Ezra inadvertantly utters the most truthful aspect of the democratic opposition to force realignment:
The whole kerfluffle (hah! Jesse owes me 5 bucks) over Bush’s plan to reduce troop levels in Europe and Asia is tough. On the one hand, I’m all for diminishing outdated military commitments. We do not need to defend Germany any longer. On the other, I just don’t trust Bush here.
He might be right, but I don’t trust him.
bg
I don’t see what’s so wrong with that. I didn’t support the war in Iraq simply because I didn’t think the President would handle it properly (so far, I believe I was correct).
This happens – even if I agree with the President on the merits of his argument, I still think he’s arguing in bad faith and I don’t trust him.
I hardly think Jesse and I are the only ones who think that and I spoke to a Republican party bigwig two days ago who essentially said the same thing about President Clinton.
So what’s the big deal?
JPS
The big deal is, the logical corollary is that a good fraction of the Dem party is willing to commit to keeping these forces where they are, defending at great cost against a threat that no longer exists, just because George Bush now wants them withdrawn.
Listen, if you want to be irrational and wasteful, fine, but don’t defend it by pointing out that people you don’t like do it too.
bg
Whoa buddy, step back a bit.
I’ll reflect on your “argument” and get back to you.
Ezra
John — There’s nothing “inadvertent” about that, it’s the overt point. I didn’t slip up and say I don’t support it because I don’t trust Bush, that was the point of the entire piece. It is, I think, the point of this entire election. Everything I nominally supported the guy on — Iraq, NCLB, Medicare — he fucked up beyond repair.
bg
OK – I think that its perhaps worse to remove troops from Korea and Germany hastily without considering the consequenses – which I don’t trust the President to do – then to leave them where they already are.
Three of those consequense are (1) soldiers will be farther from hotspots like Korea, the Middle East and Afghanistan, (2) it will cost $7 billion to do it and (3) I worry N. Korea will take it as a sign of weakness and it seems like rewarding them for being a pain in our ass.
I’m not saying I’m opposed to something just because the President or Republicans are in favor of it. I’m saying I agree with the President and Republicans on some things but don’t think the President will handle certain situations appropriately (or to my liking), often leaving the country worse off than had it not pursued his policy in the first place.
Nor am I saying that just because Republicans didn’t trust Clinton it’s OK for me to not trust the President. I’m saying I think this isn’t worthy of surprise or dismay.
So how about this: Convince me this is a good idea.
Dean
You mean, like North Korea?
You know, where Jimmeh Cottuh and Clinton had negotiated a leaky deal, turns out the NKs weren’t abiding by it (HEU) OR the other agreements (reached in ’91 and ’89) Clinton was going to recognize the North anyway (and Gore would have), but Dubya doesn’t. So, this is Dubya screwing the pooch?
Huh?
Or the Mid-East? Arafat rejects Taba, flushing his credibility down the toilet, but it’s DUBYA’s fault for screwing up the Middle East?
I keep wondering how the Left thinks that either situation SHOULD have been resolved, but what I get is “Keep negotiating” as the mantra. Ignore the blatant cheating (North Korea) or the blatant dissing (Remember the car-bombing of the American convoy in Gaza? Or the subsequent release of the bombers?).
THIS is a NON-f***ed up policy?
bg
You talkin to me Dean?
Dean
bg:
No, I was responding to Ezra.
As to your comments:
I treat Europe and Korea separately. I think that pulling out of Korea needs to be carefully thought out, Japan is a bad idea completely. (OTOH, I also think that if the RoKs keep saying they want us out, hey, like in the Philippines in 1989-1991, we’re outta there.)
But pulling troops out of Europe is a MUCH better idea. It’s not clear to me that Beaumont Texas is that much farther away from hot-spots than Wurzburg (remember that troops would go to Bremerhaven, then have to sail AROUND Europe).
And as the EUros constantly remind us, the prospect of war in EUrope is now nil. So, why are these troops there, rather than nearer to TRANSCOM units (which are US-based) that will move them?
It might hurt our relations w/ Germany and France? Well, France doesn’t host troops—and why would it hurt relations w/ Germany? Esp. if Germany sees its interests as sufficiently divergent that it doesn’t agree on what those troops should be used FOR?
Finally, where did this $7 bn price-tag come from?
JPS
bg: “Whoa buddy, step back a bit.”
Well, that brought me up short, so I did.
I’m not sure I can convince you that this is a good idea. It seems like one to me. I was mainly thinking of Germany, from which the largest numbers of troops are to be redeployed. We’ll spend the money (more or less one time) to relocate them, instead of spending money (indefinitely) to keep them there. Our allies in Europe are wealthy and populous. They’re grownups, and they ought to be able to defend themselves.
On N. Korea, you make a good point. I worry about that too; however, there are ways, other than stationing troops as a tripwire, to show Pyongyang we’re serious about defending S. Korea.
I’ve seen a lot of criticism of this plan that is mainly based on the fact that Bush proposed it, or that he might in some way benefit from it, from people who don’t consider–or care–whether it’s otherwise a good move. This bothers me (just as irresponsible, knee-jerk opposition to Clinton, whom I deplored, bothered me), and I (mis-?)read your comment as affirming that mistrust of Bush is all we need to go on here.
‘Course, if you’re going to get substantive on me, then that changes everything. So if I misread you, I’m sorry.
bg
Dean – my opposition isn’t based on whether or not it damages our relationship with France and Germany. Your other points are well taken.
Here’s the $7 billion, which refers to pulling out troops in ALL countries (note that it also says after the initial invesment withdrawing troops will possibly save over $1 billion annually – so this cuts both ways.)
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence=1
“There would be limited annual savings to offset the large initial investment needed to restation U.S. forces, unless U.S. presence overseas was greatly reduced. In that case, annual savings could exceed $1 billion, but the net up-front investment would be substantial–on the order of $7 billion.”
JPS – hey, that’s kool and the gang. Your points are also well taken.
bg
I’d also like to say that if we remove troops from the UK and Italy, I won’t much care.
It might be good to move troops from Germany to Italy, but the Italians might not like 56k Army and 15k Airforce personnel in addition to the 4k personnel already there.
Personally, I like having troops in Korea and Japan because I feel more threatened by N. Korea than Islamic terrorists.
Dean
bg:
The CBO report citation is interesting, but, as they note, there’d also be annual savings of ~$1bn (for the $7bn option). So, AT MOST, it would be about $6bn in up-front costs. And it’s not clear if that price tag is for Europe or Europe+Korea.
Yeah, that’d still be a hunka change.
OTOH:
1. The money would be spent at home.
2. The facilities would be newer (some US units in Germany are based in facilities built under the Kaiser).
3. The facilities would be MUCH closer to the units that would MOVE them.
4. At some level, there’s a so-what aspect involved.
If the troop presence there is overtaken by events, is it really better to keep them there in order to save money?
In the 1980s, the US Navy was hitting block obsolescence. It was gonna cost a HUNK of money to build new ships—but was that really inferior to keeping thirty year-old FRAM II vessels around?
bg
Just before the $7billion bullet point is this:
“Most of the discussion of changing U.S. basing overseas has focused on Army forces in Europe and South Korea, so this study looks primarily at those two areas.”
So I assume that it’s Europe and S. Korea and retract what I said earlier about it being an estimate for all troops.
“1. The money would be spent at home. ”
Yeah, but aren’t US bases overseas considered US soil and still, technically, “home?” (This is academic and I get what you’re saying)
But going back to my first point – If you’re like me and you’re not sure the President will consider these things in a proper manner, what should you support?
JKC
Make fun of Ezra if you like, John; but Dan Drezner (who you were kind enough to point me to and who I enjoy reading immensely) is coming to the same conclusion.
John Cole
I wasn’t aware I was making fun of him- I was just pointing out that this has been the Democrat position from day one. Whatever Bush does, even if it might be a good thing, they don;t trust him with it.
Al Maviva
I don’t know why anybody to the left of Jim Jeffords would be upset about this move.
First off, it will help Europe escape out from under American cultural imperialism.
Second, it will reduce the threat that Kim Jong Il feels from our crazy cowboy president, thus freeing him up to negotiate with us. He has said as much. That’s the goal, right, more negotiation with Kim?
Third, it will improve our reputation around the world, because we won’t have those scary troops with their scary guns stationed in as many foreign countries, and we will be less able to intimidate them.
The pacifist left, here and abroad, should be busting a friggin’ nut over this, and the Euro Socialists who don’t much like us ought to be pitching a tent about it. The entire left world wide ought to be damn near incapable of talking based on all the heavy breathing. Come on, guys – you’ve won. Give it a rest. I don’t get all the friction coming from the left on this. All I can assume is it’s the “hate Bush no matter what he does” thing, or you are upset at losing a big stick (“U.S. occupying forces”) with which to bludgeon the United States.
shark
Look, Democrats are the anti-war, pacifist party, John Kerry’s chirade notwithstanding. So who gives a flying fig what they say about troop deployments and such? Go back to whining about universal healthcare Dems. At least you’re on familiar turf there. Let the adults decide aout military matters
Bloggerhead
Shark:
You compose a comment that sounds like a petulant, mewling brat, and end it with “let the adults decide.”
I would imagine that fisking isn’t the only thing you frequently do with yourself.
Declan
Is anybody aware that the restructuring of troops that we’re all discussing here is only 5% of our ENTIRE military and is to go into effect over a period of TEN YEARS? The first year alone will result in 6,500 troops coming back to the USA. The remainder will return during the remaining nine years.
Seems to me that certain states in Germany (notably Bavaria) have been living large off the presence of US Divisions. They should shoulder their own defense. 60 years is long enough.
Interestingly, a good Deutscher friend based in Frankfurt has a buddy who is a Hauptmann in a Panzer Division (Leopards). Herr Hauptmann bemoans the state of the Deutcher Bundeswehr. He says tanks break down on a regular basis and are left stranded in the motor pool for weeks, sometimes months due to the lack of budget for repair parts. He also says their token peace keeping forces in the Balkans and Afghanistan is a SERIOUS drain on their resources. Time for them to seriously get their act together, aye?
JKC
The idea of Europe having to shoulder the burden for its own defense is appealing. Imagine Europe with its own unified armed forces…
Reminds me of that old adage: Be careful what you wish for…
Dean
JKC:
I’m always mindful of that adage.
Which is why if the EUros were more het up to take on this job, I’d be much more leery.
But you forget:
1. We’re not withdrawing from NATO, not even the military command structure. For those claiming “petulance,” see “France, 1966.”
2. What is NATO’s weakness (and the RoK’s)? It’s C4ISR, not troop numbers. As many an academic (who was making this argument during the Reagan, Bush, and even early Clinton years) will point out, Western Europe and South Korea have plenty of troops.
3. EUrope MIGHT create a unified military. Just curious: Whose tank design? How many aircraft (in terms of building aircraft efficiently and cost-effectively, as opposed to a giant jobs program, see “Eurofighter Typhoon”)? Whose ships (see “Frigate, Horizon”)?
Finally, are people really now arguing that we should NOT heed the opinions of foreign leaders and populations who march? Isn’t that, er, rather unilateral of you?
JKC
Whoa- don’t misunderstand me, Dean. I actually think Bush’s plan is a good idea. We don’t need to be in Western Europe any more; there’s no Red Army massing on the frontier. I suspect the biggest danger to Western Europe from its neighbors to the east is a potential flood of cheap consumer goods.*
South Korea’s a different story; count me agnostic on that. It seems to me, though, that a word whispered in NK’s ear that if they continue to build nukes, we’ll sell some of ours to South Korea and Japan would cause them to reconsider their behavior.
*Europe’s biggest internal threat, IMHO, would be a repeat of ethnic violence like that seen in the Balkans. Hopefully they’ll have the foresight to solve the problem early and forcefully, should it recurr.
RW
Ezra,
What about NCLB do you have a problem with? Bush has increased spending on education over 40% (and I’ve noted as such on your site in comments, so you’re aware of this).
Is 50% enough?
60%?
Or whatever number a Democrat proposes?
capt joe
Our dealing with North Korea were a disaster for at least a decade before GWB took office. Pretending they were only that way on election day is not worth responding to.
Even now, there is wvery little we can do with NoKo. Everytime we negociate with them, they break the agreements. What purpose is gained in the fultility of another Saddam inspired inspection process when everyone believes that they are cheating and hiding it.
Just look at what is happening in Iran.
Whatever happens, will happen. I say start planning the humanitarian relief for a short nuclear war in Korea.