Future trends in the US military- allies worry.

[welsh]

Since Rumsfield has come to office there have been moves to rebuild the US military forces to be smaller, lighter and more lethal. But is it working-

Let's see.... Iraq..... Hmmmm....

Ok, from the Economist-

Restructuring the superpower
Jun 8th 2004
From The Economist Global Agenda

America is reducing its troop levels in Germany and South Korea, two long-time allies, and is considering repositioning other forces too. Will improved strategic flexibility come at the cost of worsening already-strained relationships?

Or is this a new way of thinking imperialism on the cheap!

“EVERYTHING is going to move everywhere.” With these words Douglas Feith, the American under-secretary of defence for policy, described how America’s military presence around the world was to be shaken up dramatically. In the past week, the picture of what that shake-up will look like has become clearer. The New York Times reported that America is planning to move two army divisions out of Germany, its main cold-war base in Europe. It may also move a wing of fighter aircraft from Germany to Turkey, provided that the Turks allow the Americans full control of them. Other naval forces could move from Britain to Italy. And on Monday June 7th, South Korea announced that by 2006 America will withdraw some 12,500 troops from the country, roughly a third of its total presence there.

Not to mention that those troops are moving to the middle east. B

Hey, what about that draft!

American planners describe the moves as necessary to accommodate new realities in global security. Rather than Soviet tanks steaming across the plains of central Europe, today’s main threats are expected to be terrorists, failed states and rogue states in an “arc of instability” from Africa through the Middle East, South and South-East Asia. But some worry that removing troops from traditional allies like South Korea and Germany could worsen already-strained relations with those countries.

Let's see, how is a brigade of armored infantry supposed to overwhelm a band of terrorists? Exactly what will an aircraft carrier do for a failed state, except bomb it some more.

Exactly why are we going to Africa (precious resources?) and the middle east (oil?) or central Asia (more oil?)

Germany opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq, but it is not clear that America is merely punishing it by removing its troops. With the end of the cold war, and NATO’s eastern border moving from Germany’s eastern flank to Poland’s in 1999, two army divisions (one armoured and one infantry) were no doubt more than was needed on German soil. Replacing the large, heavy divisions will be a “Stryker” brigade, according to the plan. The Stryker is a new, wheeled vehicle with tank-like armour and weapons, but lighter (and thus easier to transport) than the mainstay Abrams battle tank. The Stryker is at the centre of the transformation of America’s military championed by Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary. He has insisted that the armed forces must be more mobile and more easily deployed, relying less on manpower and tanks and more on technology and communications.

Hmmm.. tank vs. armored car.

The South Koreans have more reason than the Germans to be nervous. They still face a cold-war threat: the million-man North Korean army parked just across the “demilitarised zone” (DMZ) that runs between the two countries. America had already announced that it would move 3,600 of its troops in South Korea to Iraq, and had moved those along the DMZ somewhat further south. Monday’s announcement of the much larger withdrawal is thus the continuation of a process already begun (though it is not known where the rest of the 12,500 will go). The smallish American presence on the ground was never much more than symbolic in any case. The brunt of any fighting would fall on South Korea’s nearly 700,000 soldiers. America has reiterated its commitment to defending South Korea from attack by the communist North, stressing that its improving technology and weapons more than make up for reduced troop numbers.

With regional nuclear weapons if necessary, damn it!

The moves may be about more than military strategy. In some countries where they are stationed, the Americans have made themselves unpopular. South Korea’s president, Roh Moo-hyun, was elected in 2002 after flirting with the anti-American sentiment popular among South Korea’s younger voters. Many of them believe that the Bush administration has needlessly antagonised the North by labelling it a member of the “axis of evil”. An American base occupies a large chunk of prime real estate in the centre of Seoul, the South Korean capital, to the irritation of some locals. And South Korean feelings were inflamed in 2002 when an American military training exercise killed two girls, and the soldiers involved were cleared of wrongdoing. Elsewhere, the Americans are reportedly considering moving some troops from Japan's tropical island of Okinawa, where they have alienated locals (partly thanks to several rape cases involving American troops), to the less-crowded northern island of Hokkaido.

Hey, if some big marines raped your little girl, how would you feel.

By the way there is a film, Town without Pity, with Kirk Douglas about a lawyer defending a case in Germany where a bunch of GI's gangbang a cute German girl.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055539/

But removing troops may cause friction too. They and their families generate significant economic activity in the host country. There are diplomatic concerns too. Some South Koreans believe that a reduction in American troop numbers will send the wrong signal to the North, which despite years of brandishing its nuclear-weapons programmes has yet to be punished in any meaningful way.

The 40K troops the US has historically kept there have been something of a trip wire. If the North Koreans invade, the US will fight. It's that simple.

In Europe, pulling American troops out of “old Europe”, even if they are re-deployed nearby in Bulgaria and Romania, as is often mooted, could damage transatlantic relations. American troops would rub shoulders less often with their biggest NATO allies, especially Germany. Despite the recent celebrations of the 60th anniversary of D-Day, it now seems that NATO’s biggest member is determined not to stay too close to anyone, lest it limit its options.

Also more East European Chicks!

ANd if the NATO alliance falls apart, do we blame the French or the Americans, or a little of both!

 

[John Uskglass]

Okay, welsh, no offence, but you seem to be going off the deep end. Alot of you're critiscism here are just baseless.

Or is this a new way of thinking imperialism on the cheap!

Then you don't understand the Korean situation.

This generation of Korean's just does'nt like us, and wants to unite with it's peacful bretheren to the North. Thus this is punishment for being stupid by straining relations.

Not only that, but Japan is there to fill in the power gap. Japan knows it has as much to loose if Seoul is glassed, as Tokyo would be next, even if all Koreans hate thier guts (and vice-versa).

Also, name a good reason why we should have troops in Germany instead of Italy, which is actually in the Medditeranian and thus closer to all of our current enemies?

Not to mention that those troops are moving to the middle east. B

Hey, what about that draft!

Turkey is NOT a part of the Mid-East. It is not Arabic-speaking and it is actually the furthest WESTERN point of Asia.

Don't get me started abou the draft. That just makes me angry.

Let's see, how is a brigade of armored infantry supposed to overwhelm a band of terrorists? Exactly what will an aircraft carrier do for a failed state, except bomb it some more.

Do you even know what armored infantry is? I'd like to see a hundred-no, a thousand, no, wait, ten thousand-terrorists go up a gainst a group of M2A3s and some F/A-18 strikes. I think it would be rather enjoyable, acutally. They just could'nt puncture the M2A3, or the Stryker's armor, and the F/A-18s would ensure that they could'nt have any kind of real fortification.

Exactly why are we going to Africa (precious resources?) and the middle east (oil?) or central Asia (more oil?)

Or how about the fact that these are the three most volitile reagons in the wolrd?

Hmmm.. tank vs. armored car.

This is a Stryker

This is an M2A3

These are cars

Can you tell me the diffirence?

And Tanks are'nt some magic wand that goes into a situation and fixes everyting. Mechanical Infantry are much more versatile in Urban Combat and the like.

With regional nuclear weapons if necessary, damn it!

We still have troops there. The Japanese military is improving. The Koreans want us out.

Hey, if some big marines raped your little girl, how would you feel.

By the way there is a film, Town without Pity, with Kirk Douglas about a lawyer defending a case in Germany where a bunch of GI's gangbang a cute German girl.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055539/

Thus by that logic the war in Europe was wrong as a singel guy raped a little girl.

First you accuse the US of just going after it's oil interest (our economic relations with Korea and Japan are actually alot more important then ours with any in the mid-east), then you scort the US military for being there?

The 40K troops the US has historically kept there have been something of a trip wire. If the North Koreans invade, the US will fight. It's that simple.

Yep. And the Koreans want us out. Thus we teach them just how fun it is to be scared of total nuclear annihilation from 'lil Kim!

Also more East European Chicks!

I agree with you here wholeheartedly.

ANd if the NATO alliance falls apart, do we blame the French or the Americans, or a little of both!

NATO became meaningless when France declined sending troops to Eastern Turkey to defend against the Iraqis in violation of the NATO charter.

 

[welsh]

Okay, welsh, no offence, but you seem to be going off the deep end. Alot of you're critiscism here are just baseless.

Then you don't understand the Korean situation.

This generation of Korean's just does'nt like us, and wants to unite with it's peacful bretheren to the North. Thus this is punishment for being stupid by straining relations.

A generation of Koreans are probably thinking that this division has gone on long enough, but probably would rather have North Korea more like SOuth, than South more like North.

If the US is unpopular it might have something to do with a certain massacre that we gave old President Park the green light on circa 1980.

Not only that, but Japan is there to fill in the power gap. Japan knows it has as much to loose if Seoul is glassed, as Tokyo would be next, even if all Koreans hate thier guts (and vice-versa).

CC- you are talking out of your ass. The Japanese have generally favored a pacifist policy and ideas like sending their troops abroad or increasing defense spending has been problematic. The Japanese would see the fall of South Korea as a threat, but if they have NOrth Korea aiming missiles at them, they probably won't go boo.

Also, name a good reason why we should have troops in Germany instead of Italy, which is actually in the Medditeranian and thus closer to all of our current enemies?

Actually there are none. We should move the forces. But where?

Turkey is NOT a part of the Mid-East. It is not Arabic-speaking and it is actually the furthest WESTERN point of Asia.

Note Turkey.

I would actually stretch the Middle East from the Northern part of Africa (say Morocco) to Iran and maybe Afghanistan. But most maps I am looking at say Middle East includes Turkey.

CC- are you smoking dope?

Don't get me started abou the draft. That just makes me angry.

Hey bud, it's your president that got us into it. And this time you won't be able to dodge it by going to college, but you might be able to join the Air National Guard of Texas, never show up and spend all your time campaigning in Alabama or some other fucking state.

Do you even know what armored infantry is? I'd like to see a hundred-no, a thousand, no, wait, ten thousand-terrorists go up a gainst a group of M2A3s and some F/A-18 strikes. I think it would be rather enjoyable, acutally. They just could'nt puncture the M2A3, or the Stryker's armor, and the F/A-18s would ensure that they could'nt have any kind of real fortification.

You are smoking dope. What kind of terrorist would go head to head against a mechanised column? What do you think they are going to show up like characters in FOBOS to be shot at?

Terrorism is psychological warfare. THese are folks that move in small cells, attack without warning, and evade to strike again. Probably the closest thing you can come to a manuel is Mao on revolutionary warfare, but you can also look to other sources too.

Terrorism is defeated by counter-insurgency warfare- not mechanised divisions. It's that whole "hearts and minds" thing that we should have learned in Vietnam but seemed to have forgotten in Iraq. Perhaps because our Defense Sec is in love with high tech and communications and forgets that we've lost some 800 or so guys in a low tech war which he can't seem to win.

I wrote-

Exactly why are we going to Africa (precious resources?) and the middle east (oil?) or central Asia (more oil?)

Or how about the fact that these are the three most volitile reagons in the wolrd?

ANd why is that? Could it be that the US supported authoritarian dictators for years so that it could maintain strong allies and secure resources (Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Congo, Liberia, Somalia, South Africa).

That in the process the US aid allowed these countries to centralize personal rule through patrimonial or authoritarian despotic regimes that proved inefficient and later suffered economic collapse?

Could it be that maybe the US should have been support democracy a bit longer than it has? That maybe instead of spending all that money on defense (which is good for US corporation) it might want to do a bit more furthering democratic governance- it woudl too but that might lead to an increase in natural resource prices because democracy in developing countries often leads to instability.

Ah, well strategic resources- read Krasner and Evans if you want more on that.

With regional nuclear weapons if necessary, damn it!

We still have troops there. The Japanese military is improving. The Koreans want us out.[/quote]

The Japanese are under no obligation to defend Korea. If the Koreans wanted us out so bad, why are they so disturbed about our withdrawal?

Thus by that logic the war in Europe was wrong as a singel guy raped a little girl.

No the problem is that our guys do it and we forget about it. It's the problem that if you send a military force overseas, this kind of shit is going to happen. Putting your head in the sand is not the answer- or so the Iraqi prison case should have taught us.

First you accuse the US of just going after it's oil interest (our economic relations with Korea and Japan are actually alot more important then ours with any in the mid-east), then you scort the US military for being there?

The problem is that our military is stretched over the world. We have commitments, but now the Defense Department is trying to resolve those commitments on the cheap, despite the fact that we are currently fighting two wars. It was that 'Do it cheap' mentality that might be the problem in Iraq.

The 40K troops the US has historically kept there have been something of a trip wire. If the North Koreans invade, the US will fight. It's that simple.

Yep. And the Koreans want us out. Thus we teach them just how fun it is to be scared of total nuclear annihilation from 'lil Kim!

Again, doubts about how seriously the Koreans want us out. And if so, why. There is a lot of animosity about the US, but much of that has to do with the fact that the US looked the other way when the South Korean regimes were repressing the opposition.

ANd if the NATO alliance falls apart, do we blame the French or the Americans, or a little of both!

NATO became meaningless when France declined sending troops to Eastern Turkey to defend against the Iraqis in violation of the NATO charter.

Bullshit. NATO survived even after France withdrew it's forces.

So you are blaming the French?

 

[John Uskglass]

A generation of Koreans are probably thinking that this division has gone on long enough, but probably would rather have North Korea more like SOuth, than South more like North.

If the US is unpopular it might have something to do with a certain massacre that we gave old President Park the green light on circa 1980.

No, they're in love with thier brothers to the north and don't understand what Stalanism is.

CC- you are talking out of your ass. The Japanese have generally favored a pacifist policy and ideas like sending their troops abroad or increasing defense spending has been problematic. The Japanese would see the fall of South Korea as a threat, but if they have NOrth Korea aiming missiles at them, they probably won't go boo.

Japan has billions in South Korea. They can't afford to loose it. And of course they would get involved.....why do you think they have been considering abandoning pats of the constitution about pacifism?

Actually there are none. We should move the forces. But where?

Where we are moving them.

Note Turkey.

I would actually stretch the Middle East from the Northern part of Africa (say Morocco) to Iran and maybe Afghanistan. But most maps I am looking at say Middle East includes Turkey.

CC- are you smoking dope?

"Middle East" is not a completely settled or definitive term. It is generally taken to include Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, as well as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The countries of the Maghreb (Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia) are frequently linked to the Middle East due to their strong historical and cultural associations, as is Sudan. Mauritania and Somalia also have close links to the region. Turkey and Cyprus, although geographically close to the Middle East consider themselves to be part of Europe. To the east, Afghanistan is sometimes linked to the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East

Hey bud, it's your president that got us into it. And this time you won't be able to dodge it by going to college, but you might be able to join the Air National Guard of Texas, never show up and spend all your time campaigning in Alabama or some other fucking state.

That's just inane. Bush proved his record, and no one is seriously considering the draft.

You are smoking dope. What kind of terrorist would go head to head against a mechanised column? What do you think they are going to show up like characters in FOBOS to be shot at?

Damn. Mechanical Infantry means Infantry+Tank with ability to carry troops.

Terrorism is psychological warfare. THese are folks that move in small cells, attack without warning, and evade to strike again. Probably the closest thing you can come to a manuel is Mao on revolutionary warfare, but you can also look to other sources too.

That's why you have special forces that go in and eradicate terrorist hide outs. They don't just spring up out of the dirt of Dar-al-Islam, dont'cha know.

Terrorism is defeated by counter-insurgency warfare- not mechanised divisions. It's that whole "hearts and minds" thing that we should have learned in Vietnam but seemed to have forgotten in Iraq. Perhaps because our Defense Sec is in love with high tech and communications and forgets that we've lost some 800 or so guys in a low tech war which he can't seem to win.

Yeah. Like that glorious victory in Fallujah or Najaf.

O shit, Sadar's malitia is now non exsistant thanks to US fire power and American special training for urban warfare.

ANd why is that? Could it be that the US supported authoritarian dictators for years so that it could maintain strong allies and secure resources (Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Congo, Liberia, Somalia, South Africa).

These dictators come about of thier own accord. The only thing we do is attempt to stop them from going the way of Iran.

And you can't critisize something you know is nessicary. Do you think it would be okay if Pakistan, with it's nuclear capability, whent apeshit fundie style?

Also, we've done everything we can (Somalia) to get rid of these dictators in alot of situations.

That in the process the US aid allowed these countries to centralize personal rule through patrimonial or authoritarian despotic regimes that proved inefficient and later suffered economic collapse?

Like Chile or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or South Africa?

Dont you realize that alot of the time when a country is'nt completely fucked (like Somalia), that alot of the time a bad dictator (the Shah, for instance) can help in creating a democratic state by helping the economy?

Could it be that maybe the US should have been support democracy a bit longer than it has? That maybe instead of spending all that money on defense (which is good for US corporation) it might want to do a bit more furthering democratic governance- it woudl too but that might lead to an increase in natural resource prices because democracy in developing countries often leads to instability.

Yep, I think it should. And it has been doing more. Look at Iraq, or Afghanistan.....

Anyway, you where just cirtisziing the way the US was conducting buisness in the military, now you're just critisizing how America uses it's military, the two are completely diffirent things.

The Japanese are under no obligation to defend Korea. If the Koreans wanted us out so bad, why are they so disturbed about our withdrawal?

Becuase they want to have thier cake and eat it too?

No the problem is that our guys do it and we forget about it. It's the problem that if you send a military force overseas, this kind of shit is going to happen. Putting your head in the sand is not the answer- or so the Iraqi prison case should have taught us.

Yeah. But these incidents are not excuses to pull out or just stop a policy; rather, to tweak it.

The problem is that our military is stretched over the world. We have commitments, but now the Defense Department is trying to resolve those commitments on the cheap, despite the fact that we are currently fighting two wars. It was that 'Do it cheap' mentality that might be the problem in Iraq.

Yeah, there's a problem here, but still, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have done more for the American military then any demcorat in this half centry save mabbe Carter. They're revolutionizing warfare in a way many people don't seem to understand.

Again, doubts about how seriously the Koreans want us out. And if so, why. There is a lot of animosity about the US, but much of that has to do with the fact that the US looked the other way when the South Korean regimes were repressing the opposition.

US forieng policy until recently was about stability to keep out the commies to create democracies. And, lookielookie, South Korea is a perfect example.

Bullshit. NATO survived even after France withdrew it's forces.

No, it did'nt, not like it used to. France abandoned NATO on that day.

 

[Johns Volition]

Terrorism is psychological warfare. THese are folks that move in small cells, attack without warning, and evade to strike again. Probably the closest thing you can come to a manuel is Mao on revolutionary warfare, but you can also look to other sources too.

That's why you have special forces that go in and eradicate terrorist hide outs. They don't just spring up out of the dirt of Dar-al-Islam, dont'cha know.

I disagree with cc here.. I think many people are missunderstanding how terrorism works.. you just can't dry out terrorist by going into a city and shoot down anybody suspicious, because of the simple fact, that by doing this, you will create just more terrorist. (remember, to be a terrorist, all you need is a little C4 and a gun). Also, I doubt terrorist see themself as terrorist but merely as defender of their people...
To win against terrorists, you have to win the 'hearts' of the population, so there are no more recruits for the terrorists... But, the US army does quite the opposite. Imagine, if you see a friend shot down, whose only aim was to defend your country (by whatever means), wouldn't you want to take up arms?
(I agree though, that wining the 'hearts' of the population is quite an hard mission for an invasion force; especially if the motives of the war where in fact a lie...)

To the troops moving out of germany thingy...
I don't quite see why it would hurt the relationship between germany and the USA... (except that germany would loose quite some money, I guess)

(uh welsh, you double-posted)