U.S. assessing cost of keeping troops in Germany as Trump battles with Europe

[thoughtomator]

The Pentagon is analyzing the cost and impact of a large-scale withdrawal or transfer of American troops stationed in Germany, amid growing tensions between President Donald Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to people familiar with the work.

The effort follows Trump's expression of interest in removing the troops, made during a meeting earlier this year with White House and military aides, U.S. officials said. Trump was said to have been taken aback by the size of the U.S. presence, which includes about 35,000 active-duty troops, and complained that other countries were not contributing fairly to joint security or paying enough to NATO.

Word of the assessment has alarmed European officials, who are scrambling to determine whether Trump actually intends to reposition U.S. forces or whether it is merely a negotiating tactic ahead of a NATO summit in Brussels, where Trump is again likely to criticize U.S. allies for what he deems insufficient defense spending.

U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment on the unpublicized effort, emphasized that the exercise is limited to an internal exploration of options. The top military brass is not involved as yet, and the Pentagon has not been tasked with figuring out how to execute any option.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...629-story.html

Trump looking like the one who will finally bring the boys back home.

[Swordsmyth]

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[enhanced_deficit]

There should never be compromise on spending on big military expansion.. that was sort of his rationale for signing one of the biggest deficit/debt expanding swampy pork laden spending bill in US history. Because MAGA.

As long as he doesn't toy with conservatives emotions on things like global MIC/military expansion, path to DACA, gun control, big gummit spending, expansive police state/civil liberties etc, things should remain fine.

That said, actions speak louder than words.

Trump is sending more than 3,000 troops to Afghanistan

Sep 19, 2017 - Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis announced on September 18 that the US will send more than 3,000 troops to Afghanistan..



However, to be fair there is also growing evidence that he doesn't speak from all sides of his mouth.

[Jan2017]

Trump looking like the one who will finally bring the boys back home.

If he showed signs of seriousness it would help the 2018 midterm elections imho . . .



But noted, he had a chance with the North Korea summit and it still may be in negotiation.
(at that time NPR had reported it as 28,000 troops in Korea - it may be about 23,000)
There are already 39,000 USA troops in Japan . . . so over 60,000 in a small region. Why ?

Trump should be advised to do some of the biggest re-deployment of troops from overseas to stateside.

[AuH20]

Wait until he gets rid of Mattis. Mattis is on thin ice as is Kelly. I think if Trump secures a 2nd term, we may see Candidate Trump emerge.

[enhanced_deficit]

Wait until he gets rid of Mattis. Mattis is on thin ice as is Kelly. I think if Trump secures a 2nd term, we may see Candidate Trump emerge.

Probably Afghan war hero John Kelly too, not sure about Nikki Haley and John Bolton.

There is growing evidence that he's thinking seriously about surrounding himself with best people this time around in the post Bannon-Jarvanka fight phase.

Netanyahu ally Adelson wanted McMaster out because of his "anti Israel" views and he is out

It is not clear if Kelly is also being forced out soon, he reportedly cut "top secret" intel access of first son-in-law who incidentally had shared bed with Israeli PM Netanyahu.

“This Is Kelly’s Way of Saying, ‘It’s Me or Jared’”: Inside the West Wing, Security Clearance-gate Is Getting Uglier by the Day

Kushner is asking people to advocate on his behalf. McMaster is lobbying Mike Pompeo and Dan Coats to support Kelly. But in the end, it’s all up to Trump.

Gabriel Sherman
February 21, 2018

Wall Street Journal: President Donald Trump Consults On Successors For John Kelly



In the end, any major WH staffing change that actually will happen will be the one that is acceptable to his largest donor and widely respcted zionist Shledon Adelson.

[thoughtomator]

Probably Afghan war hero John Kelly too, not sure about Nikki Haley and John Bolton.

There is growing evidence that he's thinking seriously about surrounding himself with best people this time around in the post Bannon-Jarvanka fight phase.

Netanyahu ally Adelson wanted McMaster out because of his "anti Israel" views and he is out



Wall Street Journal: President Donald Trump Consults On Successors For John Kelly



In the end, any major WH staffing change that actually will happen will be the one that is acceptable to his largest donor and widely respcted zionist Shledon Adelson.

You remind me of the people who kept bringing up neo-Nazis every time Ron Paul was mentioned.

This thing you did here? It's the same thing. A bad thing. Don't do it - it's a bad look.

[enhanced_deficit]

If I said you remind me of people who brought up 'anti-semitism' everytime Ron Paul opposed foreign interventions/talked about blowback but that would be not right. So lets talk about ideas without getting personal.

Instead of making assumptions, ask me a direct question about my views if you're in doubt and I'll answer.

In that spirit, let me understand where you stand on things politically because pasting articles only tells so much. Do you think neocons plant Rudy Giuliani is MAGA or part of the swamp/political slave of neocons who have been part of the problem for at least half a century and suddenly opportunistically getting 'rebirthed' as MAGA?

[Zippyjuan]

Don't get too excited yet.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...germany-troops

Pentagon: White House did not request plan to withdraw Germany troops

The Pentagon said on Friday that the White House had not requested any plans for pulling U.S. troops from Germany following a media report that it is analyzing the possibility.

The Washington Post reported that the military is assessing the cost of a large-scale withdrawal or transfer of forces stationed there after President Trump expressed interest.

The report comes amid rising trade tensions between Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and an upcoming trip to Europe by the president where he intends to press NATO allies on their military spending.

The White House’s National Security Council “has not requested the Department of Defense to provide a cost analysis on the repositioning of U.S. troops in Germany,” Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon told the Washington Examiner. “The Pentagon regularly reviews force posture and performs cost-benefit analyses. This is nothing new.”

The U.S. has stationed troops in Europe since World War II, and Germany is host to the largest presence on the continent, which is about 35,000 troops.

“We remain fully committed to our NATO ally and the NATO alliance,” Pahon said.

Trump has hit Germany and other European allies with steel and aluminum tariffs, and, as they prepare to retaliate, the president has indicated he may put additional tariffs on vehicle imports, which could hit Berlin hardest.

He has also criticized the allies for relying too heavily on the U.S. for defense. As a NATO ally, Germany has also committed to spend 2 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, but like other members of the alliance have not met that benchmark.

Trump is set to travel to a NATO meeting in Belgium in July where both subjects could come up.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.52099985770e

U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment on the unpublicized effort, emphasized that the exercise is limited to an internal exploration of options. The top military brass are not involved as yet, and the Pentagon has not been tasked with figuring out how to execute any option.

Would it save any money?

U.S. allies hosting permanent American military footprints pay for a certain portion of the costs in various ways. Japan and South Korea, for example, make cash contributions, according to a 2013 study the Rand Corp. prepared for the U.S. defense secretary’s office, while Germany supports the U.S. troop presence through in-kind contributions such as land, infrastructure and construction, in addition to foregone customs duties and taxes.

Basing its statistics on data from 2002, the study estimated that Germany offset about 33 percent of the costs of U.S. military personnel stationed there. It is unclear how much would be saved by bringing them all home, because the United States would still be responsible for paying them, in addition to housing and other personnel expenses. At the same time, a large portion of the American troops in Germany are engaged in the U.S. military’s efforts outside Europe and simply base operations in the nation.

[timosman]

[Jan2017]

Don't get too excited yet.

Would it save any money?

Zippy thanks for your input !

The 50,000 troops that will be needed to line the USA border with that singular immigration policy "problem nation"
DO have to come from somewhere. Those guys and gals would rather be stateside actually defending the nation from the intruders
than off in Europe or the Korean peninsula.

It will save money in the long run to kick out the illegal Mexicans - 'dat fer' sure.

Honest Americans - regardless of ethnicity - realize that USA troops are actually needed and belong on our own southern border -
not South Korea's or Germany's borders - where they are jus' being totally useless to anyone.

[nobody's_hero]

Well if they're home, they're not buying stuff in Germany. Yes I'm aware that's a bit of a broken window fallacy but the troops living overseas spend a lot of their money overseas. It's probably a minimal impact, but a part of it.

I know there's a lot of towns/small cities in the USA next to major military installations that would probably shrivel up and blow away if the bases shut down. I wonder if that goes the same way for Europe. Be interesting to see just how much they benefit economically from the presence of tens of thousands of Americans going on leave for the weekends.

[Swordsmyth]

"The Pentagon is analyzing the cost and impact of a large-scale withdrawal or transfer of American troops stationed in Germany, amid growing tensions between President Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to people familiar with the work."
Two basic options are under review, the scrum at Post added: "The redeployment scenarios under study include a large-scale return of U.S. troops stationed in Germany to the United States and a full or partial move of U.S. troops in Germany to Poland."

More at: http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...edium=referral

[Swordsmyth]

Germans would actually welcome the withdrawal of American troops stationed in their country, a new poll has found – as Donald Trump threatens to pull the plug on military support.
The finding comes on the first day of a Nato summit in which the US president is urging Europe to spend more on defence if it wants to continue to receive American military protection.
But far from being seen as a threat, a YouGov poll for the dpa news agency found that more Germans would welcome the departure of the 35,000-strong American force than would oppose it.
42 per cent said they supported withdrawal while just 37 per cent wanted the soldiers to stay, with 21 per cent undecided.

Voters for the left-wing Die Linke are particularly in favour of withdrawal, with 67 per cent backing it, as are supporters of the far-right AfD, on 55 per cent. Greens also back withdrawal by 48 per cent.

More at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/germans-w...115845717.html

It's time to leave.

[Jamesiv1]

Adios Mofos.

[oyarde]

You would have to see the cost benefit analysis . Tough to guess . It is claimed US pays 67 percent of cost in germany and if those troops were here you would have 100 percent of cost ( payroll , benefits , housing etc ) . The plus side for the Army is they use those bases as deployment areas , the impact areas ( artillery ranges , close air support ranges etc ) in use there for training would be difficult to provide in the US east of the Mississippi . The plus side for total removal would be removing the troops from danger . If the russians wanted to invade they could and it probably cannot be stopped with 35k American troops and the dud german armed forces .

[oyarde]

Adios Mofos.

Seems reasonable . Maybe after the war west germany should have just been annexed by the US as a territory called new california. In the 50's then it could have been started to have utilized to deport leftists to .

[specsaregood]

You would have to see the cost benefit analysis . Tough to guess . It is claimed US pays 67 percent of cost in germany and if those troops were here you would have 100 percent of cost ( payroll , benefits , housing etc ) . The plus side for the Army is they use those bases as deployment areas , the impact areas ( artillery ranges , close air support ranges etc ) in use there for training would be difficult to provide in the US east of the Mississippi . The plus side for total removal would be removing the troops from danger . If the russians wanted to invade they could and it probably cannot be stopped with 35k American troops and the dud german armed forces .

spending 67% overseas in the EU economy vs 100% in the US economy.... tough choice.

[thoughtomator]

If I said you remind me of people who brought up 'anti-semitism' everytime Ron Paul opposed foreign interventions/talked about blowback but that would be not right. So lets talk about ideas without getting personal.

You could, but as I was and always have been at least as antiwar and in support of RP's foreign policy as anyone else here, you'd look even more foolish in the attempt. Truth and relevance both matter in these things.

Instead of making assumptions, ask me a direct question about my views if you're in doubt and I'll answer.

In that spirit, let me understand where you stand on things politically because pasting articles only tells so much. Do you think neocons plant Rudy Giuliani is MAGA or part of the swamp/political slave of neocons who have been part of the problem for at least half a century and suddenly opportunistically getting 'rebirthed' as MAGA?

Again, this Alinskyite target personalization tactic is not a good look. It was done against Trump and those who did find themselves on the wrong side of the most libertarian President in generations.

Giuliani is a tool, just as Trump is a tool.

As Giuliani was the guy who broke the mob in New York, it would seem he has a wealth of experience that could be put to use in breaking the mob in DC.

Stop looking for angels and demons and start understanding the big picture.

[oyarde]

spending 67% overseas in the EU economy vs 100% in the US economy.... tough choice.

The clincher being 35k troops cannot be over run and wiped out by hundreds of thousands of russians

[oyarde]

There is a great benefit in having oceans between you and any potential dangerous enemies .

[Swordsmyth]

You would have to see the cost benefit analysis . Tough to guess . It is claimed US pays 67 percent of cost in germany and if those troops were here you would have 100 percent of cost ( payroll , benefits , housing etc ) . The plus side for the Army is they use those bases as deployment areas , the impact areas ( artillery ranges , close air support ranges etc ) in use there for training would be difficult to provide in the US east of the Mississippi . The plus side for total removal would be removing the troops from danger . If the russians wanted to invade they could and it probably cannot be stopped with 35k American troops and the dud german armed forces .

If we leave Germany we can deploy them to the borders and reduce the size of the military, we would also stop losing all the money the troops spend to the German economy, it would also make foreign adventurism less convenient and and easier to end and prevent.