Military Deployments

[-Demosthenes-]

The US has almost 1.4 million personelle deployed throughout the world. Besides active warzones the bigest deployments outside the US is Germany with 75,603 US troops.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military)

Why are there so many in Germany? There are almost 4 times more troops in Germany then there are in Afghanistan. At 10,000 - 14,000 troops a piece the UK and Italy have many US troops as well. ??? There are more US troops in the UK (11,801) than there are British troops in N. Ireland (11,000) or even in all of Iraq (apx 8,500). Why is this?

I know there were a lot of troops left after WWII, and then many were there because of the Cold War. But WWII and the Cold War are over. And the UK, I don't see any of the reasons there.

 

[Kandahar]

I agree. We need to withdraw all of our troops from places that they aren't needed (except maybe a few hundred as a goodwill gesture), because they ARE needed other places.

 

[cnredd]

I agree. We need to withdraw all of our troops from places that they aren't needed (except maybe a few hundred as a goodwill gesture), because they ARE needed other places.

A lot of those places are more for the goodwill of foreign diplomacy and the local economy...

Just like in the US, towns are dependant upon US bases...If we leave, it destroys jobs in those places and becomes a black eye in international affairs...

And we also don't know what the TRUE functions of many of those places are...We can easily just say, "Why do we need X number of people in country Y?"...The answer could be classified or covert operations that may be a front for surveillance on a neighboring country, satellite infrastructure, or a plethora of reasons that may never be revealed publicly...

I do agree that every X amount of years Congress should have an audit or reassessment of these places to see if they are truly a benefit for us to be there...

 

[MSgt]

Having faced down and defeated the magnificently armed Soviet Union, we have talked ourselves into fearing the weak rump state that survived its ruin. In Washington, a great deal of sanctimonious banter may be heard about the danger of nuclear weapons falling into criminal hands should Russian stability fail, even though the Soviet regime was the most powerful criminal organization in history and those left behind are petty thugs by comparison, incapable of initiating a nuclear war as Moscow suffers through its new "time of troubles."

We're still paying the penalty for the excesses of the Cold War. During the Cold War, the "Army" was faced with fighting the Soviet hordes in Europe. The equipment was pre-positioned. The army didn't have to worry about weight when shipping the stuff over there. It was in climatized warehouses in Germany. The army didn't have to worry about fuel. There was plenty in western Europe. The army didn't have to worry about weight on bridges and roads. West Germany and western Europe in general had a tremendously sound road network. The troops would just theoretically fly in across the Atlantic, fall in on the equipment, and roll out to fight. Our Army generals and politicians still have this mentality, but the army has to be able to get there. But no matter how theoretically effective it may be, an army that cannot get to the war or conflict is useless to the American people. This is why there are so many Army personnel stationed in bases in Europe. They are not built to be expeditious.

Doctrine has to arise out of practical field experimentation and out of the world around us. However, much of our "Army's" doctrine is used as a justification for yesterday's way of doing business. There is vision, but it is based around the war the Army wants to fight, not the conflicts and wars with which we are actually faced. The Army in the 1990's went into shock, into virtual paralysis, when the Cold War ended. The powers that be were faced with change and they did not want it. Today, we need expeditionary forces in all of the services, and the army is belatedly waking up to that. They are striving to re-organize their forces to reflect, but not imitate, the Marine Corp's structure to face today's and the future's reality of conflicts, but they have spent half a century built around the notion of "big wars." The dinosaurs are going, but they're clinging to their jobs with the best spirit of Tyrannosaurus Rex.

However, we must be careful about what we pull out of Europe. Russia is striving to become a major player again. They seem more than willing to use Iran with China's help to achieve it. These three countries are predictable, yet uncertain. Europe's sense of appeasement is predictable and certain. It is as alive today as it was in 1939.

 

[Volker]

The US has almost 1.4 million personelle deployed throughout the world. Besides active warzones the bigest deployments outside the US is Germany with 75,603 US troops.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military)

Why are there so many in Germany?

Americans use German basements for their operations and many of their injured soldiers are hospitalized in Germany. There are plans to essentially reduce the number of American troops in Germany. They reduced it in the past, too.