While our pivot to Asia doesn't actually move many forces, the shift of our focus to the Pacific from the Atlantic is really the key part. But are we forgetting Europe?
As the Pentagon sets its strategic sights on the Asia-Pacific region – warning of the rise of China and the growing importance of naval power – some US military commanders are concerned about the fate of America’s relationships with its traditional allies in Europe. ...
The point, US military commanders say, is that Europe – both “old” and “new” – are vital to US national security. In a world were multilateral action is increasingly important, military cooperation with European powers can pave the way to peace. And relations with former Soviet states have proven useful.
Yet the number of US troops in Europe continues to diminish, from nearly a quarter of a million in 1975 at the height of the Cold War to an expected 30,000 in 2015. “Thirty thousand soldiers can do a lot of things,” Hertling said. “If they’re positioned to do the right kinds of things.” ...
Yet keeping many bases open in Europe is a tough prospect, he acknowledges, because of budget concerns and because there are no US citizens or congressmen to oppose the closure of European bases. “We have no constituency,” he said. “I mean, I can’t go to our congressman and say, ‘Hey, you really need to protect this base because it’s important to us.’ ”
I stand by my worries that we reduce our Army commitment to Europe at our peril. Europe is both an objective to defend and a launching pad for defending our interests in a broad arc of crisis from West Africa to Central Asia.
In World War II, we had a "Europe first" policy to defeat Nazi Germany. That front got the priority. But we still fought an offensive war in the Pacific against Japan.
It is right to make holding Europe our economy-of-force front given the potential threats in the Asia-Pacific region. But we should not avoid paying the relatively small price and attention to hold Europe.
