US to withdraw 12,000 troops from Germany

[Stevicus]

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military on Wednesday unveiled plans to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany, in fallout from President Donald Trump’s long-simmering feud with Berlin but said it will keep nearly half of those forces in Europe to address tension with Russia.

Trump announced his intention last month to cut by about a third the 36,000-strong U.S. troop contingent in Germany, faulting the close U.S. ally for failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target and accusing it of taking advantage of the United States on trade.

“We don’t want to be the suckers any more,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Wednesday about the decision. “We’re reducing the force because they’re not paying their bills; it’s very simple.”

Trump said he was doing it because, in his view, Germany has failed to meet NATO's defense spending target of 2% of GDP. He also accused Germany of taking advantage of the US on trade.

Defense Secretary Esper said that some troops may be moved to the Black Sea region and the Baltic states.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper has not portrayed the pullout in those terms and said the military’s plan would prevent the troop movements from undermining NATO and its efforts to deter Russian intervention, following Moscow’s 2014 annexation of the Crimean Peninsula.

In remarks likely to irk Moscow, Esper said some U.S. troops would reposition to the Black Sea region and some could temporarily deploy in waves to the Baltics.

Other forces leaving Germany would permanently move to Italy and the U.S. military’s European headquarters would relocate from Stuttgart, Germany, to Belgium.

Germany says that it would weaken the NATO alliance, but Lithuania's president welcomed the move and is ready to accommodate more U.S. troops.

Still, the moves out of Germany represent a remarkable rebuke to one of the closest U.S. military allies and trading partners, while two beneficiaries, Italy and Belgium, are low-spending alliance members, according to NATO data.

Norbert Roettgen, chairman of the German parliament’s foreign affairs committee and an ally of Chancellor Angela Merkel, said the troop withdrawal from Germany “will weaken the (NATO) alliance.”

But NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg struck an upbeat tone in a statement, saying allies had been briefed by the United States. Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda told Reuters that his country was ready to accept more American soldiers.

“I value very favorably the news that the U.S. mentioned possibility of moving some troops to the Baltic countries,” Nauseda said.

Romney was critical of the move.

U.S. Republican Senator Mitt Romney, who has been critical of Trump, said the plan to remove troops from Germany was a “grave error.” “It is a slap in the face at a friend and ally,” Romney said in a statement.

I'll admit I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the way that Trump is doing this, but on the other hand, I've thought (long before Trump's election) that a US withdrawal of overseas troops has been long overdue. (As a longtime peacenik, I've always believed that US forces should be reduced in size and scope.)

The idea that they "need" U.S. troops to defend Europe from Russia seems specious and hard to believe. Just considering that between France and Germany alone, they have a combined population larger than that of Russia. They have the wherewithal, industries, and technology to build up a rather formidable fighting force on a par with Russia, America, or anyone else. So, why don't they do it?

 

[QuestioningMind]

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe





Trump said he was doing it because, in his view, Germany has failed to meet NATO's defense spending target of 2% of GDP. He also accused Germany of taking advantage of the US on trade.

Defense Secretary Esper said that some troops may be moved to the Black Sea region and the Baltic states.



Germany says that it would weaken the NATO alliance, but Lithuania's president welcomed the move and is ready to accommodate more U.S. troops.



Romney was critical of the move.



I'll admit I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the way that Trump is doing this, but on the other hand, I've thought (long before Trump's election) that a US withdrawal of overseas troops has been long overdue. (As a longtime peacenik, I've always believed that US forces should be reduced in size and scope.)

The idea that they "need" U.S. troops to defend Europe from Russia seems specious and hard to believe. Just considering that between France and Germany alone, they have a combined population larger than that of Russia. They have the wherewithal, industries, and technology to build up a rather formidable fighting force on a par with Russia, America, or anyone else. So, why don't they do it?

It shouldn't really surprise anyone. Putin has been wanting US troops out of Europe for quite some time, so it's expected that his toady in the White House would accommodate him.

 

[Stevicus]

It shouldn't really surprise anyone. Putin has been wanting US troops out of Europe for quite some time, so it's expected that his toady in the White House would accommodate him.

Yeah, but I don't think Putin would have expected or wanted them to transfer the troops to the Baltics or the Black Sea region. That's even closer to Russia than Germany.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yeah, but I don't think Putin would have expected or wanted them to transfer the troops to the Baltics or the Black Sea region. That's even closer to Russia than Germany.

I think it has far more to do with continuing to destroy the long-time alliances we've had than anything else.

 

[Heyo]

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe





Trump said he was doing it because, in his view, Germany has failed to meet NATO's defense spending target of 2% of GDP. He also accused Germany of taking advantage of the US on trade.

Defense Secretary Esper said that some troops may be moved to the Black Sea region and the Baltic states.



Germany says that it would weaken the NATO alliance, but Lithuania's president welcomed the move and is ready to accommodate more U.S. troops.



Romney was critical of the move.



I'll admit I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the way that Trump is doing this, but on the other hand, I've thought (long before Trump's election) that a US withdrawal of overseas troops has been long overdue. (As a longtime peacenik, I've always believed that US forces should be reduced in size and scope.)

The idea that they "need" U.S. troops to defend Europe from Russia seems specious and hard to believe. Just considering that between France and Germany alone, they have a combined population larger than that of Russia. They have the wherewithal, industries, and technology to build up a rather formidable fighting force on a par with Russia, America, or anyone else. So, why don't they do it?

It was a promise in his rally to bring home troops. Besides the obvious selfish reason I want US troops out of Germany it's not the smartest move to step on Putin's toes. Moving troops to the east may even be against a treaty with Russia.
So, promise held? No, not really. Smart move? Nope. US troops out of Germany? Applause.

 

[Stevicus]

I think it has far more to do with continuing to destroy the long-time alliances we've had than anything else.

I still would say that the chances for any kind of all-out war with Russia are pretty remote. I don't think we need to "destroy" any alliances, but on the other hand, the original reasons for forming those alliances in the first place are no longer relevant in this day and age. The Cold War is over. The Warsaw Pact is gone. The Soviet Union is gone.

The world is different now. That doesn't preclude a need for defense, but to be honest, we've had warmongers and policymakers whose mindsets are still in Cold War mode. Our foreign and military policies have become anachronistic.

Granted, it could have been handled a better way, without Trump's typical "screw you" attitude he takes with some. We still could have been friendly about it. And Trump isn't the only one who has pointed out that a lot of these countries aren't really putting much of an effort into their own defense.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Can America please withdraw your military from Norway too......

 

[Stevicus]

It was a promise in his rally to bring home troops. Besides the obvious selfish reason I want US troops out of Germany it's not the smartest move to step on Putin's toes. Moving troops to the east may even be against a treaty with Russia.

Which treaty? I think it was described in the article as a "temporary" move, so maybe they're relying on some loophole.

It may step on Putin's toes, although if Trump is nothing more than Putin's "toady," then would Putin really be worried about it?

So, promise held? No, not really. Smart move? Nope. US troops out of Germany? Applause.

While I was reading the article, I checked to find out what the size of Russia's army is at present, and it's 900,000 troops. Considering that the US is removing 12,000 out of 36,000 troops in Germany, I wonder if those 12,000 troops would have made that much of a difference if the Russians launched an attack with everything they had.

I remember back in the 80s when there were huge demonstrations in Germany calling for disarmament. There was a German anti-nuclear song that became popular in the U.S. ("99 Luftballons"). I thought it was a catchy tune, but the whole thing gave me the impression that the Germans were mostly anti-war at that time. Is there still a strong anti-war sentiment today? Are there any Germans who advocate for higher spending on defense and a larger military force?

 

[Stevicus]

Can America please withdraw your military from Norway too......

Contact the White House | The White House

 

[Flame]

I'm all for bringing everyone home and closing all foreign bases. Europe is more than capable of defending itself should the need arise.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Can America please withdraw your military from Norway too......

Just have Solberg call Trump a "meanie face poopoo head." Yes, it must be that juvenil or it will soar far over Trump's head.

 

[Nakosis]

U.S. to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany but nearly half to stay in Europe





Trump said he was doing it because, in his view, Germany has failed to meet NATO's defense spending target of 2% of GDP. He also accused Germany of taking advantage of the US on trade.

Defense Secretary Esper said that some troops may be moved to the Black Sea region and the Baltic states.



Germany says that it would weaken the NATO alliance, but Lithuania's president welcomed the move and is ready to accommodate more U.S. troops.



Romney was critical of the move.



I'll admit I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the way that Trump is doing this, but on the other hand, I've thought (long before Trump's election) that a US withdrawal of overseas troops has been long overdue. (As a longtime peacenik, I've always believed that US forces should be reduced in size and scope.)

The idea that they "need" U.S. troops to defend Europe from Russia seems specious and hard to believe. Just considering that between France and Germany alone, they have a combined population larger than that of Russia. They have the wherewithal, industries, and technology to build up a rather formidable fighting force on a par with Russia, America, or anyone else. So, why don't they do it?

What the heck are we doing over there anyway?

 

[Heyo]

Which treaty? I think it was described in the article as a "temporary" move, so maybe they're relying on some loophole.

I'd have to look it up. I only remember that there is a treaty that prohibits NATO and NATO members to expand eastward. Could have been that it was only for (nuclear) missiles. If that was really a question it might have been mentioned in the media.

It may step on Putin's toes, although if Trump is nothing more than Putin's "toady," then would Putin really be worried about it?

If Trump was Putin's toady, Trump would have "brought the troops home" and celebrated it as "promise kept".
Remember that Trump isn't President by next February but the troops will still be there.

While I was reading the article, I checked to find out what the size of Russia's army is at present, and it's 900,000 troops. Considering that the US is removing 12,000 out of 36,000 troops in Germany, I wonder if those 12,000 troops would have made that much of a difference if the Russians launched an attack with everything they had.

That is a branch of higher maths that keeps eluding my understanding. By MAD maths it makes a difference if we can kill each other over by 20 or 21 times.

I remember back in the 80s when there were huge demonstrations in Germany calling for disarmament. There was a German anti-nuclear song that became popular in the U.S. ("99 Luftballons"). I thought it was a catchy tune, but the whole thing gave me the impression that the Germans were mostly anti-war at that time. Is there still a strong anti-war sentiment today? Are there any Germans who advocate for higher spending on defense and a larger military force?

Germans today are mostly indifferent. We cancelled the draft a long time ago, are surrounded by EU partners and keep mostly out of international conflicts. Our military equipment is to ~50% not combat ready and the news about it gets only a shrug from most.
Of course there are voices on the right who want to increase spending but even our arms manufacturers have given up on stringy European customers. They have always worked international and sold to both parties of conflicts.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Just have Solberg call Trump a "meanie face poopoo head." Yes, it must be that juvenil or it will soar far over Trump's head.

Solberg loves trump so I don't think that will happen....

 

[Secret Chief]

Petulant as ever, but yes please American troops return to America and stay there.

 

[PureX]

Trump doesn't do anything that doesn't serve his own wallet of his ego. So I expect this was yet another self-centered decision not in the best interest of the country, or of anyone but Donald Trump.

 

[Stevicus]

I'd have to look it up. I only remember that there is a treaty that prohibits NATO and NATO members to expand eastward. Could have been that it was only for (nuclear) missiles. If that was really a question it might have been mentioned in the media.

The article mentioned that it might "irk Moscow," but it didn't mention anything about a treaty.

If Trump was Putin's toady, Trump would have "brought the troops home" and celebrated it as "promise kept".
Remember that Trump isn't President by next February but the troops will still be there.

I don't really believe that Trump is Putin's toady, but that seems to be the prevalent view these days. On the other hand, I can see where antagonism from the West might make Russia feel cornered and isolated, which would boost Putin's popularity among the Russians. In that sense, anyone in the West who talks it up about how "dangerous" the Russians are, they could conceivably be Putin's toady.

That is a branch of higher maths that keeps eluding my understanding. By MAD maths it makes a difference if we can kill each other over by 20 or 21 times.

Same here. That's why I find myself scratching my head when politicians speak of the removal of 12,000 troops as "a gift to Russia." The rhetoric gets so thick, one can spread it with a knife, and they really expect people to believe this tripe? It seems to work on the low information voters.

Germans today are mostly indifferent. We cancelled the draft a long time ago, are surrounded by EU partners and keep mostly out of international conflicts. Our military equipment is to ~50% not combat ready and the news about it gets only a shrug from most.
Of course there are voices on the right who want to increase spending but even our arms manufacturers have given up on stringy European customers. They have always worked international and sold to both parties of conflicts.

I think that's part of Trump's complaint about European countries not contributing enough to their own defense. Trump isn't the only one saying that; that's been a common complaint among Americans for decades. It also feeds into the warmongers' rhetoric that Europe is some kind of "damsel in distress," which suggests that it's a matter of honor that Americans have a globalized military which is ready to intervene in any conflict.

That's why I'm cynical about any rhetoric which suggests that U.S. allies are too weak to defend themselves or that America has some kind of moral obligation to intervene in conflicts around the world. Warmongering interventionists have dominated US policy and controlled the narrative for a very long time, and they've mostly relied on the fact that most Americans are ignorant about geography, history, and geopolitics. But now, I guess they're learning that keeping Americans ignorant and in the dark is a knife that cuts both ways.

 

[HonestJoe]

Trump said he was doing it because, in his view, Germany has failed to meet NATO's defense spending target of 2% of GDP. He also accused Germany of taking advantage of the US on trade.

Defense Secretary Esper said that some troops may be moved to the Black Sea region and the Baltic states.

Basically Trump threw a tantrum so the adults in the room have to spin it to try to make it appear somewhat rational.

I'll admit I have mixed feelings about this. I don't like the way that Trump is doing this, but on the other hand, I've thought (long before Trump's election) that a US withdrawal of overseas troops has been long overdue. (As a longtime peacenik, I've always believed that US forces should be reduced in size and scope.)

That is about what Trump did, not just the manner then. He isn't having troops withdrawn from Europe, he's having troops withdrawn from Germany. It seems the outcome will be troops moved to Italy, the Baltics or based in the US but still deploying to Europe.

The essential US force impact in Europe as a whole will remain pretty much the same. What this is intended to change is Candidate Trump's domestic image as the big man standing up to those cheap and cowardly Europeans.

The idea that they "need" U.S. troops to defend Europe from Russia seems specious and hard to believe.

That is true. It just has absolutely nothing to do with what Trump has done here though.

 

[Heyo]

I think that's part of Trump's complaint about European countries not contributing enough to their own defense. Trump isn't the only one saying that; that's been a common complaint among Americans for decades.

Nobody says it aloud but the underlying dispute is about the evaluation of the geopolitical scene. For most Europeans Russia isn't the threat that the USSR was. We simply don't feel the need to waste our money on defence any more.

It also feeds into the warmongers' rhetoric that Europe is some kind of "damsel in distress," which suggests that it's a matter of honor that Americans have a globalized military which is ready to intervene in any conflict.

You mean: create any conflict to rectify the existence of the globalized military?
The cold war is over. But “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” - Upton Sinclair.
That's why the US military-industrial complex hasn't adapted to the new reality.

That's why I'm cynical about any rhetoric which suggests that U.S. allies are too weak to defend themselves or that America has some kind of moral obligation to intervene in conflicts around the world. Warmongering interventionists have dominated US policy and controlled the narrative for a very long time, and they've mostly relied on the fact that most Americans are ignorant about geography, history, and geopolitics. But now, I guess they're learning that keeping Americans ignorant and in the dark is a knife that cuts both ways.

Americans like their power fantasies. Only that they are getting more and more unrealistic over time.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

.....
....I checked to find out what the size of Russia's army is at present, and it's 900,000 troops. Considering that the US is removing 12,000 out of 36,000 troops in Germany, I wonder if those 12,000 troops would have made that much of a difference if the Russians launched an attack with everything they had.
......

....
That is a branch of higher maths that keeps eluding my understanding. By MAD maths it makes a difference if we can kill each other over by 20 or 21 times.

....

.....
Same here. That's why I find myself scratching my head when politicians speak of the removal of 12,000 troops as "a gift to Russia." The rhetoric gets so thick, one can spread it with a knife, and they really expect people to believe this tripe? It seems to work on the low information voters.
......

OK. I’ll bite. What is this “MAD maths” you speak of?
And how does it allow a force wipe out an opponent 30 times it’s own size? (assuming no use of nuclear, biological, or poison gas weaponry - and also recognizing that the larger opposing force is equally or nearly equally well equiped and motivated).
You may use Russia into the Ukraine or the Syrian conflict as an example of this “math” in action.

Mind you, as to the OP. Yes, I think pulling our support troops out of other nations is good overall, and yes, tRump did it out of childish spite, he did it badly, and in the end our troops are not really out of Europe anyways. This was just a slap at Germany....foorrrrrr whatever the hell Donny-boy pooped his pants over in the first place.