setback. So, as much as many Europeans might like the troops to go, I'm sure they will at the very least miss the money, and that will create some political issues that will be have to dealt with. Moif--what can you tell us about any press on this aspect? [/quote]

The economic impact of the removal of an American airbase will have an effect on the local economy and on local jobs, but it will not have a significant effect on the national economies. Even at the local level, the effects will be short term.

The Danish national press has not paid much attention to the news of the American withdrawal, As you can see here. Its in Danish, but all you need note is the amount of space given to the news.

The translation is as follows;

[quote]President George W. Bush announced today that some 60-70.000 american soldiers will be withdrawn from bases in Europa og Asia during the next ten years.

In some cases troops will be moved to the former states of the Soviet Union, but many will be drawn home.

This will be the largest re-organisation of the USA's military forces since the end of the cold war.[/quote]

EUobserver.com have an article here that is a little more detailed and is in English though.

But we are discussing troop deployments...and foreign service. I asked why you thought to mention the EU and define the UK's foreign service in DE under the guise of the EU and yet made no mention of NATO. How are you excluding UK's relationship to NATO and upholding her relationship to EU in regards to this SPECIFIC topic?



No you did not even bother to mention NATO or even acknowledge them..and I asked and am still asking why. It is obviously not clear enough to me in regards to this SPECIFIC issue. Military deployment and foreign service in Europe..which is in my mind defined by NATO..NOT the EU. NATO is the dominant military entity in Europe..not the EU. All of the questions I asked...Will the UK follow the US out..whose military facilities do they use? Whose equipment? Whose funding? Whose personnel? I am thinking of NATO..not the EU. Is this going to weaken NATO's role in Europe and our shared alliance within NATO? Will this weaken Western Europe's role within NATO? Is this why the US pushed for Eastern European nations to be admitted in NATO? I think the main topic of debate or discussion here in regards to America's troop realignment in Europe is NATO..not the EU. Sorry ..but I do think the ramifications of how this will effect NATO and how better effective (or less) it will become has a lot more relevance, actual possible outcome and interest than the topic of how this will effect the EU's military.




Care to explain how the above comments is not wanting, hoping or a desire for Europe to further militarize it's foreign policy and how you are not specifically pointing out the need to do so in regards to America?



You are being very selective in choosing what to quote of yourself...as you also discussed how you believed that Europe was the only power in the world capable of becoming a threat to America..and even claimed it was greater than China. Being that this debate is about military presence and power..I assume you are speaking about the EU becoming a threat to America with it's own military. Also I used the word threat in quotation marks because I was quoting you..you are the one who presented the EU as a threat to the US...even to go so far as saying it is greater than China. And now I regret lumping your thoughts and Julian's together because they are not at all similar...my apologies to Julian. cogito ergo sum claimed in this debate that Europe was in fact America's enemy..and Julian corrected him..rightly so. Yet you did not..because I do feel you believe it is true...or hope for it to become true.



You know you are confusing me on this one as I can not figure out which it is you believe..is Europe as a whole subservient to America? Or is she the only global political threat to America? Here you claim the EU has little political power and yet earlier you said: "Only the EU has the potential to threaten the global interests of the United States because only the European nations have the international infrastructure and technological ability to do so"
Seems to me the EU does have political power they are just not using it how you wish them too..and that is their choice..they are still independent nations and they have their own military agreements outside the EU and they have their own political, economic and security allies outside the EU and I personally hope..especially so in regards to the UK..they continue to do so. Because as you said yourself.. " I do not wish my nation,...to remain in a position of subservience to any one."


There is no need for you to accuse anyone when expressing their own opinions on a matter of being biased..it is called opinionated. Bias is when someone uses their opinions in an unkind discriminatory matter void of any understanding..which I have not. If you are in fact accusing me of being prejudiced I don't think this is the appropriate place to make such accusations.
Um you did in fact use the word "threat" several times.


I haven't seen anything in your posts to suggest that you do not support the EU taking on this role as a threat to America..instead you seem more in support of it.


No it does not. My balance requires two alternative or balancing powers in our world. If the EU pursues a foreign policy based on military power I do not feel there will be greater balance in the world..and I don't believe they will ever overcome America's ability of this either.
I do not feel the world will be safer and more secure. My belief is that Europe as a whole has an alternative role to play..and I believe it is to be in partnership with America..not in threat. I hope for peace and I don't feel further aggression and confrontation is the way to achieve it.

As for Chirac...do you honestly believe all Chirac has done is speak out against America? I have many opinions on this and I imagine they are not very popular among most on this board but I feel this would be a bit of a hijack of this thread. I will say that Bush is not the only one seeking a unilateral foreign policy and hoping and even being successful at weakening international institutions like the UN, NATO and the EU.

Bucket

[quote]But we are discussing troop deployments...and foreign service. I asked why you thought to mention the EU and define the UK's foreign service in DE under the guise of the EU and yet made no mention of NATO. How are you excluding UK's relationship to NATO and upholding her relationship to EU in regards to this SPECIFIC topic? [/quote]

You asked a specific question as to why the focus was on the US withdrawal and not the UK, or others, you said you found this 'interesting'. I answered you by pointing out the difference between the UK forces and the US, namely that the UK forces are legally bound to the EU where as the US forces are not. Membership of NATO in this context is neither here nor there since it has no bearing on your question.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


[quote]No you did not even bother to mention NATO or even acknowledge them..and I asked and am still asking why.[/quote]

I have already explained why several times. Your continued insistence to pursue this non issue causes me to wonder as to your motivation. It seems you are more interested in debating 'moif's anti American' opinions rather than the topic at hand...

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


[quote]It is obviously not clear enough to me in regards to this SPECIFIC issue. Military deployment and foreign service in Europe..which is in my mind defined by NATO..NOT the EU. NATO is the dominant military entity in Europe..not the EU. All of the questions I asked...Will the UK follow the US out..whose military facilities do they use? Whose equipment? Whose funding? Whose personnel? I am thinking of NATO..not the EU. Is this going to weaken NATO's role in Europe and our shared alliance within NATO? Will this weaken Western Europe's role within NATO? Is this why the US pushed for Eastern European nations to be admitted in NATO? I think the main topic of debate or discussion here in regards to America's troop realignment in Europe is NATO..not the EU. Sorry ..but I do think the ramifications of how this will effect NATO and how better effective (or less) it will become has a lot more relevance, actual possible outcome and interest than the topic of how this will effect the EU's military. [/quote]

You asked a question, and I gave you an answer. I can't help it if you don't like the answer...

For what its worth, I think you are chasing shadows. I'm not saying anything against NATO, nor seeking to diminish its importance. I merely pointed out a fundamental difference between the UK and the US with regards to their political and military alliances.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


[quote]Care to explain how the above comments is not wanting, hoping or a desire for Europe to further militarize it's foreign policy and how you are not specifically pointing out the need to do so in regards to America? [/quote]

What does this have to do with; (your words) 'hop[ing] to replicate NATO on a EU level.. ?

As I already explained to you,

[quote]There are three forms of power which are needed to make a state truly independent; Economic, Political and Military.

The EU has economic power, and some political power but it lacks military power. For as long as the EU does not have a strong military and for as long as its political power is fractured due to internal divisions, then it will remain subservient to US political interests. [/quote]

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


[quote]You are being very selective in choosing what to quote of yourself...as you also discussed how you believed that Europe was the only power in the world capable of becoming a threat to America..and even claimed it was greater than China. Being that this debate is about military presence and power..I assume you are speaking about the EU becoming a threat to America with it's own military. [/quote]

Exactly. You assume..

Here is what I wrote with regards to the EU being a potential threat to the USA;

[quote]Only the EU has the potential to threaten the global interests of the United States because only the European nations have the international infrastructure and technological ability to do so. [/quote]

Where did I write anything that gives you cause to assume that I was referring to the EU as being a potential military threat to America?

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨

[quote]Also I used the word threat in quotation marks because I was quoting you..you are the one who presented the EU as a threat to the US...even to go so far as saying it is greater than China. And now I regret lumping your thoughts and Julian's together because they are not at all similar...my apologies to Julian. cogito ergo sum claimed in this debate that Europe was in fact America's enemy..and Julian corrected him..rightly so. Yet you did not..because I do feel you believe it is true...or hope for it to become true. [/quote]

And yet Julian agreed with me...

I believe that Europe is perceived as an economic threat in the USA, and even, by some, as a potential military threat. I do not believe Europe will ever be a military threat to the USA, and neither do I wish for it to be so.

What I want is for the EU to be an equal partner to the USA and the only way that is going to happen is if the EU has the economic, political and military power to remain independent of US interference.

The fact that I include military power is not an indication of my personal lust for a more aggressive stance against the USA. It is only a recognition of a simple political truth. Without a strong military, a state, or a Union of States will remain, politically weak.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


[quote]You know you are confusing me on this one as I can not figure out which it is you believe..is Europe as a whole subservient to America?[/quote]

Yes.


[quote]Or is she the only global political threat to America?[/quote]

Europe is the greatest potential threat to America. If Europe's economic power is matched by its political power then the USA will be severely pressed both geo-politically and economically.

America's entire economic (and there by military) superiority rests on its control of the global oil supply. If the Eu becomes the single political entity which its supporters wish for, then it will threaten America simply by its size and geographic location.


[quote]Here you claim the EU has little political power and yet earlier you said: "Only the EU has the potential to threaten the global interests of the United States because only the European nations have the international infrastructure and technological ability to do so" [/quote]

Yes, the EU has the potential to threaten the USA...


[quote]Seems to me the EU does have political power they are just not using it how you wish them too..and that is their choice..[/quote]

Simply put. You are wrong. The EU has limited political power. Its individual nations still act according to their own individual agenda's. France and Britain for example still use their individual military power to further their own national agenda's.


[quote]they are still independent nations and they have their own military agreements outside the EU and they have their own political, economic and security allies outside the EU and I personally hope..especially so in regards to the UK..they continue to do so. Because as you said yourself.. " I do not wish my nation,...to remain in a position of subservience to any one." [/quote]

First; The UK is already subservient to US interests. This is clearly demonstrated by Britain's willingness to use its forces to help the USA further American interests, and this despite having been snubbed by the USA in the pursuit of Britain's own interests (Suez, the Falklands, Northern Ireland)

Second; they are not independent nations. They are member states of the EU and thus subject to the EU. This was a decision each state made of its own accord.

Third; as long as the individual member states of the EU continue to act independently then the EU will remain as it is now, subservient to US interests.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨

[quote]There is no need for you to accuse anyone when expressing their own opinions on a matter of being biased..it is called opinionated. Bias is when someone uses their opinions in an unkind discriminatory matter void of any understanding..which I have not. If you are in fact accusing me of being prejudiced I don't think this is the appropriate place to make such accusations.
Um you did in fact use the word "threat" several times.[/quote]

Expressing your opinion does not justify your putting words in other people's mouths.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨

[quote]I haven't seen anything in your posts to suggest that you do not support the EU taking on this role as a threat to America..instead you seem more in support of it. [/quote]

Once again, this is your perception, not mine.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that some one can write of a threat without actually supporting that threat.

As I have repeated several times, my opinion is that the EU should take responsibility for its own defence. It should strengthen its military resources and thus its political power.

There is nothing wrong with this sentiment. It is not insidious, nor aggressive, nor immoral. It is in fact a desire for the EU to emulate the USA.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


[quote]No it does not. My balance requires two alternative or balancing powers in our world. [/quote]

You are extremely naive if you think that the EU can balance the power of the USA without military power.
Balance requires an equal distribution of power, and currently the USA has an overwhelming superiority in military resources.


[quote]If the EU pursues a foreign policy based on military power I do not feel there will be greater balance in the world..and I don't believe they will ever overcome America's ability of this either. [/quote]

Just as America once usurped Great Britain's position of military superiority, so to will America eventually find itself being matched by other military powers.


[quote]I do not feel the world will be safer and more secure. My belief is that Europe as a whole has an alternative role to play..and I believe it is to be in partnership with America..not in threat. I hope for peace    and I don't feel further aggression and confrontation is the way to achieve it. [/quote]

What are you talking about? You talk as if military power was some evil in other people's hands whilst being but a legitimate tool in the hands of the USA.

...and you hope for peace? You talk as if greater European military power will automatically result in warfare whilst blissfully ignoring the war mongering of the United States.

¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨


[quote]As for Chirac...do you honestly believe all Chirac has done is speak out against America? I have many opinions on this and I imagine they are not very popular among most on this board but I feel this would be a bit of a hijack of this thread. I will say that Bush is not the only one seeking a unilateral foreign policy and hoping and even being successful at weakening international institutions like the UN, NATO and the EU. [/quote]

Really? And how many wars did Chirac start?



editted to add missing words

Actually, Moif, I think most would say that China is the greatest potential threat to America, both economically and militarily. Since China is an emerging economy that, by the way, just happens to have 1 billion people, the possibility of it replacing the US as the world's dominant economy is quite high. I think most do not view the EU as an economic threat--rather, it creates additional opportunity (it is much easier to sell to the EU market than it is to the French market, the German market, the British market, etc.). Surely, it would have more political power, but, as everyone here seems to agree, the US is primarily concerned with economic matters. If we were more concerned about the EU as a threat in any degree, we wouldn't be pulling the troops out.

I have not once called you anti-american or made any sort of personal issue a topic of debate. I have tho explained why I place my focus on NATO in regards to this specific issue and topic of debate and I have asked what I believe to be very relevant and interesting questions regarding my focus..and in return you have not answered them and I can not imagine you will. So I will just leave it at that. Hopefully someone else will be lured into addressing these questions as this is an issue of interest to me. Not to mention I feel it is more relevant to the debate question asked about the US and Europe's relationship.

Maybe it is just me but again your comments are very confusing and you seem to be saying many different things all at once. You claim Europe is perceived as an economic threat to the US..then you hope that the EU will match it's economic power it has with America and include military..so how is that not wanting for a military threat? Yet you claim that is not what you want you just want self defense. Huh?
Switzerland..(I LOVE CH!!) is armed to the teeth..no need for American assistance to defend their nation as they got it all under control. Yet they are hardly even one to be considered a military threat to America..and at the same time I think they have a very loud booming voice on the international stage considering their size, their lack of membership in NATO, EU and only just recently UN.

I don't doubt European nation's need for self defense..and personally feel many of them already have it....FR and UK are nuclear powers for gawd sakes.
I just question the reality and need for them to ever become a rival to American forces..as your belief that Americans feel that only the EU has the potential to become a military threat..well I doubt that..it is a very small percentage of (paranoid) Americans who fear this future.



The UK is not subservient. Firstly she is too a nuclear power. Secondly the UK and the US have a long history of sharing international interests and participating jointly. Iraq is not a vision of Blair's too? Please that man justifies his ME campaign far better than any American president could ever hope to.
Thirdly your history of snubbing is incorrect.. The US was there in support politically in the Falkland war and openly declared her support. As for the Suez crisis the US did feel horrible for snubbing a dear trusted ally..and in return as a please forgive me I am so sorry let's kiss and make up gift the US signed an agreement to share all nuclear weaponry knowledge with the UK.
As for Northern Ireland this became an obsession for President Clinton.

This is a reality EU will face..the UK and her historical ally America. I don't think any other nation in the EU shares this sort of close bond and mutual prosperity as the UK does with the US. And that is why your comments are terribly wrong...UK will have a very difficult time choosing over the US not because of subservience and not because of US interests but because the UK has many of her own interests in keeping her relationship with the US strong.

Kerry is jumping in on this issue as a bad thing.



Kerry to Attack Bush Troop Withdrawal Plan

I think Kerry is doing this to look hawkish and fight the political stereotype of Democrats.

I however commend the move because I think it will be better for our troops. If we refuse to add more troops, we need to reduce their obligations around the world. We are presently asking much too much from our soldiers, the guard and the reserves (active and inactive).

We can stand up to North Korea without troops in South Korea. Kerry wants the pullout of SK troops to be as part of negotiations with NK. Maybe he is right about that, but I think the troops withdrawals are overdue.

I too disagree with Kerry Eeyore..and I think this may in fact have a positive effect on the NK situation.

I would feel that the withdrawal of US troops makes NK feel less urgent and under attack..it will make NK feel more like she is speaking to SK without a heavy American influence and I also feel it will make China take on the more aggressive role. So far just going on pure hypothetical and positive wishes..I feel America's withdrawal from the Korean peninsula (but still voiced commitment to defend SK) will improve this situation. It is not one to be won in war.

I agree. Since the South Koreans began the sunshine policy, they placed themselves as the mediators between the N Koreans (their aggressors) and the US (their protectors). If the very people we are ostensibly protecting wish to place us in the diplomatic position of 'bully', we need to extricate our forces. We should have done it long ago. The only unfortunate thing about this is, similar to the drawdown in Germany, it will be a rather expensive process. The bases to which our forces are moving are not equipt to deal with the influx of that much personnel. Major construction will be necessary (though the south Koreans will share a lot of the cost...infuriating them more We are returning the land in Seoul which was given to us in the process, however).

Don't worry - even Kerry disagrees with Kerry, of course that was 2 whole weeks ago. My emphasis added. Bush seems to be showing just the imagination Kerry was calling for here, no?



I also agree with your points about Korea. I w