23

If I recall correctly, the US maintains about 30,000 men in Germany alone and thousands more in different European countries. I understand the need to project power and to rapidly deploy to any theatre of conflict, but isn't positioning an entire army corps deep in NATO territory (now that Poland, Czech and Hungary are part of NATO/EU) a bit wasteful? I know the US can't move them to Poland without angering Russia, but why not ship everyone home and cut costs now that NATO can defend itself?

Martin Schröder
  • 3,795
  • 3
  • 30
  • 47
Evil Washing Machine
  • 641
  • 4
  • 11
  • 9
    To protect Europe from Iran and North Korea, of course. – Martin Schröder Aug 03 '13 at 14:53
  • 1
    We should know better, shouldn't we? – user1873 Aug 03 '13 at 20:39
  • 11
    @user1873 The founding fathers warned against standing armies, yes, but they also kept slaves, were pro-slavery, were pro-limited suffrage, and if Benedict Arnold is a traitor to his country than the founding fathers were traitors to theirs. Being the founding fathers doesn't mean they are correct in everything. – Evil Washing Machine Aug 05 '13 at 12:27
  • 8
    Where else is a GI going to get amazing beer, hot Fraulein, and learn what bread is actually supposed to taste like? – Affable Geek Aug 05 '13 at 14:39
  • 2
    @AffableGeek - Russia? (except for beer) – user4012 Aug 06 '13 at 18:26
  • Germany is not far from the front. Not withing shooting distance, but getting them there would a quick operation if needed. – Stig Hemmer Nov 30 '16 at 08:49
  • 1
    NATO cannot defend itself. That's what Trump has been saying for months now. When the EU tried to enforce a no fly zone over an impoverished third world country (Libya) they literally RAN OUT OF MUNITIONS and were running at like 30% capacity and then the US took over command and was able to successfully execute the operation. Most Europeans states (such as Germany) have next to no standing army and lack resources to properly train and equip what they do have. One case sticks out where German APCs mounted BROOMSTICKS IN PLACE OF MACHINE GUNS DURING LIVE FIRE DRILLS. – hownowbrowncow Feb 07 '17 at 18:17
  • you should read MSM article 'Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion in bureaucratic waste' -- then obvious answer to your question is: to maintain visibility of proper spending. – lowtech Feb 07 '17 at 19:20

5 Answers5

9

Military bases are difficult to decommission-- the host country is faced with a sudden vacuum in the local economy and a chunk of real estate that likely qualifies as a hazardous waste site, so even closing redundant bases is often opposed locally.

Strategic significance isn't always obvious. Rather than having boots on the ground in case the Soviets cross the Elbe, it's often more important that there's clear airspace to a potential hot zone and a large support cadre available to handle logistics. Rammstein AFB in Germany operates as a significant logistics hub for the current conflicts in the Middle East and Italy hosts quite a lot of our Mediterranean naval presence.

Some of the historical reasons for NATO are still current. Anti-ballistic missile placement vs Russia is an ongoing project.

thehowlingpig
  • 547
  • 3
  • 3
4

The U.S. has military bases in many countries all over the world because it serves their security interests to have lots of large bases. It makes it near impossible logistically for a potential enemy to mount an attack on all bases, so there should always be a sizable amount troops for reinforcement/counterattack. They also serve as more convenient targets than the continental U.S. for attacks and aren't full of civilians so if one does get attacked its preferable to. Despite the cold war being over, the U.S. still isn't exactly friendly with Russia. These bases are also a military defense subsidy for the host country, a large army base that you aren't paying for upkeep on but contains soldiers will aid in your defense should you be attacked is a huge benefit. These bases are also partially responsible for the relative peace in Europe, its a lot harder for one country to attack another when they both have large amounts of soldiers from a third country that could take either side in a potential conflict. The U.S. has bases all over Europe because it is mutually beneficial for the U.S. and host countries.

gerrit
  • 48,247
  • 16
  • 142
  • 298
Ryathal
  • 13,905
  • 35
  • 58
  • Do you have any citations or evidence for these claims? – Publius Aug 06 '13 at 01:08
  • 1
    Alot of your claims do not make sense. If the US was aiming at Russia, then they should position their troops closer to the actual NATO border, i.e. in Romania, Poland, Slovakia and Bulgaria, and not in the middle the Eurozone in South Germany. Besides, the EU does not need a peacekeeper anymore, now with the Eurozone. Nor did they need one since WW2 (excepting a bulwark against Warsaw Pact). German citizens can travel across France without a passport since the 50's. – Evil Washing Machine Aug 06 '13 at 15:04
  • 7
    "the EU does not need a peacekeeper anymore" - [citation needed] – user4012 Aug 06 '13 at 18:28
  • We have the EU! We are so intertwined economically, and peaceful between ourselves, that there is no need for external peacekeeping forces. – Robin Green Nov 19 '13 at 22:39
  • 3
    @RobinGreen - I have several hundreds years of history that says you're wrong – user4012 Dec 07 '13 at 14:50
  • 1
    @DVK - are you so ignorant as to fail to see what the reality is like in Europe? What would an army corps in Germany achieve when a Spanish citizen can drive all the way to Poland with no consequence? Please actually know something before you try to comment it with something as patronising as "citation needed". The EU will not erupt in conflict, especially when they have a village idiot over the pond to make fun of (USA) – Evil Washing Machine Jan 26 '14 at 23:23
  • @EvilWashingMachine - Although I agree with you, it should be noted that German citizens could also travel across France without a passport in 1913. – Pere Jul 22 '19 at 08:29
3

The United States has Military bases where they are so that they can deploy troops to those areas faster and more easily.

Being able to deploy as quickly and easily as we are, is one of the major reasons why the US military is as powerful as it is. Having bases around the world makes the US military stronger.

http://thediplomat.com/2011/12/02/puncturing-the-u-s-base-myths/
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.htm

Sam I am says Reinstate Monica
  • 7,343
  • 2
  • 26
  • 60
-1

isn't positioning an entire army corps deep in NATO territory (... Poland, Czech and Hungary...) a bit wasteful?

Not really, it's easier to attack Russia that way.

... why not ship everyone home and cut costs now that NATO can defend itself?

Because NATO is an alliance for attack more than for defense. It has expanded eastward, posturing aggressively against Russia all the way to (part of) its border, and has fomented, or exacerbated a civil war within Ukraine, which over the past two years has become a NATO-vs-Russia proxy war with Ukraine as the battlefield and its army and government as the proxy.

Thus, today, and in hindsight to 10 years ago, NATO wants to maintain strong military presence in mainland Europe, due east, as a strong starting position for a potential future confronation. And after all, NATO has also "recognized the atlantic aspirations" of Georgia, not just the Ukraine.

einpoklum
  • 8,549
  • 28
  • 65
  • @sabbahillel: With due respect - it does answer the question, literally and substantively. The fact that the answer is short and worded cynically does not make it a non-answer. – einpoklum Feb 07 '17 at 19:15
  • OK I will withdraw my comment. I would suggest that you add the tripwire aspect as well. – sabbahillel Feb 07 '17 at 19:21
  • NATO has expanded towards Russia because the countries in between don't want to be invaded by Russia (again). – Caleth Dec 06 '23 at 14:31
  • @Caleth: No, that's not why NATO has expanded towards Russia. – einpoklum Dec 06 '23 at 14:32
  • Every country that joined asked to join. And in hindsight they were correct in doing so. Finland wasn't neutral because they didn't like NATO, but because the last time they were invaded from Russia the peace terms included them not joining alliances. – Caleth Dec 06 '23 at 14:34
  • @Caleth: 1. I understand you've given up on your previous argument? 2. Finland's relinquishment of neutrality increases the chance of either Russian invasion or other kind of military conflict with Russia. Look at Georgia and Ukraine as examples of that. – einpoklum Dec 06 '23 at 14:38
  • No, that's a restatement of my argument. Most of the countries that have joined NATO since the end of the cold war have been invaded from Russia in the last 100 years. Joining NATO is a deterrent to that happening again – Caleth Dec 06 '23 at 14:40
  • NATO is the "not being invaded by Russia" club. Georgia and Ukraine wanted to be in, and before they were admitted Russia invaded them, which kept them out. – Caleth Dec 06 '23 at 14:43
  • No country was invaded by Russia between 1917 and 1991, when it wasn't an independent entity. The last Russian invasion of a European country - if you don't count WW I - was in the 1870s IIANM. OTOH, Russia was occupying Ukraine, Belarus and part of Poland. – einpoklum Dec 06 '23 at 14:44
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Caleth Dec 06 '23 at 14:44
  • NATO is the "Hope for US imperial support" club. – einpoklum Dec 06 '23 at 14:45
-1

It is the legacy of the European nations refusing to pay for their own defence.

During the cold war various entreaties were made and accepted by the european states to have at least 5% of their GDP used to provide for their self defence. Only the UK, and I think maybe Greece, complied.

Due to this unwillingness the US was forced to retain credible forces of their own, both to strengthen their doctrine of deterrence, to provide a tripwire and in case of a purely conventional war. Much of the US conventional weapons budget went on equipment to thwart a mass armoured attack into Europe leaving them with legacy equipment that had a long shelf life.

This remains the case, where heavy tanks and massed artillery are of limited use in asymmetric warfare yet have to be based somewhere. Hence whilst artillery brigades dual-role as light infantry their heavy equipment still has to live somewhere, which in this case is the specially built and equipped european bases.

In short the American taxpayer picked up the bill whilst the european states concentrated on their economies.

Chaffers
  • 470
  • 3
  • 10
  • 9
    Just a rant about the Cold War with no actual information. Your 'heavy equipment' could be stored in the US, and you don't explain in the slightest why it would be stored in Europe. – DJClayworth Dec 07 '13 at 17:08
  • The US sees advantages in spending more on defense than anyone else. The US worked to stop European allies getting nuclear weapons by advocating non-proliferation and discouraging other countries' nuclear programs. There are strategic advantages to having the largest military. And in particular if you have lots of your troops in a friendly country, it should stop that country becoming less friendly. – Stuart F Dec 06 '23 at 14:52