They have finally done it at the NY Times. They have finally created the editorial of editorials, a column so stupefyingly stupid that it leaves me sputtering and stamemring and seriously wondering why Gail Collins has a job.
Read their comments on the military’s proposed realignment of forces. This paragraph is just a gem:
The administration seems to be planning to establish new installations in Eastern Europe, but they are more likely to be used for occasional exercises than as permanent bases. An increased presence in Eastern Europe is fine, but it need not come at the expense of our German bases. Although it is certainly true that American troops no longer have to sit in Germany to protect Western Europe from the Red Army, many of today’s battlefields, like Iraq and Afghanistan, are in fact closer to Germany than they are to the United States.
No screaming eagle shit!!? Iraq is closer to Germany than it is to the United States!! Who bought these clowns a globe? What they don’t understand is so overwhelming it is difficult to begin to comment, but contrast that paragraph with these:
But it is already clear that there is a lot more to the Bush plan than was evident in the drawdown of troops that took place in the mid-1990s under President Clinton. The aim is to redeploy U.S. forces so that they are better able to address the 21st-century threats of global terrorism, rogue nations and weapons of mass destruction. Some troops will come home, while others will be shifted to new posts in new parts of the world.
This is a good idea on several levels–geographic, political and strategic. The Soviet threat has been replaced by what military analyst Andrew Krepinevich calls an “arc of instability” stretching from the Middle East to India and Pakistan and on to Southeast Asia and China. While it once made sense for U.S. forces to be massed in Germany, it now is preferable for them to be situated closer to the potential threats.
That means a presence in, among other places, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. We know the kinds of threats we are likely to face–U.S. military capabilities are already in the process of being transformed to address them–but it’s hard to predict exactly where they will emerge. Pre-9/11 who would have thought U.S. troops would be fighting a war in Afghanistan?
Politically, it means expanding the circle of allies on which the U.S. can depend. One of the lessons of the Iraq war is that allies are putting more restrictions on how U.S. forces based in their territory can be used. Turkey refused to let U.S. forces operate from bases there and Saudi Arabia was reluctant to permit American strikes against Iraq to originate from its soil.It also means redefining the word “bases.” “We’re trying to find the right phraseology,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday. The U.S. will continue to have permanent bases in Germany, he said, but it will also have “forward operating locations” in other countries where smaller numbers of U.S. military personnel will serve temporarily. He gave the examples of landing strips for aircraft in distress or refueling sites. “If you know where they are and you have those arrangements all set beforehand,” he said, “it gives you flexibility to do a lot more.”
Is there a more self-serving, arrogant, know-nothing group of partisan clowns than the folks at the NY Times? And in a related note, is there anything that Kerry and the Democrats will not politicize in their quest for the Whie House? Force realignment has been a topic for serious discussion, not partisan rancor, for 15 years. Hacks.
*** Update ***
Mark Steyn comments:
The basic flaw in the Atlantic “alliance” is that, for almost all its participants, the free world is a free lunch: a defence pact of wealthy nations in which only one guy picks up the tab. I said as much in a Canadian column I wrote on 9/11, and a few weeks later the dominion’s deputy prime minister, John Manley, conceded that his country was dining in the best restaurants without paying its way: as he put it, “You can’t just sit at the G8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom.” But in Nato, for generations, whenever the bill’s come, there’s been a stampede to the washroom, not just from the Canadians but the Continentals, too…
Like any other form of welfare, defence welfare is a hard habit to break and profoundly damaging to the recipient. The peculiarly obnoxious character of modern Europe is a logical consequence of Washington’s willingness to absolve it of responsibility for its own security. Our Defence Editor, John Keegan, once wrote that “without armed forces a state does not exist”.
That’s true in a certain sense. But, in another, for wealthy nations who’ve found a sugar daddy, it’s marvellously liberating. You’re able to preen and pose on the world stage secure in the knowledge that nobody expects you to do anything about it. Bret Stephens, the editor of the Jerusalem Post, opened his mail the other day and found a copy of something called “Conclusions of the European Council”, a summary of the work done during the six months of the Irish Euro-presidency. He made the mistake of reading it.
Here’s item 80: “The European Council expresses its deep concern at the recent events in the Eastern Congo, which could jeopardise the transition process.”
Been following that one? Europe is free to flaunt its “concern”
Niraj
I found this paragraph to be intriguing:
Is this true? I thought all the costs were being borne by the US taxpayer? Perhaps I’m mistaken.
If the Germans are contributing money, perhaps it is better spent on expanding its own military.
ape
“And in a related note, is there anything that Kerry and the Democrats will not politicize in their quest for the Whie House? Force realignment has been a topic for serious discussion, not partisan rancor, for 15 years. Hacks.”
Who’s politicizing? Wasn’t AWOL on a campaign trip in a swing-state when he made this announcement, as opposed to ‘seriously discussing it over the last 15 years’? (That’s GWB, one of the candidates, rather than an op-ed selected for this post).
If you wanted to criticize the decision per se, rather than debate levels of partisanship, a valid question might be the degree of consultation with NATO partners prior to the announcement.
shark
OOOOOOH! Germany is closer to Iraq! I guess someone never told the NYTimes about these marvelous inventions called planes and boats. They reason as a child would. Thank god the adults are in charge
Mason
Uhh, Ape, why should we consult with NATO?
jedrury
This military move has been years in the making. One of the biggest relocation costs is environmental cleanup at missile ranges and bombing sites in Germany. Millions will be paid to the Germans. It took the Bush Administration which is into long range thinking to make the move a reality.
Dean
ape:
How much consultation was there before France pulled completely out of the unified military structure?
How much consultation was there when Canada decided to withdraw its one armored brigade, or ended its commitment of the CAST Brigade to the AMF?
ape
Dean/ Mason – my comment may have had incorrect emphasis: If anyone wants to criticize this move, I dont think they can do so on the basis of it being either strategically wrong (as long as sufficient alternatives exist) or hasty.
On these points: The plan was leaked early last year and widely reported, at which time it supposedly included moving bases to Poland and Bulgaria.
If anti-bushies did want to criticise him on this then they might have to look to political fall-out amongst NATO members. I have no reason to think they weren’t fully consulted and there has been enough time.
But, on the other hand, I have not seen anything which implies that the major lesson we should learn today is that the Democrats are behaving in an overly partisan way on National Security. You could more easily make the same argument about AWOL.
I certainly agree that copying France’s approach would not be wise: there wouldnt be any pacific atolls left for the number of nukes blowing holes in them, and half the word would be in the post-colonial mess of Vietnam and Algeria. Furthermore, the worst result of the move would be if it handed credibility in Europe to France’s world-view, whereby Europe should set itself up as militarily independent from the US. Frankly, how can it be more clear that Europe and the US have to work together? Unilateralism on any side is not helpful.
Niraj – to answer your question: according to the German embassy, Germany paid an amount equivalent to the full cost of the major base, (Ramstein) and the rest of the costs are not that much. Germany also used its own troops to defend the bases. There has been a strong tradition (even part of the constitution perhaps?) since WWII that German troops cannot operate outside Germany. There have been exceptions recently.
Veeshir
You asked Is there a more self-serving, arrogant, know-nothing group of partisan clowns than the folks at the NY Times?
I don’t know about more, but this one is close.
For a while I thought the Washington Post was going for, “Paper of Record” status now that the NY Times is so bad. Oh well, it now appears that they are in a contest to see who could write more pro-Democrat ‘news’ stories.
At least the Times doesn’t have Dana Milbank.
the talking dog
Troop redeloyment may or may not be hard to assail or defend as a “strategic” move on its own merits. In a world where a lot of our firepower moves along on ships, and our entire worldwide stealth capability is based at one base in Missouri, who knows?
But certainly, the timing of the announcement(11 weeks before the election) and the place (a VFW hall in battleground Ohio) is consistent with a move being done to maximize its political benefit, particularly with regard to military members and their dependents (a key Republican constituency who might prefer being stateside, perhaps?)
Every word out of Bush’s mouth, however, will, rightly, be carefully assessed for its political motivation. This one certainly smells of an August new product launch.
John Cole
Maximizing an announcement for political benefit is not the same thing as making a decision for political reasons.
IN fact, throughout the history of the Presidency, all announcements are maximized for political benefit. Ever seen a Rose Garden ceremony with Bill Clinton signing this or that into law?
The fact of the matter is that this has been a long term decision that was finally made after years of review, and now the Kerry opposition (and that of his followerrs) is mere politicization of the issue.
Think to yourself- why all of a sudden would EVERY Democrat be against this? Other than, of course, their knee-jerk opposition to everything Bush says or does.
the talking dog
and now the Kerry opposition (and that of his followerrs) is mere politicization of the issue.
Hmmm… I see the New York Times editorial page opposing it… but last I looked, they were a privately owned (albeit publicly traded) company not controlled by either Senator or Mrs. Kerry, or the Democratic National Committee.
What is your source that Senator Kerry is opposing this redelpoyment proposal– or even taking a position on it? It is not apparent to me that Senator Kerry has even taken a position on this, much less taken a position against it (for all I know, he may support this proposal).
Do you have a link that will be more enlightening on this point, perhaps?
John Cole
I am not going to do your googling for you, but in addition to statements by Kerry I might suggest you look for Holbrooke’s statements. He is, after all, Kerry’s foreign policy advisor.
Or, you could look for statements from Wesley Clark, who made the talk show circuit last night as soon as he was dispatched by the Kerry campaign.
Harry in Atlanta
Uh, the talking dog, I believe that John’s original point was how stupid the editorial was. To base opposition on redeploying or withdrawing troops from Germany because Germany is closer to the middle-east than the US happens to be is just pure mind-boggoling stupidity.
As far as Kerry or the Democrats oppose it, eh, they have shown time and time again that they will say or do anything for the chance of power. Watching the Democrats behavior sometimes makes me wonder if their being out of power has driven them insane with frustration and unquenchable desire. That kind of lust for power is down right frightening. Besides if the Democrats don’t want the bases in Germany closed then how about we close some obsolete military bases in their states to make the military more streamlined and cost-efficient. ‘Cause we all know how much the Democrats need the Germans’ votes this November, don’t we?
ape
Perhaps the announcement could have been made by rumsfeld when he was in Eastern Europe/ Russia recently, especially if the plan includes new bases in the East. but that’s a pretty mild criticism.
BTW – John COle quotes Mark Steyn saying “Europe is free to flaunt its “concern” – and even its “deep concern” – over the Eastern Congo precisely because it’s entirely irrelevant to events in the Eastern Congo”: 1500 French troops were leading the UN presence in Congo in 2003 and therefore, I think, during the Irish EU presidency. They were highly commended for their efforts against the odds.
Gary Farber
“Iraq is closer to Germany than it is to the United States!! Who bought these clowns a globe?”
Um, John?
Via here.
Distance between Norfolk, Virginia, United States and Baghdad, Iraq, as the crow flies:
6276 miles (10101 km) (5454 nautical miles)
—-
Distance between Ramstein AB, Germany and Baghdad, Iraq, as the crow flies:
2184 miles (3515 km) (1898 nautical miles)
Distance between Ramstein AB, Germany and Kabul, Afghanistan, as the crow flies:
3235 miles (5207 km) (2811 nautical miles)
Distance between Norfolk, Virginia, United States and Kabul, Afghanistan, as the crow flies:
7036 miles (11323 km) (6114 nautical miles)
–
Globes are misleading. It’s pretty easy to check distances, though, even if one doesn’t have a good grasp of them in the first place.
I trust you’ll put a correction in your post regarding that “self-serving, arrogant, know-nothing group of partisan clowns” in regard to mutual grasps of geography.
Gary Farber
I don’t otherwise disagree with your criticism, by the way.
It also belatedly occurs to me that it’s possible you weren’t disagreeing over the distance, but merely being sarcastic that they were aware of the distances, although I don’t understand why you would be emphasizing the point or commenting on it at all, were that the case.
Dean
Gary:
And if the US Navy needs to get ships from Norfolk to Kabul, rather than from Ramstein to Kabul, BOY, will they regret withdrawing from Ramstein.
HOWEVER:
When was the last time an army unit deployed BY AIR? And what size was that? How much equipment did it bring?
Guess what, there are no strategic airlifters based out of Ramstein (C-141, C-5, C-17). So, they’re gonna have to come from CONUS anyway. (Not that we tend to deploy units like 1st AD or 1ID BY AIR.)
Or do you think, given the Turkish performance this last go-round, they’ll let us RAIL the equipment to Iran?
Or, I suppose, they could go by ship. In which case, is it farther by sea from Bremerhaven and Hamburg (main ports, iirc, for US military equipment in Germany), or Beaumont Texas and Baltimore MD? Keeping in mind that getting them to, say, Bandar Abbas requires them to actually sail the oceans blue, and not go “as the crow flies”?
timekeeper
And if the US Navy needs to get ships from Norfolk to Kabul, rather than from Ramstein to Kabul, BOY, will they regret withdrawing from Ramstein.
Dean, you’re close. The Navy is not in Ramstein, they’re in Sembach.
(refer to the second paragraph)
Not that I’d know anything about that… (grin)