Troop Movement - Germany

[billisonboard]

Trump indicates he's not budging on reducing number of US troops in Germany

There are approximately 34,000 US troops stationed in Germany. CNN previously reported that the exact size of the reduction has not been decided, but a cut of 9,500 is the current tentative planning figure.

If the plan was to reduce the military by this number, I would support that. But that does not appear to be the plan. In fact I am not seeing any plan on where these troops will go. Are we going to have to build new bases/expand existing bases?

This reads like another Ready, Fire, Aim move by Presidenr Trump.

[kadee79]

I have no idea where I read it, it was several days ago...shortly after the first announcement.  Some of the troops were to go to Poland, some to another location & some to come home.  Not sure if that was a "set in stone" plan or just something they 'thinking' about.

But no matter what, Russia is already moving more troops into that western area.

[djAdvocate]

most countries hate having our troops there.
if this is supposed to seem like a sleight, it is going to fall flat.

[Tennesseer]

billisonboard - you posted something related to this 11 days ago on another thread. It was regarding trump moving about 9,000 troops out of Germany. You provided a link back then to the news but the link didn't work. So here is another June 5th link about that move:

Trump Plans to Withdraw Some U.S. Troops From Germany, a Key NATO Ally
The plan is a further blow to America’s weakening European alliances and likely to be welcomed by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

WASHINGTON — The United States will cut its troop presence in Germany by more than 25 percent, former American officials said on Friday, as the Trump administration sends a frosty message to a major NATO ally and shrinks a military footprint long resented by the Kremlin.

The new cap, approved by President Trump and Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, will limit American troops in Germany to 25,000, said a former senior official with knowledge of the decision. That would mean a reduction of 9,500, or more than one quarter, from current levels.

The move — which blindsided German officials and many American military leaders in Europe — is in keeping with Mr. Trump’s “America First” vision of limited U.S. deployments overseas, and with his insistence that allies must shoulder more of the burden for their own defense.

It is not clear whether the plan, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, is final, and some former officials said they hoped Mr. Trump would reconsider. Several said that, if enforced, the troop cut would further undermine an Atlantic alliance that Mr. Trump has badly shaken, and was a gift to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has been eager to see a diminished American military presence on the continent.

Complete article here:  Trump Plans to Withdraw Some U.S. Troops From Germany, a Key NATO Ally

[NastyWoman]

Jun 16, 2020 11:31:53 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Trump indicates he's not budging on reducing number of US troops in Germany

There are approximately 34,000 US troops stationed in Germany. CNN previously reported that the exact size of the reduction has not been decided, but a cut of 9,500 is the current tentative planning figure.

If the plan was to reduce the military by this number, I would support that. But that does not appear to be the plane. In fact I am not seeing any plan on where these troops will go. Are we going to have to build new bases/expand existing bases?

This reads like another Ready, Fire, Aim move by Presidenr Trump.

You don't. He needs them here in the US to take back the cities and protect Lincoln Park while he inspects his bunker. 


ETA: don't worry about housing them. Tents in the park and a couple of port-a-potties will take care of that. 

[Deleted]

Gernany ? 

Reducing our troop levels overseas is a bad thing ? 

[billisonboard]

Jun 17, 2020 10:00:49 GMT -5 @x said:

Gernany ? 

Reducing our troop levels overseas is a bad thing ? 

Is that the plan? As stated in the OP, I am not seeing any talk about where these troops will end up. Will it result in an overseas reduction or just moving them elsewhere (and at what cost)? And if it means bringing them stateside, my question would be, "Is increasing our troop levels in our country a good thing?"

[djAdvocate]

I think the trend in active military is decline in troop numbers.

if this is part of that trend, I support it.

if he is preparing for November 3rd, I am opposed.

[billisonboard]

Jun 17, 2020 16:01:09 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

I think the trend in active military is decline in troop numbers.

if this is part of that trend, I support it.

if he is preparing for November 3rd, I am opposed.

Numbers are staying fairly constant: www.statista.com/statistics/232350/us-department-of-defense-personnel-numbers/

[Deleted]

Jun 17, 2020 10:39:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 17, 2020 10:00:49 GMT -5 @x said:

Gernany ? 

Reducing our troop levels overseas is a bad thing ? 

Is that the plan? As stated in the OP, I am not seeing any talk about where these troops will end up. Will it result in an overseas reduction or just moving them elsewhere (and at what cost)? And if it means bringing them stateside, my question would be, "Is increasing our troop levels in our country a good thing?"

That doesn't make sense to me. 

They won't be active duty if they return here. 

I'm all for reducing troop levels overseas, we shouldn't be the worlds policeman.

[billisonboard]

Jun 18, 2020 10:16:51 GMT -5 @x said:

Jun 17, 2020 10:39:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Is that the plan? As stated in the OP, I am not seeing any talk about where these troops will end up. Will it result in an overseas reduction or just moving them elsewhere (and at what cost)? And if it means bringing them stateside, my question would be, "Is increasing our troop levels in our country a good thing?"

That doesn't make sense to me. 

They won't be active duty if they return here. 

I'm all for reducing troop levels overseas, we shouldn't be the worlds policeman.

There are full time unifomed troops stationed at bases in the United States.

[billisonboard]

Jun 18, 2020 10:16:51 GMT -5 @x said:

Jun 17, 2020 10:39:35 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Is that the plan? As stated in the OP, I am not seeing any talk about where these troops will end up. Will it result in an overseas reduction or just moving them elsewhere (and at what cost)? And if it means bringing them stateside, my question would be, "Is increasing our troop levels in our country a good thing?"

That doesn't make sense to me. 

They won't be active duty if they return here. 

I'm all for reducing troop levels overseas, we shouldn't be the worlds policeman.

Did some research on this. Here is a link: Military and Civilian Personnel by Service/Agency by State/Country (Updated Quarterly)

If you click on the March 2020 data you will see that we have 1,188,860 active duty troops in the US and 174,956 overseas.

[dondub]

Jun 18, 2020 13:02:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 18, 2020 10:16:51 GMT -5 @x said:

That doesn't make sense to me. 

They won't be active duty if they return here. 

I'm all for reducing troop levels overseas, we shouldn't be the worlds policeman.

Did some research on this. Here is a link: Military and Civilian Personnel by Service/Agency by State/Country (Updated Quarterly)

If you click on the March 2020 data you will see that we have 1,188,860 active duty troops in the US and 174,956 overseas.

YIKES!

[alabamagal]

Military personnel are not permanently stationed anywhere. Typical assignments are 3 years, then rotation to another unit somewhere else in the world. The military will not “lay off” soldiers in Germany, nor will they move 9000 troops (and families) to another base. Typically as troops are rotated out, they will not be fully replaced so that you eventually reduce the number over a year or so.

My DSIL is currently stationed in Bavaria, deployed to support NATO in Poland where there is a small border with Russia. His unit supports the European defense against troops in tanks rolling across Europe in “old school WW2 type war. I don’t think we need to protect Germany any more, they can do it themselves.

This move will not affect troops currently there, it will just reduce the number of troops who get future assignments to Germany.

[billisonboard]

Jun 19, 2020 16:26:31 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Military personnel are not permanently stationed anywhere. Typical assignments are 3 years, then rotation to another unit somewhere else in the world. The military will not “lay off” soldiers in Germany, nor will they move 9000 troops (and families) to another base. Typically as troops are rotated out, they will not be fully replaced so that you eventually reduce the number over a year or so.

My DSIL is currently stationed in Bavaria, deployed to support NATO in Poland where there is a small border with Russia. His unit supports the European defense against troops in tanks rolling across Europe in “old school WW2 type war. I don’t think we need to protect Germany any more, they can do it themselves.

This move will not affect troops currently there, it will just reduce the number of troops who get future assignments to Germany.

Interesting. Every single source i have read indicates that the details of how the reductions would take place have not been disclosed.

[weltschmerz]

Jun 16, 2020 18:23:25 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Jun 16, 2020 11:31:53 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Trump indicates he's not budging on reducing number of US troops in Germany

There are approximately 34,000 US troops stationed in Germany. CNN previously reported that the exact size of the reduction has not been decided, but a cut of 9,500 is the current tentative planning figure.

If the plan was to reduce the military by this number, I would support that. But that does not appear to be the plane. In fact I am not seeing any plan on where these troops will go. Are we going to have to build new bases/expand existing bases?

This reads like another Ready, Fire, Aim move by Presidenr Trump.

You don't. He needs them here in the US to take back the cities and protect Lincoln Park while he inspects his bunker. 


ETA: don't worry about housing them. Tents in the park and a couple of port-a-potties will take care of that. 

He should remove them all, and just patrol the areas with his invisible planes.

"This is an incredible plane. It's stealth—you can't see it. So when I talk to even people from the other side, they're trying to order our plane. They like the fact that you can't see it. I said, "How would it do in battle with your plane?" They say, "Well we have one problem—we can't see your plane." That's a big problem. Stealth, super stealth. The best in the world. We make the best military equipment in the world. Also, remember this: jobs."

Right. This is the moron who knows more about the military than the generals.

[billisonboard]

Jun 19, 2020 16:26:31 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Military personnel are not permanently stationed anywhere. Typical assignments are 3 years, then rotation to another unit somewhere else in the world. The military will not “lay off” soldiers in Germany, nor will they move 9000 troops (and families) to another base. Typically as troops are rotated out, they will not be fully replaced so that you eventually reduce the number over a year or so.

...

It doesn't matter whether you do it in a day, a month, or a year. If you reduce the number of positions for soldiers at bases in Germany, you either have to put the soldiers filling those positions at other bases or reduce the total number of soldiers.

[countrygirl2]

I imagine they will slow walk it. Military does nothing by tweets, they actually go through the chain of command and process orders. They have a total nut for commander in chief, so sad.

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2020 10:50:09 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 18, 2020 10:16:51 GMT -5 @x said:

That doesn't make sense to me. 

They won't be active duty if they return here. 

I'm all for reducing troop levels overseas, we shouldn't be the worlds policeman.

There are full time unifomed troops stationed at bases in the United States.

Yes. 

[Deleted]

Jun 18, 2020 13:02:46 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Jun 18, 2020 10:16:51 GMT -5 @x said:

That doesn't make sense to me. 

They won't be active duty if they return here. 

I'm all for reducing troop levels overseas, we shouldn't be the worlds policeman.

Did some research on this. Here is a link: Military and Civilian Personnel by Service/Agency by State/Country (Updated Quarterly)

If you click on the March 2020 data you will see that we have 1,188,860 active duty troops in the US and 174,956 overseas.

Yes.

[Deleted]

The standing army has been around since the late 1700's. 

Potential need dictates its size.

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2020 16:26:31 GMT -5 alabamagal said:

Military personnel are not permanently stationed anywhere. Typical assignments are 3 years, then rotation to another unit somewhere else in the world. The military will not “lay off” soldiers in Germany, nor will they move 9000 troops (and families) to another base. Typically as troops are rotated out, they will not be fully replaced so that you eventually reduce the number over a year or so.

My DSIL is currently stationed in Bavaria, deployed to support NATO in Poland where there is a small border with Russia. His unit supports the European defense against troops in tanks rolling across Europe in “old school WW2 type war. I don’t think we need to protect Germany any more, they can do it themselves.

This move will not affect troops currently there, it will just reduce the number of troops who get future assignments to Germany.

[billisonboard]

Jun 22, 2020 10:20:19 GMT -5 @x said:

Jun 18, 2020 10:50:09 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

There are full time unifomed troops stationed at bases in the United States.

Yes. 

If you knew that, what in my earlier post didn't make sense to you?

[billisonboard]

Jun 22, 2020 10:27:15 GMT -5 @x said:

The standing army has been around since the late 1700's. 

Potential need dictates its size.

In the current determination of "need", IM(not so)HO, is the US playing world policemen.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 22, 2020 10:27:15 GMT -5 @x said:

The standing army has been around since the late 1700's. 

Potential need dictates its size.

has it? I thought that Wilson was responsible, which would be early 1900's.

before that, there was insufficient taxation to pay a standing army.

[billisonboard]

Jun 22, 2020 16:59:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 22, 2020 10:27:15 GMT -5 @x said:

The standing army has been around since the late 1700's. 

Potential need dictates its size.

has it? I thought that Wilson was responsible, which would be early 1900's.

before that, there was insufficient taxation to pay a standing army.

It has been very small at times, but was in existence.

[kadee79]

Jun 22, 2020 16:59:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 22, 2020 10:27:15 GMT -5 @x said:

The standing army has been around since the late 1700's. 

Potential need dictates its size.

has it? I thought that Wilson was responsible, which would be early 1900's.

before that, there was insufficient taxation to pay a standing army.

And unless something major has happened, the US still owes one of the Clark boys for the $$ he paid his troops when the government didn't have the money.   Without looking it up, if my memory is still working...it was/is George Rogers Clark that is owed the $$.

ETA...June 14, 1775....which is why Melania wished the Army a Happy Birthday but not DT.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2020 22:56:22 GMT -5 kadee79 said:

Jun 22, 2020 16:59:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

has it? I thought that Wilson was responsible, which would be early 1900's.

before that, there was insufficient taxation to pay a standing army.

And unless something major has happened, the US still owes one of the Clark boys for the $$ he paid his troops when the government didn't have the money.   Without looking it up, if my memory is still working...it was/is George Rogers Clark that is owed the $$.

ETA...June 14, 1775....which is why Melania wished the Army a Happy Birthday but not DT.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army

1775, or as i claimed without looking up the date, "late 1700's".

[Deleted]

Jun 22, 2020 16:59:16 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 22, 2020 10:27:15 GMT -5 @x said:

The standing army has been around since the late 1700's. 

Potential need dictates its size.

has it? I thought that Wilson was responsible, which would be early 1900's.

before that, there was insufficient taxation to pay a standing army.

Reply #27

[billisonboard]

US to withdraw nearly 12,000 troops from Germany in move that will cost billions and take years

Of the troops leaving Germany some 5,400 will be "staying in Europe," the official said. The remaining 6,400 forces and their families will be returned to the US and will in time redeploy to Europe.
...
"One of the only countries that hasn't agreed to pay what they're supposed to pay (on NATO) is Germany. So, I said until they pay, we're removing our soldiers, a number of our soldiers, by about half. Then when we get down to about 25,000, we'll see where we're going," Trump said last month.

What seems to be missing is a discussion of impact, positive or negative, on national security.