|
Contributors
J.F. Kelly, Jr. - Contributor
J.F.
Kelly, Jr. is a retired Navy Captain and bank executive who
writes on current events and military subjects. He is a resident
of Coronado, California. [go to Kelly index]
 Redeploying
America’s Military Forces
A
global war, a new challenge...
[J. F. Kelly, Jr.] 8/26/04
President
Bush’s recent announcement of plans to reposition
up to 70,000 American troops from locations in Western Europe
and the Far East to other locations including Eastern Europe
and the United States should come as little surprise. It is,
in fact, long overdue.
The permanent basing of troops decades ago in Germany and South
Korea was a reaction to the Cold War and the Korean War. A sizeable
American military presence in West Germany and South Korea was
a part of a so-called “tripwire” strategy designed
to deter a Soviet attack on Western Europe and a North Korean
attack on its southern neighbor. It was considered most unlikely
that these communist nations would not risk an attack that would
endanger the “hostage” U.S. forces there, knowing
that such an attack would trigger an immediate and forceful U.S.
response.
The Soviet Union has since folded and we won the Cold War. Western
Europe now has much more to fear from Muslim terrorism than from
its neighbors to the east. The North Korea regime, a pathetic
Communist relic of the Cold War which fields a large, nuclear-armed
military but which cannot provide even basic comforts for its
people, nevertheless still presents a significant threat to South
Korea and perhaps to Japan. But North Korea’s rulers know
that an attack on these allies would elicit a forceful response
from us in accordance with existing treaties. To the extent that
the tripwire tactic is still valid, it is just as valid with
a hostile force of 15,000 as it is with the current 35,000.
These deployments, at least at their current numbers, have
long since served their purpose. Germany, the third largest economy
in the world and the richest member of the European Union has
enjoyed a free ride under the U.S defense umbrella for a long
time. Japan, the world’s second largest economy, has enjoyed
similar benefits and needs to play a larger role in regional
security. Their economies have grown at the rate they have partly
because they have had to spend relatively little on defense.
There have, moreover, been increasing signs of discomfort on
the part of the people in the host countries, especially the
younger generations with little memory of past wars, with the
large American military presence in their midst. There is no
point in overstaying our welcome, especially when some of these
forces can be more usefully deployed.
Some of the forces may be redeployed to Eastern Europe in countries
that have supported us as a part of the coalition in Iraq. They
would welcome our forces and the boost to the local economies
they bring. The bulk of the overseas forces, however, would probably
be repatriated to the United States, hopefully with significant
savings and reductions in the numbers of military families living
overseas.
The intent of the plan is to increase flexibility and mobility.
Forces can be deployed to wherever they are needed and when they
are needed just as easily from bases in the United States as
from their current static locations overseas, without the need
for providing advance notice to host governments and without
having to be as concerned about families left behind. The realignment
should not be viewed as a drawing down in our resolve to protect
our interests overseas or to honor our commitments to our allies.
Rather, it reflects the recognition that the gravest threat to
American interests is not centered in Germany or in the Korean
peninsula. The greatest threat is international terrorism sponsored
by Islamic fundamentalists based in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, Senator Kerry, with little experience in troop
deployments or strategic military planning, chose to politicize
this long-anticipated redeployment by asserting that it sends
the wrong message to North Korea and damages our relations with
Europe. By Europe, I presume he means Germany and France, as
if they had some role in determining U.S. troop deployments.
Our military
forces, especially the army and marine corps, are currently
over-committed and over-extended, necessitating
repeated and extended combat tours and greater than anticipated
use of reserve and national guard forces. Given the long-range
nature of the war on terrorism, there is little relief in sight.
The challenge requires a mobile and flexible military with sufficient
sealift and airlift to move it swiftly to any spot on the globe
if necessary. Such a force will not be characterized by large
concentrations of troops and their families living in overseas
locations selected half a century ago based on world conditions
then. CRO
copyright
2004 J. F. Kelly, Jr.
§
|
