Posted on Jun 28, 2018
Should the US permanently station troops in Europe? New US Army Europe chief weighs in
6.33K
35
16
6
6
0
New legislation in the Senate version of the fiscal 2019 authorization bill attempts to get answers from the Pentagon on whether it makes more sense to permanently station U.S. troops in Europe or continue to use heel-to-toe rotational units to deter Russian aggression on the eastern flank.
When asked at the recent Eurosatory defense trade show what makes the most sense on the European continent, the new U.S. Army Europe commander indicated the answer is not so black and white. Basically, “it completely depends,” he said.
When asked at the recent Eurosatory defense trade show what makes the most sense on the European continent, the new U.S. Army Europe commander indicated the answer is not so black and white. Basically, “it completely depends,” he said.
Should the US permanently station troops in Europe? New US Army Europe chief weighs in
Posted from defensenews.com
Europe
Russia
Defense
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 11
9
9
0
The reason they are there to begin with out weighs the problem. War stays on their turf and not ours. Their land gets decimated not ours. Closer to the action and less equipment to deploy etc. Old argument by lesser minds- do we really forget the past that quickly?
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter Sgt Randy Wilber SGT Gregory Lawritson Cpl (Join to see) Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth LTC (Join to see) MSG Frederick Otero SFC Pete Kain SSG David Andrews SCPO Morris Ramsey SPC Margaret Higgins SGT Jim Arnold PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SGT Charles H. Hawes CPL Dave Hoover TSgt Joe C. SPC Jovani Daviu Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. 'Bill' Price LTC Greg Henning
SMSgt Lawrence McCarter Sgt Randy Wilber SGT Gregory Lawritson Cpl (Join to see) Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth LTC (Join to see) MSG Frederick Otero SFC Pete Kain SSG David Andrews SCPO Morris Ramsey SPC Margaret Higgins SGT Jim Arnold PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SGT Charles H. Hawes CPL Dave Hoover TSgt Joe C. SPC Jovani Daviu Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. Maj William W. 'Bill' Price LTC Greg Henning
(9)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Hooah! There is a REASON we are still in Germany, Japan and Italy over 70 years since WWII. Power projection platforms. If you can reach out and touch someone they are less likely to try and touch you or your friends.
(2)
(0)
Maj Marty Hogan
MAJ Montgomery Granger - exactly. Logistically WWI/II were awesome, but it takes time, effort, coordination, and lots of $$. I have always been amazed at the short sided politician. Hey- I found a way to save money.... big picture- look at the big picture.
(1)
(0)
MSG Frederick Otero
Not unusual for our nation to lapse into forgetfulness. Memory seems to last approx. 1 at most two generations and since national history instruction is sketchy at best well; the result is often paid for in blood.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
MAJ Montgomery Granger - I think the keyword here is term permanent and what that means. We set up base camps in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Poland and they were all contract based and were only allowed for a 90 day period. A CODEL would visit as well to ensure we were not establishing a permanent base. The cost was incredible. I'd rather see these governments provide us access to training and staging areas first. We then establish a footprint with our network architecture and put a heavy division's worth of equipment there for rotational training forces as we are doing now in Europe and Korea. I'd completely shift all our assets out of Germany and Italy. It is too difficult to work with those governments to move forces in the area.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Oh here we go. We had two divisions, 1AD and 1ID, in Europe. We had a large footprint but Congress and DOD saw a need to reduce the footprint in an effort to save money and shift focus to other areas. So 1ID returned to Riley and 1AD came to Bliss. The same was said about S. Korea which is why we reduced our troops there and are rotating BCTs on short tours in Korea. It would save money and put the emphasis of European defense on the EU and NATO.
This was all about saving money they said. One year rotational BCTs was an improvement over sustaining 3-year dependent tours they said. Maintain a fleet of armored and mechanized vehicles pre-positioned in theater for BCTs to fall in on made sense. Too expensive to ship an entire ABCT is a true statement. Downside of rotational units....the loss of continuity of command relationships with allied forces.
The threat situation didn't changed, our economic priorities had changed. I say continue the current rotational unit concept and focus on strengthening our multinational relationships.
This was all about saving money they said. One year rotational BCTs was an improvement over sustaining 3-year dependent tours they said. Maintain a fleet of armored and mechanized vehicles pre-positioned in theater for BCTs to fall in on made sense. Too expensive to ship an entire ABCT is a true statement. Downside of rotational units....the loss of continuity of command relationships with allied forces.
The threat situation didn't changed, our economic priorities had changed. I say continue the current rotational unit concept and focus on strengthening our multinational relationships.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Why can't we just do what's best for the MISSION? I know budgets cannot be ignored, but they should be MISSION driven. When political, military AND economic goals are the same, we are successful. When one or more of those things are out of whack, we fail.
(1)
(0)
MAJ James Woods
MAJ Montgomery Granger - Budgets is one of the driving factors for being able to accomplish a mission. All I'm saying is the DoD and Congress made very clear their reasons for European force realignment was first economical (bring Americans home), then political (reduce reliance on US forces in Europe), and finally strategic (Middle East and Africa were priorities).
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google