QandO
Questions and Observations| « Betrayal | Main | Nice timing, after all.... » |
|
August 17, 2004 Snarky Kaus Mickey Kaus' reaction to the Dem's talking points about the troop realignments: Richard Holbrooke instinctively hits on the winning political response to Bush's troop redeployment: "I know that the Germans are very unhappy about these withdrawals." ... Note: Sometimes you really need to let Bob Shrum vet your sound bites. Now, think about that for just a minute. Holbrooke is the guy who'd probably be National Security Advisor or SecState in a Kerry Administration. What does this tell us about whether Kerry actually would allow foreign governments to have a veto over our security policy? It's almost as if they're telling us that if the French and Germans don't like a polocy it must be illegitimate. I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out why that would be, especially in a matter like troop deployments, in an era where, to be quite frank, there's nothing to protect Germany from. Do we have some sort of obligation to keep troops in Germany forever? Other than funnelling perfectly good US dollars into the coffers of German businesses, what are our boys actually doing over there that's useful in any tactical or strategic sense? Wes Clark says that the move is hideously damaging to US national security? But, why, exactly? I mean, unless you're convinced that a united Germany, free of foreign occupation forces, inevitably becomes a threat to world peace--and that's a perfectly understandable view, historically speaking--then it's hard to see what all the carping's about. And, frankly, if the Euros are sincere in their beleif that the EU should be a superpower that serves as a "balance" (rival?) to US power, then you really have to wonder why they're complaining, too. After all, as Mark Steyn quips in today's Telegraph, "It must surely be awfully embarrassing to be the first superpower in history to be permanently garrisoned by your principal rival superpower." You'd think their only words of caution would be for us to be sure the door didn't injure us on our way out. Apparently not, though. |
What troops are being moved?
Closing airbases would be bad. It would seriously reduce our practical ability to project power in the region. Yes we can bomb anywhere from Missouri, but it is mighty slow going and drastically reduces the practical operational tempo. The number of sorties plummets.
Closing army bases for infantry and armor is less so. Infantry and light armor are relatively easy to airlift from anywhere to anywhere so a US posting is no problem. Heavy armor like the M1 needs to be shipped by sea so its going to take forever anyway and German ports aren't located well strategically either unless we will be invading Scandinavia.
Posted by: Jeff the Baptist at August 17, 2004 03:08 PM
Actually, if you'll read about all of this you'll find there is going to be a redeployment of some of the military to Eastern European countries, which, I would assume, means air assets. That'll at least make it easier to fly past France when they again refuse to give us clearance to fly over their cheese-eating heads.
Anyway, I'd bet most of those pulled back into the US will be the heavy forces. That's two divisions. We don't need two heavy divisions in Europe anymore. They'll most likely be replaced by STRYKER brigades.
Posted by: McQ at August 17, 2004 03:18 PM
Holbrooke would be a disaster for US foreign policy. He wants SecState. He'd be a disaster for that department, too.
Posted by: John at August 17, 2004 09:41 PM