Drawdown of Brigade Combat Teams in Europe…
by reader Ilsm
Consider GAO-100745R take on keeping 4 brigades home stationed in Germany and Italy:
In the Quadrennial Defense Review released in Feb 2010, the US Army decided to reverse the drawdown of Brigade Combat Teams and retain 2 brigades to retain the current order of battle of 4 brigades home stationed in Germany and Italy. This means that 30,000 soldiers will remain stationed in Germany, and that infrastructure improvements are required.
GAO recommends the Army delay infrastructure “investments” in Germany pending determining future forces stationed there in support of new NATO strategy plan due in Nov. 2010. The Warsaw Pact formally dissolved in July 1991. The Red Army began withdrawing in phases from forward deployments in the Warsaw Pact states in 1991. The phasing was required to accommodate Red Army forces returning to already stressed facilities in the Soviet Union. In many cases the Red Army demobilized forces as forward deployments ended.
GAO sees two issues to explore: the questionable “need” for the 4 Brigade Combat Teams and the Army’s determination of support requirements and consolidating stations and facilities to achieve costs savings.
The report includes the following:
“The Army estimates that, depending upon the assumptions used, it will potentially cost between $1 billion and $2 billion more from fiscal years 2012-2021 to keep the two brigades in Europe than it would cost to return them to the United States. DOD is reconsidering retaining the brigades in Europe in part because senior military officials in Europe have said that four brigade combat teams in Europe are needed to meet operational and mission requirements.”
What are these operational and mission requirements and why does the US Army keep 30,000 troops in Germany while the Bundeswehr is reducing its force structure from 250,000 to 163,000 by 2014? What of these missions require the 2 combat ready brigades and what is the need for 4? The Red Army, which is not in a high state of readiness, is on the other side of Poland and Hungary. NATO, includes the countries in between and these countries, should provide the bulk of forces for their independence.
Since 1999, NATO and the UN have forces deployed forces in Kosovo, termed KFOR consisting of around 10,000 soldiers plus supports. See here for more information. Once an occupation begins it is very hard to end, the US is 40% of NATO and the UN contribution should limit US troops far below 4,000, and these formations could be rotated from the Uniter States. Standing up a Kosovo Security Force seems to be a daunting open ended task. The US should seriously consider why it has any brigades in Germany much less keeping 4.
The second issue is facilities to house the 4 brigades. GAO finds inconsistencies with “quality of life” standards used to establish requirements for troop quarters, military family housing. It also questions savings from consolidations and suggest delay of building a US Army regional medical center at a projected construction cost of $1.2B. The medical center is a major hospital that provides primary care for more than 40,000 military personnel and 245,000 beneficiaries in the European Command. Interesting is the number of beneficiaries needing medical support in Germany. This is a result of the all volunteer force.
GAO conclusions: Plans for forces in NATO are uncertain and costs are likely understated, keeping the 2 brigades in Europe could cost $2B in the long term. DOD’s plans for reviewing U.S. global defense posture are unclear, but alternatives under consideration are limited. Inconsistent processes to develop facility requirements hampers validation of facility needs.
GAO Recommendations include:
1. Conduct a comprehensive analysis of alternatives for stationing forces in Europe. At a minimum, the review should be done as expeditiously as possible upon the completion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s strategic concept announcement and consider the costs and benefits of a range of force structure and basing alternatives.
2. Develop a consistent process to determine specific facility requirements associated with the various options.
This audit reveals many of the issues with DoD investment decisions: the needs that form the objectives for planning force structure and forces are ill defined and often fraught with politics and prejudices of senior officials to maintain some preferred status quo ante. Also, once alternatives are developed analyses are not well formed and the resulting management decisions are neither effective against needs nor efficient to implement.
“why does the US Army keep 30,000 troops in Germany”
For the surge. (Der Stromstoß, auf Deutsch.) 😉
Yea! Something ilsm and I agree upon.
All 4 brigades should be removed from Europe and the troops in Kosovo also sent home. Let the Germans and French police the area if it really needs it anymore.
There is no reason we need to have any combat troops in Europe. All we need is a few airbases and it might be cheaper to keep some Navy stationed their also. Otherwise let the Europeans pay for their own defense.
Islam must change
Having lived and worked for the Army in Germany almost 2/3ds the last 30 years, you probably certainly right that it is the prejudice of the status quo ante certainly right, although again, the U.S. does get some benefits, tangible and intangible in it imperial role. WWII is 65 years in the past, the Berlin Wall fell 21 years ago, and the only purpose Germany serves is as a logistical base for our wars in Central Asia and the Middle East.
The large number of beneficiaries for military medical care is the result of all the military retirees and their dependents and surviors who live in Germany, Italy, Britain, and the BENELUX, not the families of the volunteer soldiers and airmen. That will be an ongoing cost even after we draw down, but given that European care is of equal or higher quality for less cost I don’t think we would save any money moving them back to the States.
And of course, the savings in basing them in the U.S. will be small potatoes compared to what we will be spending on our current continuing wars in all those dusty places from Giibralter to the Indus River.
buffpilot
There is hope for you yet.
rickster,
The saving would be outside the GAO estimate. Going to the Frank/Paul Sustainable Defense Task Force, the idea is to disband formations pulled out of Europe an dthe wars.
The US needs to pull out of empire, recognize it cannot afford the current order of battle and determine that “national interests” have changed since 1945.
Time to stop treating central Europe the way the Hapsburgs treated in in 1910.
Stands to reason considering that all thosse officers jobs are on the line, that theere would be resisstance ffrom within. Along with pulling out of all these “Wars, Police acctionss, occupations,etc”, downsizing of the Military officer corps iss needed also. But, the Military/Industrial complex who are milking he treasury, (sound familure) will scream bloody murder, as will their toadies in Congress. What a mindset this county has aallowed to take hold in this Military.
i dunno buff
maybe the troops are needed to defend the airbases.
The Bundeswher is reducing to 163,000 soldiers, the Brits are going broke and cutting.
Kosovo is 10 years overrunning……………………..
US needs to leave Europe to themselves.
Defend forward airbases………………….
If you know the range of a 105 mm you can imagine the problems with defending air bases or why Khe Sahn and Dien Bien Phu were so interesting.
Air bases need a wide defensive zone.
So……………
Cut the USAF too.
It is also worth observing that most of the countries of the former Warsaw Pact, in addition to demilitarizing and in many cases changing their alliances from the East to the West, anticipate that their populations will fall by something on the order of 30% by 2050, and that the average age in their populations is expected to rise considerably.
Their pool of young men from which soldiers could be drawn will fall considerably, and their collective GDP will fall considerably even if their per capita GDP manages to hold steady or grow a little.
The dominant first order factor in determing the size of country’s Army is its military service aged population. The dominant first order factor in determing the amount a country spends on its military is its GDP. Countries that are highly mobilized militarily because of a perceived imminent military threat, like North Korea and Israel can have military forces and defense spending several times larger than what would be expected for their populations and GDP, but there is no sign that any country is Eastern Europe is gearing up to be on a war footing to that extent.
In other words, demographics is destiny and Eastern Europe’s military power is very likely to decline, rather than surge over the next forty years.
Defend the airbases from whom?
Airbases go also. I’m talking keep Rien Mien Airbase as a logistics/medical hub. Bring the fighters home. Probably another in England or Spain also. Keep the port open at Naples.
Air bases do not need a wide defensive zone, ilsm. And the two bases you listed were placed behind enemy lines. Not on the Rhine. Get real. If your going to argue isolationism at least make sense. The troops in Europe are not there to accomplish counter/insurgency.
I would bring the guys out of Japan also. Leave the troops in Korea though (I have heard too many stories that we basically keep the South from heading North).
Basically let rich nations defend themselves if they wish.
Islam will change
So ilsm, what are your national interests?
Obama has well-defined the current administrations national interests (you voted for the guy) with numerous documents and their legislative agenda.
What’s your plan other than Buchanonite Isolationism? You know there is absolutely zero support in the political sphere for the ideas you propose? Heck even FDR was doing everything he could to get us into WW II and JFK came as close as anyone to getting us into WW III.
So what’s you plan? Or are you still in fairy land where the local militia can protect our borders and national interests?
Islam will change
The QDR, BTW, is an Obama Administration approved document.
Just want to make sure who you should be complaining too…
Nice links MG!
Islam will chnage
Buff,
From what I gather from Ilsm, his interest is not the protection/defense of the U.S. or it’s souvreignty. He seems to consistantly take two positions:
1.) The entire War on Terror was a hoax, and the true intent of American Policy is a secret Imperialistic Manuver, designed never to end.
2.) The United States deserves to be defeated, to be punished for our supposed lack of Morality. He has taken a similar position as Obama related to Terror. Obama seems to think, that instead of Defense or Offensive, we should just be passive, and let the chips fall where they may. This thinking supposedly impresses our enemies? Obama said something like, “We can absorb a Terror attack similar in size or bigger than 9-11, it may make us stronger.” This is a similar position Ilsm has taken in the past…….something to the effect……”Oh Well, we shouldn’t be concerned with a Terror attack on people in Big Cities”
The One-Trick Pony from Ilsm needs to be really routed out, and somebody really needs to get to the bottom of what Ilsm’s Mania is all about…I have tried…..maybe your the guy Buff?
May the force be with you!
Buffpilot is being prudent here. I am an isolationist, but think a rapid and complete drawdown would leave a vacuum.
I’d say Iran is what they worry about here. The new NATO charter will be to acknowlege the fall of the Soviet Union, the declining Eastern European military threat (tho not financial threat as it turns out) and refocus on the Middle East as being the new problem. Especially if one of them might become a nuclear power.
So Europe is closer, and all Nato members want our oil, so nothing changes.
less than 1% of military expenditures to give project US military power in a fashion supported by allies and maintain a major strategic military position.
why is this a question at all? there a so many more effective ways to reduce military expenditures than by diminishing career opportunities and intercontinental exchanges for young americans and the good will that can be built through long time allies
the argument presented is so narrow that i wonder just what is the endpoint in its sights/target
jimi,
Better a pony than a horses A$$.
Explain a few milestones in the war on terror. What exactly is terror? A religion? A strategy? A tactic? Who does one defeat?
As to your second statement, better a pony.
Maybe an answer for any one.
MG,
I been around discussions on the drawdown from USAREUR off and on the past 7 years or so, comes with the short jobs I take.
First it was the ‘Serbs are such a problem’, Slovodan is an Hitler incarnate, then the Kosovars need a security force, all kinds of missions for US Army, none of which matter a bit to the common defense.
As to Iran, just another boogey man.
I don’t see the need for USAREUR other than that a lot of generals and high paid GS’s love the beer.
Better a peace corps rather than an Army corps.
Cheaper too.
MG’s link to the QDR report, think tank contrivances!
Buzz words with limited connection.
“NATO is critical to ensuring the security and stability of Europe by addressing a broad range of security issues both inside and outside NATO’s treaty area. We will work to ensure a strong NATO that provides a credible Article 5 security commitment, deters threats to Alliance security, has access to U.S. capabilities such as the phased, adaptive approach to European missile defense to address the proliferation of ballistic missiles, and takes on new threats such as cyberspace attacks.”
“The need for NATO to develop its own comprehensive civil-military approach, as well as greater cooperation with the EU and other international organizations, is especially evident in Afghanistan, where every NATO ally and the EU are contributing to the international effort—including personnel contributions to the International Security Assistance Force—to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda [,100 AQ operatives, forget the need to brainwash the insurgents or kill them all] and eliminate its safe havens.”
NATO needs to be into empire and occupation just like the US. The NATO security industry complex needs to run the EU just like in the US.
All this from MG’s link contrives to get a force for NATO.
Why 4 brigades in NATO? Security and stability of Europe? What value to the US?
So they can fight there move to engage in short time. No one there to move toward, used to move to Fulda, now the enemy order of battle is gone.
So, the C-17’s can come into Frankfurt empty from Charleston and move a few companies to Kosovo, That is no reason, the logistics is no better than coming from the states. Or is it better to get them to Iran? No!
So, the brigades can pull their rotation in the occupations?
So Voldemort is foiled?
An example fo no change from Obama!
“Wyrd bið ful āræd”