J-10
06-04-2004, 05:52 AM
Pentagon plan pulls troops from Germany, rearranges them.
Article Published: Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 7:47:30 PM PST
By Michael R. Gordon
The New York Times
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has proposed a plan to withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany and undertake an array of other changes in its European-based forces, in the most significant rearrangement of the U.S. military around the world since the beginning of the Cold War, according to U.S. and allied officials.
Pentagon policy-makers said the aim is to afford maximum flexibility in sending forces to the Middle East, Central Asia and other potential battlegrounds. But some experts and allied officials are concerned that the shift will reduce Washington's influence in NATO and weaken its dip lomatic links with its allies, all at a time of rising anti-American sentiment around the world.
The proposal to withdraw the divisions comes at a time when the Army is stretched thin by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Pentagon officials said the move, which has been under consideration for some time and involves forces in Asia as well as in Europe, is unrelated to the current fighting.
Who would move
Under the Pentagon plan, the Germany-based 1st Armored Division and 1st Infantry Division would be returned to the United States. A brigade equipped with Stryker light armored vehicles would be deployed in Germany. A typical division consists of three brigades and can number 20,000 troops if logistical units are included, though these two divisions have only two brigades each in Germany, with the other brigade in the United States.
In addition, a wing of F-16 fighters may be shifted from their base in Spangdahlem, Germany, to the Incirlik base in Turkey, which would move the aircraft closer to the volatile Middle East; a wing generally consists of 72 aircraft. Under the Pentagon plan, the shift would be carried out only if the Turks give the United States broad latitude for using them, something that some officials see as unlikely.
The Navy's headquarters in Europe would be transferred from Britain to Italy. Bush administration officials are also discussing plans to remove some F-15 fighters from Britain and to withdraw the handful of F-15 fighters that are normally deployed in Iceland, though final decisions have not made.
Approval needed
Administration officials said Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, recently briefed German officials on the plan. The Germans were told that the withdrawal plan had yet to be formally approved by President Bush and that the United States would listen to their concerns, a U.S. official said.
Officials said they expected the major decisions on the rearrangement to be made in a month or two. But the main direction of the Pentagon plan appears to be set.
"Everything is going to move everywhere,' Feith said a year ago, as the Bush administration was beginning to develop the details of its plan. "There is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it used to be.'
'21st-century' plans
For Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the reasons for the reshuffling seem clear and compelling: that the purpose of military units is to fight and win the nation's wars, and they should be stationed in locations that enable the United States to use them most efficiently and with minimal political restrictions.
"It's time to adjust those locations from static defense to a more agile and a more capable and a more 21st-century posture,' Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday on a flight to Singapore.
Proponents of Rumsfeld's plan see little merit in keeping a large number of forces in Germany now that the Cold War is over. They argue that the United States would be better off withdrawing most of them and establishing new bases in southeastern Europe, from which forces could be rushed if there was a crisis in the Caucasus or the Middle East.
"From a strategic point of view, there is more sense in moving things out of Germany and having something in Bulgaria and Romania,' said Joseph Ralston, a retired general and former NATO commander.
But some experts and allied officials are concerned that a substantial reduction in the United States military presence in Europe would reduce U.S. influence there, reinforce the notion that the Bush administration prefers to act unilaterally and inadvertently lend support to the French contention that Europe must rely on itself for its security.
Montgomery Meigs, a retired general and the former head of Army forces in Europe, said substantial reductions in U.S. troops in Europe could limit the opportunities to train with NATO's new East European members and other allies. While U.S. forces can still be sent for exercises from the United States, he said, it will be more difficult and costly to do so.
"You will never sustain the level of engagement from the United States that you can from Europe,' he said. "We will not go to as many NATO exercises or have as many training events.
Damaged alliance?
Other specialists have warned that the greatest risk is the possible damage to allied relations.
"The most serious potential consequences of the contemplated shifts would not be military but political and diplomatic,' Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in an article published last year in the journal Foreign Affairs, well before the extent of the changes now planned became known.
"Unless the changes are paired with a sustained and effective diplomatic campaign, therefore, they could well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the United States.'
Gen. James Jones, the U.S. commander of NATO, has supported the withdrawal of the two divisions from Europe on the understanding that U.S. ground units would rotate regularly through Europe, allied officials say. But some allied officials believe it is less clear that the Pentagon will finance and organize the regular rotation of forces that are central to Jones' vision, especially since so much of the United States' energy and effort is focused on Iraq.
From (http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21474~2191094,00.html)
Article Published: Thursday, June 03, 2004 - 7:47:30 PM PST
By Michael R. Gordon
The New York Times
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has proposed a plan to withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany and undertake an array of other changes in its European-based forces, in the most significant rearrangement of the U.S. military around the world since the beginning of the Cold War, according to U.S. and allied officials.
Pentagon policy-makers said the aim is to afford maximum flexibility in sending forces to the Middle East, Central Asia and other potential battlegrounds. But some experts and allied officials are concerned that the shift will reduce Washington's influence in NATO and weaken its dip lomatic links with its allies, all at a time of rising anti-American sentiment around the world.
The proposal to withdraw the divisions comes at a time when the Army is stretched thin by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Pentagon officials said the move, which has been under consideration for some time and involves forces in Asia as well as in Europe, is unrelated to the current fighting.
Who would move
Under the Pentagon plan, the Germany-based 1st Armored Division and 1st Infantry Division would be returned to the United States. A brigade equipped with Stryker light armored vehicles would be deployed in Germany. A typical division consists of three brigades and can number 20,000 troops if logistical units are included, though these two divisions have only two brigades each in Germany, with the other brigade in the United States.
In addition, a wing of F-16 fighters may be shifted from their base in Spangdahlem, Germany, to the Incirlik base in Turkey, which would move the aircraft closer to the volatile Middle East; a wing generally consists of 72 aircraft. Under the Pentagon plan, the shift would be carried out only if the Turks give the United States broad latitude for using them, something that some officials see as unlikely.
The Navy's headquarters in Europe would be transferred from Britain to Italy. Bush administration officials are also discussing plans to remove some F-15 fighters from Britain and to withdraw the handful of F-15 fighters that are normally deployed in Iceland, though final decisions have not made.
Approval needed
Administration officials said Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense for policy, recently briefed German officials on the plan. The Germans were told that the withdrawal plan had yet to be formally approved by President Bush and that the United States would listen to their concerns, a U.S. official said.
Officials said they expected the major decisions on the rearrangement to be made in a month or two. But the main direction of the Pentagon plan appears to be set.
"Everything is going to move everywhere,' Feith said a year ago, as the Bush administration was beginning to develop the details of its plan. "There is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it used to be.'
'21st-century' plans
For Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the reasons for the reshuffling seem clear and compelling: that the purpose of military units is to fight and win the nation's wars, and they should be stationed in locations that enable the United States to use them most efficiently and with minimal political restrictions.
"It's time to adjust those locations from static defense to a more agile and a more capable and a more 21st-century posture,' Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday on a flight to Singapore.
Proponents of Rumsfeld's plan see little merit in keeping a large number of forces in Germany now that the Cold War is over. They argue that the United States would be better off withdrawing most of them and establishing new bases in southeastern Europe, from which forces could be rushed if there was a crisis in the Caucasus or the Middle East.
"From a strategic point of view, there is more sense in moving things out of Germany and having something in Bulgaria and Romania,' said Joseph Ralston, a retired general and former NATO commander.
But some experts and allied officials are concerned that a substantial reduction in the United States military presence in Europe would reduce U.S. influence there, reinforce the notion that the Bush administration prefers to act unilaterally and inadvertently lend support to the French contention that Europe must rely on itself for its security.
Montgomery Meigs, a retired general and the former head of Army forces in Europe, said substantial reductions in U.S. troops in Europe could limit the opportunities to train with NATO's new East European members and other allies. While U.S. forces can still be sent for exercises from the United States, he said, it will be more difficult and costly to do so.
"You will never sustain the level of engagement from the United States that you can from Europe,' he said. "We will not go to as many NATO exercises or have as many training events.
Damaged alliance?
Other specialists have warned that the greatest risk is the possible damage to allied relations.
"The most serious potential consequences of the contemplated shifts would not be military but political and diplomatic,' Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in an article published last year in the journal Foreign Affairs, well before the extent of the changes now planned became known.
"Unless the changes are paired with a sustained and effective diplomatic campaign, therefore, they could well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the United States.'
Gen. James Jones, the U.S. commander of NATO, has supported the withdrawal of the two divisions from Europe on the understanding that U.S. ground units would rotate regularly through Europe, allied officials say. But some allied officials believe it is less clear that the Pentagon will finance and organize the regular rotation of forces that are central to Jones' vision, especially since so much of the United States' energy and effort is focused on Iraq.
From (http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21474~2191094,00.html)