US to withdraw nearly 12,000 troops from Germany in move that will cost billions and take years

Not sure why you addressed this post to me - but curious what are we "Staging" from Poland and the Baltics ?

 

So...we should send more troops to Germany to really stick it to Putin?

 

I don't remember saying that.

Are you of those them thar fiction writers?

 

20,000 burns, 40,000 shy...

 

Well, perhaps we have bases all over Europe to keep these damned Europeans from starting another war! They been fighting over there for a thousand years!

 

Lately we have been starting more wars than they have. Maybe they need a few bases over here.

 

Yep, by god if anyone is gonna start a war it's gotta be us!

Cause we are the good guys...with very high principles. A force of good in this dirty world. The American Way! God bless America.

 

Well if you oppose withdrawing US troops from Germany because "Trump is kissing Putins ass," then are you saying we shouldn't withdraw from Germany? Or what are you saying? Are you one of them thar incoherent posters?

 

Aging empires need stability.

 

Most NATO nations do not meet the 2% GDP threshold. Out of 28 member nations, only 9 meet the threshold. Germany with it's 1.38% ranks as 12th worst of all NATO members. Yet they stand on the front lines. Poland is also on the front lines, but they meet the 2% criteria. So, where would you station your troops?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...ing-the-2-threshold-infographic/#6052b9281f2c

One poster pointed out that it will cost billions to bring the troops home, but did they consider the cost of keeping them in Germany? Germany spends millions of euros to offset the cost of housing troops there. That represents 33% of the overall costs. The US is responsible to cover the rest. While I can not find exact figures, that still would amount a significant amount. Further, they are talking of reassigning or bring home 12,000 of the 33,000 of the troops stationed in Germany.

 

Did you look at the nations that are "meeting the threshold ? - I did - and none significant are no the list - so I will correct my "no one else is meeting that threshold - to No one else that matters is meeting that threshold.

Regardless - the point here is that Nato is an obsolete Cold war Relic.

 

On one hand, I dislike the "World's Police" expectation given that it uses up resources and we're in enough trouble at home; might as well pull back and let other countries take better care of their own problems - and no, we're not about to engage in war with Russia given mutually assured destruction, so a lot of this looks like overkill.

On the other hand, I know that the "World's Police" expectation has also maintained our position of leadership, and things like the dollar being the international currency and certain hot spots (e.g. the ME) relying on us for protection have resulted in geopolitical, business, and economic advantages for us. There are some painful responsibilities that come with the territory of being the world's superpower, but there are also numerous advantages in that. Too much isolationism might encourage other countries to take over, and next, our currency is no longer the preferred one for international reserves, and countries stop looking up at us and drift to other spheres of influence (e.g. China).

So, people here are saying, no big deal, we shift to Poland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, the Germans don't need us. Trump is encouraging the European countries to cough up more money for the common defense but he is not pulling out of NATO, at least not yet.

Hmm... I cringe a bit at this.

Because, see, it's a tough world out there and it WILL get tougher. So I don't want us to think just in the short run, "what are these NATO members doing not coughing up 2% of GDP for defense? We don't need them and they don't need us; let's save some money and focus on the homeland." Sounds attractive... But what's the long game???

Do you all think the Status Quo will remain forever? No. Countries will become more populous. Resources will become more scarce. Drinking water will be a commodity. Crops to feed billions of humans will get less available, especially given Mother Nature's hiccups of late. Energy will always be a problem. Large and populous countries like China are choking in air pollution and have a significant proportion of their territory spoiled with non-crop-worthy lands while their population explodes. Russia's single-track economy (they are basically a large gas station) will be in trouble if/when new sources of energy are developed, leaving them desperate (they're already in trouble due to the expansion of worldwide fracking for natural gas).

So, what happens when things get dire?

We have a block of nations that were founded and prospered on ideals that are gathered under the umbrella of what is called the Western Civilization. It started in Greece, spread to the Italian Peninsula, from there to the whole of Europe, then to the New World where it took hold of the Northern lands and wasn't as successful in the Central and Southern lands. It's made of two countries in North America - Canada and the United States, and all countries in Western Europe, plus some in Eastern Europe.

Then you have some other players. The Rus and Slav peoples of the vast expanses of farther Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, under the influence of the former Soviet Union still going relatively strong under its heir, the Russian Federation. The Indian sub-continent. The vast, ancient, 3,000-year-old Chinese civilization (these are smart folks who play the long game) and their sphere of influence. Latin America, still poor and chaotic. Sub-Saharan Africa, still a mess (but vast and populous). Northern Africa and the Middle East as well as some Asian countries, largely unified under a common religion (Islam) despite internal strife. And a few odd-balls in-between: Israel aligned with the Western Civilization, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand also somewhat friendly to the West, Saudi Arabia and the rich Emirates kind of over the fence between Arab identity and Western interests...

So, what will happen once the s.... hits the fan? Once the planet is ill-equipped to sustain its most predatory species, Homo Sapiens? I'll tell you, it will be everybody fighting for their own pieces of the dwindling pie.

So, where are we situated, culturally, economically, and militarily? Hm... precisely here, let's repeat that paragraph: "We have a block of nations that were founded and prospered on ideals that are gathered under the umbrella of what is called the Western Civilization. It started in Greece, spread to the Italian Peninsula, from there to the whole of Europe, then to the New World where it took hold of the Northern lands."

Hm... that overlaps precisely with what? With something called... The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. A.K.A. NATO.

Should we really be alienating that???

When things get dire, we should probably be together with our best allies, given that in unity there is strength. These are the ones who share with us our religious, ethnic, cultural, economic, and military background and ties. Do you think the Russians will have our best interest at heart? The Arab nations? The Chinese? The Latin Americans? The Africans? The trans-continental alliance called BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)?

When the world gets to a breaking point and we're faced with hungry hordes and scarce mineral, energy, and food resources, and desperate power blocs on the verge of collapse, who are we going to call? The Ghostbusters???

So, yes, OK, you say Trump is not *really* undermining NATO and all... Come on. He *is* undermining NATO, and there are two power brokers that will be delighted with it, in the short run. China, and Russia. Neither one has our best interest at heart. Russia will be delighted because they still harbor aspirations of restoring their formal glory. Ukraine, next the Baltic countries... China, because they are growing more and more bellicose as they see that the US is retreating from some world stages while getting more hostile to them, so, whatever makes us weaker advances their expansionist interest.

So, the other NATO countries aren't providing 2% of their GDP (actually, some are), we're spending too much, we aren't the World's Police, the Germans don't need us, we aren't at war with Russia, this is all obsolete Cold War stuff, etc... I think it's myopic. That's all in the short run, and it can be dealt with in other ways, without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

In the long run, I say, NATO countries should stick together. As much as we can. Even more than what we've been doing.

You think we don't need them now and they don't need us? We'll need them in the future, and they'll need us. They are our allies. The others are not. The others are our geopolitical enemies, make no mistake.

So, I say, even if it doesn't *seem* to make sense right now, let's stick with NATO. Let's NOT undermine it. Let's strengthen it, actually. Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will thank us.

We don't have bases in Germany because Germany needs us to defend them. We have bases in Germany because we and Germany are members of the NATO alliance. Remember, the one and only time in History when NATO's mutual defense clause was invoked, was when we were attacked on 9/11, and they all did come to help us in Afghanistan.

Being against NATO is short-sighed and ignores the wider and longer movements of History.

This shouldn't be an issue of Leftists vs. Rightists, Liberals vs. Conservatives, Expansionist Neocons vs. Isolationists. This should be an issue of Americans and their allies continuing to be together and vigilant, and prepared for tougher times.

 

If you had bothered to read what I posted, you would have seen that I pointed out that there were 9 nations that are meeting the threshold. That leaves 19 that are not. The most interesting fact is that Bulgaria has dedicated almost as much of their GDP as the US is. Yet all the member countries signed an accord stating that they would invest 2% of their GDP into their own defense. Yet most don't. They expect the US to come to their aid if they are attacked. This is the perfect reason to pull out.

 

If you had bothered to read my post - you will find that I addressed the 9 nations that meet the threshold - stating that none of them were significant.

What part of - "not significant" did you have trouble understanding ?

 

The U.S. has a population of 330 million. The European Union has a population of 446 million. The U.S. GDP is only slightly higher than that of the EU.

The Europeans can defend themselves.

 

Well really they can't because they're mostly liberals (western europe). Nevertheless, the U.S. can't be the E.U.'s babysitter. They need to reach in their own stingy-ass pockets and pay their own way. If they can't defend themselves, they don't deserve to survive.....and with the way they are importing muslims....it won't matter if we have bases there or not.

As far as plopping a bunch of troops in Poland, Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia......all border Russia. If anyone wants peace with Russia, best stay away from their border.

Put another way, would anyone be fine with Russia stacking a bunch of troops and bases in Canada and Mexico?

Trump needs to tell Germany to kiss our asses and may as well pull out of NATO and put an end to that relic.

 

Exactly - and the big question being - "Defend themselves from what ? Ever since the advent of nukes - no one has attacked a country with nukes - go figure

 

LOL..if anyone wants peace with Muscovia, stay away from its borders???

Or else what Archie??

Same goes for the Asiatic gas station....stay away from NATO airspace....or cease to exist. Not hard to figure out.

 

Yet, the only time in History that the NATO mutual defense clause was invoked, was in response to 9/11, and Canada and the European allies came to help us in Afghanistan. This is a point often lost to those who say "they can defend themselves, we don't need them, let's pull out." And like I said in my too long post #37 (so some people may react to it as TLDR), people may think we don't need them... for now. We don't know what the geopolitical movements will bring up, in the future. Me, I think it is prudent to stick together with the allies we do have, as there is a tough world out there that will only get tougher as the planet's resources dwindle. We've been too overconfident in our own superpower status but while we're still the most militarily powerful nation on Earth by a long shot, some geopolitical enemies are slowly catching up.

 

You're one of "them thar incoherent posters" then.

 

I can make it simple enough for you.

Don't rock the boat.

 

That's almost as good an answer as, "because reasons."

Although actually it's "Because Trump."

 

So we're starting from scratch.

Damn.

Quite a coincidence that the only leader that wants this is named Putin. Isn't it.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/saving-nato

 

Heh, I guess I was right, it really is just because of Trump!

 

So you didn't read the article, meaning you still know nothing; except how to troll.

Disappointing, but entirely expected.