Bring the troops home...from Germany, Italy and the UK!

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: Bring the troops home...from Germany, Italy and the UK!
HeavyD 9/5/2012 7:39:52 PM

I served in the Headquarters Company, 8th Infantry Division 28 years ago. Back when there was a West Germany and an East Germany. 20 years ago the wall came down. 10 years ago NATO annexed most of the major Warsaw Pact countries. But we still have 80k troops in Europe! I understand the need to some bases and facilities like the hospital at Landstuhl, but why so many still? And then there's Japan. If we pull out they will be forced to pick up the slack - but China's might will have Japan on the defensive - no one needs to fear a repeat of WWII with Japan as the aggressor. I suppose some can say that the US presence there would keep China and Japan from getting too friendly together, but this argument cannot be made in Europe. WWII ended 67 years ago, the Cold War ended 20 years ago. Time to come home.

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Plutarch 9/6/2012 12:07:18 AM

NATO was formed for three reasons: keep the Russians out, the Germans down, and the Americans in. NATO is as much a constraining alliance (i.e. limiting American hegemonic power) as it is a protective alliance. The Europeans obviously feel it is to their advantage to have American troops there, both to constrain American power and to provide some semblance of protection for internal and external threats. As long as NATO remains viable, a sizable number of American troops will remain in Europe, more than likely.

As for Japan, where I live, if American troops were removed Japan may pursue a nuclear deterrent. That scenario is less likely now after Fukishima but it is still possible. I believe the Marine bases should be removed from Okinawa, but Kadena Air Base, and Misawa Air Base and the naval bases on the main islands, should stay. Again, alliances are double-edged swords, and American power is as much tethered in Japan as it is in Europe.

One more thing: I remember a post by you a few months ago wherein you asserted you expected to live past the year 2084, yet now you claim to have been in the Army 28 years ago? Minimal age for enlistment is 18, which, if what you posted is correct would make your age at least 46 today. 2084-2012=72 more years you expect to live. 72+46=118 years, which is how old you would be. The oldest verified person in world history lived until 122, and that was a woman. The oldest man in world history is 115 years old.

If your age is what you claim to be in this post then I think you have unrealistic expectations as to your own mortality. Additionally, your writing style has always struck me as quite juvenile, so I always assumed you were younger. Care to explain the discrepancy?

Quote Reply

HeavyD 9/6/2012 6:35:06 PM

Plutarch - there are the kernels of several interesting discussions here.

First re: my age. Given the advances in biomedical science recently (i.e. decoding the human genome, our understanding of epigenetics, ways of limiting/reversing telomere loss, etc) I fully expect 120 to be a reasonable life expectancy even for someone born in 1964 as I was. I have a master's Degree in Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine and I'm involved in helping to promote breakthroughs based on these new developments - i.e. Cordyceps mushroom being proven by gene chip assays to reset 50+ genes responsible for mitchondrial function to more youthful expression.

Second writing style: I'm here for infotainment. None of my observations will ever amount to any policy change so I shoot off the cuff, reveling in irony bordering on being flippant at times. I served in peacetime and I've never been 'in the shit' so my perspective is more in the 'fanboy' camp than that of a professional combat veteran.

Now to the policy question. It is clear why the US did what it did re: foreign bases post WWII through 1990. Specific to Japan I believe the whole world, certainly the Asian Rim was glad the US was there in the '80s when Japan was an economic power just to keep them from getting itchy for expansion. My how things have changed! Japan will always, even in our (hopefully) extended lifetimes play second fiddle to China. Even if China were to implode Korea is not nor will it ever be as vulnerable as it was in pre-war times. A Nuclear Japan is of no concern to me whatsoever compared to North Korea, Pakistan, India and other countries (Iran) that will eventually develop the capability. Let Japan stimulate it's economy (and ours!) by re-building it's military to balance out China.

Re: NATO - it is clear to me how the US being in Europe gives us influence over their policy, but not how the US presence gives our European allies leverage over us and our policy.

Heavy D

p.s. Plutarch lived to be 74 years of age. Pity that we haven't made much progress in the past 2000 years on this...but we're going to make up for lost time.

http://strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link

Quote Reply

Plutarch 9/7/2012 11:23:07 AM

Re: NATO - it is clear to me how the US being in Europe gives us influence over their policy, but not how the US presence gives our European allies leverage over us and our policy.

Heavy D

p.s. Plutarch lived to be 74 years of age. Pity that we haven't made much progress in the past 2000 years on this...but we're going to make up for lost time.

http://strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link...

While your work is admirable I am not sure if it covers accidental deaths (e.g. drowning, falling, car accidents, struck by lightening, murder, snake bite, etc.) or deaths from natural disasters (floods, fires, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.). While the statistical likelihood of death from these events is small it is not zero. Bold pronouncements about living until 120 plus years old should probably be qualified from "I expect to live to 120" to "I hope to live to 120 all things being equal", considering there are so many things that can kill a human.

As for your writing style, the thing that bothers me the most are your unequivocal pronouncements, (this will happen, this will never happen, etc.,). I understand the need not to take a forum, especially this forum, too seriously, but assuming you want others to read your posts and engage in debate on issues with you then perhaps more qualified statements would be better.

I certainly don't know everything, nor can I predict everything (or anything) in the future, especially in international affairs. You could turn out to be correct on everything, but you could also be wrong. Usually if you at least qualify your statements you won't get some posters (i.e. me) questioning your age.

I will get back to you on Japan and NATO with a more in-depth post soon.

Quote Reply

HeavyD 9/7/2012 1:36:18 PM

Many times my opinions are relatively absolute and I state them as such. This does not mean that others are not free to counter or rebut, but many people, perhaps most want to avoid "Chevy vs Ford" diehard fanboy religious argument. For example I believe that absolutely there is a place for diesel subs in the US Navy, or that maintaining 10 super carriers is an unaffordable luxury but I can state my position and reasoning, and then acknowledge counter-positions to indicate that my cup is not full to the brim...thanks for the input.

Quote Reply

Plutarch 9/8/2012 1:54:31 AM

Japan: My point about Japan and nuclear weapons is not that you should fear a nuclear-armed Japan, at least not from a theoretical standpoint, but from a policy standpoint it causes complications for the US if it were to remove all of its troops from Japan. Japan has territorial disputes with China, Russia, and South Korea, so removing US troops, and presumably nuclear guarantees from Japan to the extent that Japan acquires nuclear weapons could put the US (with its troops and nuclear guarantees presumably still in place in South Korea) on the opposite side of Japan on Korean-Japanese disputes.

Japan is democratic but it is not a Western country so to assume that it will always follow the US, even without US troops stationed there, is perhaps a faulty assumption. The Chinese, Koreans, and other Asians oftentimes look to Japan as the model for a Great Power rather than the U.S. Japan does have demographic challenges to say the least but they have proven to do more with less, so I wouldn't count them as always being second fiddle.

NATO: Patricia Weitsman does a better job than I of explaining "tethering alliances", her book on the subject is

"Dangerous Alliances: Proponents of Peace, Weapons of War" I highly recommend it. Suffice it to say there are institutional constraints within NATO that do limit American ambitions and policy initiatives. Having US troops in Europe means the US is invested in NATO, all of NATO, including the constraints on American power.

Quote Reply