[xico]

Hey Lan,

Look at what Bush has done to the military and their families. That doesn't sound very pro Military! We, as a nation, can afford to spend millions on weapons, but we cut the pay of the guys who are shedding blood (and arms and legs)? He even proposed cutting the commissaries! He cuts combat pay!
And you're going to vote for this guy?



MILITARY
Troubling Troop Tactics
President Bush yesterday announced the massive overhaul of the structure of the U.S. military, outlining a vague restructuring of deployment which would "bring home about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel." It's true – the Pentagon has been striving to become lighter, more agile. And a look at the overseas configuration of U.S. troops after the Cold War is worth consideration. But Bush took this sensitive national security issue and divorced it from a complex, even-headed debate about the future of the U.S. military. The announcement skirted addressing any of the crucial details and questions. The result? An empty proposal which runs counter to America's economic, military and strategic interests.

IN A LAND FAR, FAR AWAY: The New York Times writes, "the troop redeployment plan announced yesterday by President Bush makes little long-term strategic sense." It takes time to deploy troops from the United States and, as former Defense Secretary Les Aspin once said (which was quoted in the 2/26/03 St. Louis Post Dispatch), "The pros all say that you have to get there in the first few hours, because if you lose the ground, it's hard to get it back." John White, former deputy secretary of defense, says, "I don't understand how we gain strategic ability to respond by moving people to the U.S., further away from the likely trouble spots…I don't get it." The Washington Post concurs: "The conflicts of the past decade have been in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq; Africa is of increasing concern; none of these is closer to Kansas than to Germany."

REWARDING NORTH KOREA: Pulling troops from South Korea right now while North Korea is pushing for nuclear capability is sending exactly the wrong message. Gen. Wes Clark, who served as the former North American Treaty Organization supreme allied commander, "said reducing troops in Europe and Asia also would signal to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il that the United States had weakened its resolve against that country's nuclear weapons program." The Washington Post opines, "North Korea has pressed for U.S. troop withdrawals for years; now that it is misbehaving in the nuclear field, it receives a reward, and for no concessions." As one former Army officer put it, "It seems like preemptive concession."

IGNORING THE REAL PROBLEM: The New York Times writes that repositioning troops stationed in Germany, South Korea and Japan does "nothing to address the military's most pressing current need: relieving the chronic strain on ground forces that has resulted from failing to anticipate the long, and largely unilateral, American occupation of Iraq." President Bush has refused to support a permanent increase in the size of the Army, causing American troops to have to endure longer and longer deployments in battle-torn Iraq and Afghanistan.

EXPENSIVE OVERHAUL: Such a major restationing of troops is an expensive undertaking, as bases will have to be expanded to handle the incoming flux of service members. At the moment, any overseas bases are subsidized by the countries in which they are located. Germany continues to contribute nearly $1 billion each year to U.S. bases; South Korea and Japan also contribute hefty sums. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in May that restationing troops could cost about $7 billion up front. And the payoff would be small. "Restationing Army forces would produce, at best, only small improvements in the United States' ability to respond to far-flung conflicts," the CBO said.

FAMILIES BACK HOME: An estimated 70,000 troops return to the United States, bringing 100,000 family members with them. President Bush, however, has cut funding for military families numerous times in the past. The Bush administration has tried to cut $1.5 billion out of funding for military housing and medical facilities; proposed closing commissaries; tried to roll back increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops in combat; cut $174 million from schools near military bases while eliminating aid to military base schools; and left out one million children living in military and veteran families from the child tax credit passed last year.

Center for American Progress

[sligo]

Why are we rewarding North Korea---aren't they the epicenter of the Axis of Evil???

[WarC]

Whoever says the troop restructuring doesn't make sense is plain silly and should go back to writing articles about trees.

We have been in a Cold War stance, we must adapt and change as the situation changes. A lot of our forces in Europe are there for little reason since the fall of the Soviet Union, except as a glorified leaping stone between the Middle East and the continental US. If anything, the restructuring should have happened awhile ago. Once this is complete we will be in a better posture to defend ourselves and it will open the door to other operations if need be by freeing up and bringing home a good many soldiers.

This goes hand in hand with the latest technologies now being introduced into the military, including but not limited to the F-22, the Stryker, the Land Warrior system...See a pattern? The US recently unveiled the new uniform for the US army recently as well...All of these technologies are either already being introduced or will be the norm by late 2005 to early 2006.

We are seeing the military enter the 21st Century.

[sligo]

War, why are we withdrawing troops from the Korean pennisula?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by WarC

Whoever says the troop restructuring doesn't make sense is plain silly and should go back to writing articles about trees.

We have been in a Cold War stance, we must adapt and change as the situation changes. A lot of our forces in Europe are there for little reason since the fall of the Soviet Union, except as a glorified leaping stone between the Middle East and the continental US. If anything, the restructuring should have happened awhile ago. Once this is complete we will be in a better posture to defend ourselves and it will open the door to other operations if need be by freeing up and bringing home a good many soldiers.

This goes hand in hand with the latest technologies now being introduced into the military, including but not limited to the F-22, the Stryker, the Land Warrior system...See a pattern? The US recently unveiled the new uniform for the US army recently as well...All of these technologies are either already being introduced or will be the norm by late 2005 to early 2006.

We are seeing the military enter the 21st Century.

So you agree with cutting combat pay while we are fighting a war?

[plschwartz]

Well lets see we are walking away one expert siad last night from about a billion $ in inferstructure which will have to be replaced in the new bases we will build in Eastern Europe.
I wonder who will build them. ?

Arnie went over to visit troops in Germany but he denied that he will be hired to replace them

It was predicted 18 months ago that Germany would be "punished"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...896573,00.html
US to punish German 'treachery'

Peter Beaumont, David Roseand Paul Beaver
Sunday February 16, 2003
The Observer

"America is to punish Germany for leading international opposition to a war against Iraq. The US will withdraw all its troops and bases from there and end military and industrial co-operation between the two countries - moves that could cost the Germans billions of euros.

The plan - discussed by Pentagon officials and military chiefs last week on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - is designed 'to harm' the German economy to make an example of the country for what US hawks see as Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's 'treachery'."

[bassetman]

[WarC]

Yes, because we all know its the US Military's job and duty to support the local German economy.

Someones gotta feed the GI's!



The logic here doesn't make much sense... One doesn't restructure their forces to smite an ally.

EDIT: As for military pay, I never once gave my support for pay cuts...Bassetman certainly is good at putting words in other people's mouths!

EDIT EDIT: Sligo, there are numerous reasons...First off, its expensive to maintain a fighting force of 30,000+ in a foreign country. Secondly, there have been riots and much ado about our forces there, it would be good politics. Thirdly, South Korea's own military capability is excellent, and as both Iraq wars atest, modern Western technology and training is no match for old soviet doctrine. I believe the South Koreans would wipe the floor with the North Korean army. This is an opinion held by many, which is why we actually have been downplaying our role there for awhile now. Lastly, it would be a hair-brained idea even for Kim Sung Il to invade the South after so many years of cease fire...I think the Hot War days in Korea or long over. The Cold War stage will snake its way to whatever end it comes to there.

[bassetman]

Look at what Bush has done to the military and their families. That doesn't sound very pro Military! We, as a nation, can afford to spend millions on weapons, but we cut the pay of the guys who are shedding blood (and arms and legs)? He even proposed cutting the commissaries! He cuts combat pay!

THis has been pointed out before!
Your reply

Whoever says the troop restructuring doesn't make sense is plain silly and should go back to writing articles about trees.

My Question was then

So you agree with cutting combat pay while we are fighting a war?

So now you say I put words in your mouth!

[WarC]

The truth is in your last post Basset, I said troop restructuring. These are the changes in techonology, doctrine, and force position. I was specifically criticizing the New York Times quote Xico used that said that the re-structuring would actually make the US military less able to meet new challenges, which is the sort of absurd idea that would come out of one of those paper-pushers who's never bothered to open a history book or study real strategy. My supporting Bush and his ideas on moving our military past the Cold War conventional stance and whether or not soldiers should have less pay have nothing to do with each other, especially in the sense that I never even verbally defended or attacked the subject of cutting combat pay in the first place.

In that sense, you putting the two together and then presuming for the sake of argument that I was for the cutting of combat pay means yooou, sir, put words in my mouth

[xico]

TALKING POINTS

The Trouble With Troop Realignment

Yesterday, at the tail end of a political campaign speech, President Bush announced plans to recall between 60,000 and 70,000 troops from Europe, South Korea and Japan. Bush said the realignment would allow the military to "be more effective at projecting our strength and spreading freedom and peace" and save taxpayers money. In reality, the ill-conceived plan – which further strains already damaged relationships with America's traditional allies – runs counter to our strategic, economic and military interests.

The plan does not address our current problems. Right now the military does not have enough troops to fulfill our obligations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military has been forced to extend deployments, involuntarily recalled retired reservists and relied on private military. Shifting troops from Europe to the United States does nothing to address this problem, as troops stationed in Germany – including the 1st Armored Division and the 1st Infantry Division – are already being deployed to Iraq.


The announcement was a preemptive concession to North Korea. Pulling out more than one-third of our forces from the Korean Peninsula could have been a major bargaining chip with North Korea – which has been asking for U.S. troop withdrawals for years. Removing troops from South Korea while the North is openly and aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, without obtaining concessions from Pyongyang, is a major strategic blunder.


The plan would be expensive and unnecessary. The realignment would not save taxpayers any money. Our facilities abroad are subsidized by foreign government – $1 billion from Germany alone. Moving troops and their families from overseas facilities would require a significant expansion of U.S. bases. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated a similar plan would cost $7 billion to implement. Troops are not stationed in Germany as a relic of the Cold War. They are there because they can be quickly deployed from Germany to places where they are most needed, such as the Middle East. In the 1990s, over 200,000 troops were removed from Europe to account for post-Cold War realities.
Daily Talking Points is a product of the American Progress Action Fund.

To visit the Talking Points archives, please click here.

[WarC]

Xico, if you could just forward my response to whomever it is decided to make the argument for you...

I won't sit here and pretend that this restructuring will actually save money, quite the contrary I would expect. This is part of the deal, and the dollar amount doesn't lesson the urgency any less. This is truly a matter of life and death in the sense that what we do now will affect soldiers fighting today's and tomorrow's battles.

I've already said that our bases in Germany are glorified stepping stones to other theatres, but these are no longer needed.

With all the action in the Middle East comes new bases...A lot of the supposed cost of restructuring would be absorbed by moving forces where there already are places for them to stay!

Another large cost of this operation is replacing existing units with newer ones. This is already happening to a degree. Alot of our heavily armored units are being replaced by more mobile Stryker brigades. This technology requires money. A lot of the forces currently in Germany may be replaced by these Stryker Brigades during and as a result of our re-structuring.

Like your copied article already mentioned Xico, a lot of the forces stationed in Germany and throughout Europe are already in Iraq. If anything, this makes the efforts to restructure easier since the forces in question aren't even there. The logistics of moving that large of a force are now relieved.

I think its pretty interesting that so many of the nay-sayers are quick to use the fact that American forces are stationed throughout the world against the government, but on the same token will defend that existence if it looks like the government may change it. Some people have very, very large bones to pick indeed.

EDIT: touching on Korea...North Korea is barely holding on as it is, and there is no war going on. If war were to erupt on the Korean peninsula the North Korean regime would fall in short order unless the war was swift and overwhelming in North Korea's favor. This is a near impossibility of course, as the North Koreans use soviet-era weapons strategies and tactics. The South Korean military is very well prepared and they will hold their own. They are a lot better than the South Korea we came to aid in the 1950's (When our current military stance was adopted globally...It's fifty years old!)

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by WarC

The truth is in your last post Basset, I said troop restructuring. These are the changes in techonology, doctrine, and force position. I was specifically criticizing the New York Times quote Xico used that said that the re-structuring would actually make the US military less able to meet new challenges, which is the sort of absurd idea that would come out of one of those paper-pushers who's never bothered to open a history book or study real strategy. My supporting Bush and his ideas on moving our military past the Cold War conventional stance and whether or not soldiers should have less pay have nothing to do with each other, especially in the sense that I never even verbally defended or attacked the subject of cutting combat pay in the first place.

In that sense, you putting the two together and then presuming for the sake of argument that I was for the cutting of combat pay means yooou, sir, put words in my mouth

So... in other words, you won't give a straight answer to my question!?

Once we agree on that everything is fine!

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by xico

Hey Lan,

Look at what Bush has done to the military and their families. That doesn't sound very pro Military! We, as a nation, can afford to spend millions on weapons, but we cut the pay of the guys who are shedding blood (and arms and legs)? He even proposed cutting the commissaries! He cuts combat pay!
And you're going to vote for this guy?

Since you have directed the thread at me, I guess I should respond.

I am opposed to cutting combat pay.

But aren't you in support of bringing 60-70 thousand troops home?
I am amazed at how the left will politically spin Bush's every decision even if the decision suits their stated goals.

The move is to take place over 10 years and should save the taxpayers millions.

[WarC]

The straight answer should be obvious (or as obvious as you telling me I won't give you a straight answer...I saw that one comin'! I almost edited my last post to clarify but decided to wait for it!)

There should definitely NOT be pay cuts for soldiers. I do not have much else to say on the topic other then that, because I for one do not know how much a soldier makes, how much the additional combat or high-risk pay is, or even whether or not a soldier makes good money overall anyways! I have no precedent in my head with which to judge.

In less than a years time barring the unusual I will be one of those soldiers anyways, and rest assured I would gladly accept as much money as I could get my hands on for doing so.

Now, if these pay cuts are to make budget room for new technology, technology that may save lives, then I might have another opinion.