Pandagon

See, Kerry's stance on missle defense is one of those that I can't really get too upset about.

I don't think that nuclear missles are even a moderate threat. In fact, I think that the defense aspects is a bit of a waste of time. However, as far as R&D; go, missle defense goes into a lot of areas, speed computing and rocketry for two prime examples.

So wanting to keep the experiements going to see if they CAN do it (I don't think they can..but I digress) may not be so much a bad thing.

Great post, Ezra. I should have made the connection -- Sunday I was reading my local paper that had a headline similar to "Bush putting diplomatic pressure on Iran..." I couldn't read it, too much to think about right now. Troop repositioning has been needed for a long time. What's the main reason we won't invade these countries right now? Our troops are stretched too thin (not to mention it'd be a political disaster, but work with me here) Bush + 4 more years + 70,000 soldiers = OH SHIT Not to be all conspiracy-theory like, but you get what I mean.

I'm not sure that Bush would be all that quick to use force in a crisis with Iran or N. Korea if he had extra troops on hand. I think Iraq was more like a perfect storm of circumstances that resulted in a massively over-determined tendency towards war on Bush's part. Not that this is really much of a defense for Bush.

Broadly speaking, there might be some similarities with LBJ and Vietnam--just because he sent hundreds of thousands of troops there doesn't necessarily mean that he also would have done it elsewhere if he had had that capability on hand (yes, there was the Dominican Republic in '65 or whenever it was, but that was small change compared to Vietnam). But the circumstances surrounding Vietnam, and LBJ's particular political tendencies and the situation he found himself in, combined to form an atmosphere in which almost every factor pointed him toward what eventually happened.

A detail that rarely gets mentioned about this redeployment is that it has actually been in the works for years - since the early 90's, actually. Bush, and of course the boot lickin' media, are announcing this as if it is some sort of new idea. Also, nothing of any significance is actually going to happen under this plan for at least another couple of years.
The timing of Bush's announcement is key, of course. Bushco knows that they need to earn some brownie points with military families, and fast.

Don't you mean "kerfuffle"? Or do you only get the five bucks if you add an extra L?

If Nitwit get reelected, he'll be using those two divisions somewhere. Troops are easy to deploy from wherever they are and the families can be brought back home in due time. Just because there's a several year time lag until it takes place, doesn't mean he can't use 'em soon.

Ezra, you're off the rails here. This plan has far more to do with the Pentagon than it does with Bush. And no doubt extensive planning for it began during the Clinton administration.

For a smarter approach, read Clemons.

Praktike -- Uh, no. I understand Clemons position, but mine is different -- I don't want to do this while Bush is, or may be, in office. I don't trust him helming our military and I'm thus more comfortable keeping them safely tied up in Germany than stateside, lying in wait for his next adventure. It's sad, but I mean it. This has long been in the works and I have little doubt that Kerry will engage a similar policy, I just don't trust it -- and can't support it -- under Bush.

safely tied up in Germany

uh, but they aren't in any way tied up.

at all.

It's easier to deploy from here then there. More to the point, it's easier to deploy when you have a coherent force of 70,000 in one spot, rather than scattered around the globe.

I heard one of Kerry's campaign advisors (can't remember his name!) on NPR expressing his disbelief at the troop redeployment announcement. His main issues seemed to be

A) that the redeployment seemed based on old information. Now that we know terrorist cells are operating in Europe, wouldn't we want to have troops a bit closer?

B) that the pulling troops out of the Korean penninsula was a huge mistake at this time. (cue Dana Carvey as 41: "Wouldn't be prudent. Not at this juncture.")

He answered each of Bush's reasoning points: redeployment--we can deploy troops from anywhere, so this is a non-issue. Cost--our NATO allies actually provide several billion dollars a years to house troops in their countries, and we'll lose this money; costs will go up, not down. Family--most permanent overseas troops have their families with them

His take? "I can't imagine why Bush is doing this now."

My first reaction was "Oh, shit, he's bringing them home to make declaring martial law easier in November." Then they said no troops will move until 2006. So I'm guessing it's for Bush's next great adventure. (cue WWE "spokesman": "We're coming for YOU, Iran!")

It's easier to deploy from here then there. More to the point, it's easier to deploy when you have a coherent force of 70,000 in one spot, rather than scattered around the globe.

Sorry, Ezra, but you're flat wrong on this. It's actually harder to deploy--at least at the speeds necessary in the 21st century world o' warfare--from the continental United States than it is from forward bases in places like Germany, Japan, South Korea, or the eastern European bases where some of the 70,000 redeployed troops are probably going to wind up (sans any of the comforts of home, natch). Which is yet another reason why this is a Very. Bad. Idea.

Sprocket is half right. This idea has been floating around for a decade or more, courtesy of our friends over at PNAC. There's another reason to oppose it--anything they're for, I'm against. But that doesn't mean I can't legitimately suspect (and I do, as I said Friday night) that the Shrubbery has ulterior motives (read: redeployment to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and/or North Korea) in announcing this thing right now. Yes, it will take months, if not years, to accomplish. And it will be very expensive (something that Chimpy very carefully neglected to mention). That still doesn't mean he isn't thinking about how he can use this to bring some of the Guard and Reserve units home from the desert, and maybe offset some of the bad publicity he's been getting and the anger he's stirring up in military families who've been separated for a year or more.

I might well be wrong on it. It still seems to me that have 70,000 troops doing nothing stateside will lend itself easier to foreign adventurism than having 70,000 troops to yank out of different parts of the world. We keep saying the redeployment can't happen for two years -- that leads me to believe there are some logistical issues with quickly utilizing a dispersed force.

Slightly off-topic, except to Anonymous above and those of us who are scared by synchronicities:

http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/originals/originals_archive/palwick2/palwick21.html

I have written about this redeployment at my blog and I want to address a couple of points.

1) The two divisions in Germany (1st Armored, 1st Infantry) are not being freed up for combat in Iraq or elsewhere. They already have been in the Iraq rotation force and will be returning no matter where they are home based.

2) This is a long standing policy initaitive of both the Clinton and Bush administrations to reduce the US footprint in Europe and other high cost areas.

3) Cost savings are minimal once additional strategic sealift is acquired.

4) The goal for future overseas deployed forces are to base them in countries which can not afford to say "No" to US requests.

5) Spite and economic retaliation against Germany and the rest of Old Euopre is mainly, from the POV of the Bush administration, a nice side benefit of this plan.

6) It is an unrealistic plan as the Bush administration is not budgeting enough money to enhance the needed strategic lift to more quickly deploy forces from CONUS to other locations.

It seems to me there are two ways of doing things:
The right way

and

The political way.
I remember back in the late '70s when it was decided to give the Panama Canal to Panama. It may have been the right thing to do, but, politically, I still know people to crow about that!

Having troops return home to America is good, although the amount does not even come close to offsetting the numbers now deployed in the Middle East.

But, if the troops are going to just be redeployed to new countries, that means Bush can continue to reward his base-building buddies long after he's gone from office.

Here's an article about the costs.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5415&sequence;=1

We keep saying the redeployment can't happen for two years -- that leads me to believe there are some logistical issues with quickly utilizing a dispersed force.

Apples and oranges, my young friend. We're not just talking about packing the troops and their gear into transport planes and landing them in a war zone. That we could do relatively quickly and easily. What Bush is talking about is totally pulling 70,000 troops, plus another 100,000 support personnel and dependents, permanently out of forward bases. That means they'll have to find places to house all of those redeployed troops, plus their dependents; places to store all of their equipment; room for them to train (and probably re-train). Then the spaces that they're vacating are either going to have to be mothballed (if we're keeping the bases) or prepared for decommissioning and sale (which will probably be a very expensive task, given the cavalier attitude taken by our military leaders toward things like toxic wastes).

The only way we'd no longer have those 70,000 troops "idling around" (a questionable assumption in the current circumstances) is if we were to demobilize them altogether. Doesn't matter if they're in Kaiserslautern, Kyoto, or Kansas City: if CheneyBushCo needs them for some ill-conceived adventure, they'll get sent. It would perhaps be a bit of a deterrent on that kind of adventurism if they had to start them out from the middle of Oklahoma. But I think the easier, cheaper, and ultimately better way of achieving a check on presidential adventurism with our troops is to re-unelect the presidential adventurer who seems to think our armed forces are little more than the little plastic GI-men he used to play with as a boy. If we encounter a real threat, we'll want to have the flexibility of some forward bases from which to move them quickly to the trouble spots.

Has anyone considered the notion that troops will be needed here at home for "domestic pacification" in November?

For example, a general uprising when the Mayberry Machiavellis steal the election, but utterly fail to hide their criminal acts...

Wait a second here, can we? Granted this has been "in the works" for a long time and all that stuff.

Doesn't a responsible statesman make an announcement of this magnitude in a *joint* press conference with representatives of the other countries involved, and of the alliances involved? *Especially* if it's the result of long negotiations etc. Lots of countries are going to be affected by this. It would be nice to know that they haven't been blindsided.

Or did the admin drop the dime on a big announcement for momentary political advantage, like it apparently did with the Khan arrest? We report, you decide.

Wait a second here, can we? Granted this has been "in the works" for a long time and all that stuff.

Doesn't a responsible statesman make an announcement of this magnitude in a *joint* press conference with representatives of the other countries involved, and of the alliances involved? *Especially* if it's the result of long negotiations etc. Lots of countries are going to be affected by this. It would be nice to know that they haven't been blindsided.

Or did the admin drop the dime on a big announcement for momentary political advantage, like it apparently did with the Khan arrest? We report, you decide.

I think Rachel Maddow at Unfiltered (on AAR) reads Pandagon. She just used the word "kerfluffle".

The commenters who said that this is a move that has been planned for a long time are right - I work for the Army in Germany, it directly affects my job, and I've been following this planning for several years.

The reason for the announcement right now is (surprise!) purely political. It's so Bush can get headlines: President to Bring Our Boys Home! which the rubes will associate with Iraq. I haven't seen it myself but I read in another blog that one of the major papers - WaPost, I think - actually ran a headline that said something very much like that.

It's the usual horseshit. Like the Mars mission or any of a thousand other examples - get some big headlines and trust that the details will be overlooked, like the fact that no one is moving anywhere for at least two or three years, that the only people who are coming back to the States are the ones who aren't getting shot at, and that none of the implementation is finalized yet.