This is it. It reminds us of the objectives for the change:
- Enhance deterrence of Russia
- Strengthen NATO
- Reassure allies
- Improve U.S. strategic flexibility and EUCOM operational flexibility
- Take care of our Service members and their families in the process.
The big picture is that the "current EUCOM plan will reposition approximately 11,900 military personnel from Germany – from roughly 36,000 down to 24,000[.]" Nearly 5,600 will redeploy to other NATO countries while the rest will return to the United States.
Details include:
--Troops redeploying within Europe include headquarters elements going to Belgium and Italy.
--The 2nd Cavalry Regiment (A Stryker brigade combat team) will return its 4,500 troops to the United States; but it will be part of a new rotation of Stryker units to the NATO Black Sea region.
--An F-16 squadron and elements of a fighter wing (the headquarters element?) will move from Germany to Italy, in order to rotate aircraft to the Black Sea region.
--Apart from the reduction, 2,500 Air Force aerial refueling and special operations personnel will cancel their move from Britain to Germany.
--In addition, lead elements of the reestablished Fifth Corps will begin rotations to Poland, which may be the first of other deployments to Poland and the Baltics NATO states.
That's it. Although what the balance of 6,400 coming home apart from 2CR is not stated. It will take money and time to carry out.
I don't like removing 2CR from Europe. Although rotations will help restore American skills in moving units across the Atlantic to Europe. But I'd rather have 2CR moved to Romania. Or--be still my heart--turned into a real armored cavalry regiment and moved to Lithuania.
And planting a corps headquarters in NATO is good. I'm on record--in Military Review (pp. 15-20)--as wanting a corps there along with 5 brigades--although with Russia being all Russian-like now the need for troops to defend Europe must be considered rather than thinking of Europe primarily as a staging area for the Arc of Crisis from West Africa to Central Asia.
And it seems as if the infrastructure in Germany to deploy American forces from America to points east and south is maintained.
So Germany takes an economic hit from the loss of American troops and their families in Germany. I assume the rest of NATO will urge Germany to take the hit and move on--and to meet their 2% spending promise sooner than Germany says they will.
So the overall move is okay assuming that Germany doesn't react irrationally to harm NATO capabilities in retaliation.
UPDATE: Oh?
Norbert Roettgen, the head of the Bundestag’s Foreign Affairs Committee, warned on Twitter, “In withdrawing 12,000 soldiers from Germany, the USA achieve[s] the exact opposite from what [Defense Secretary] Mark Esper outlined. Instead of strengthening NATO it is going to weaken the alliance.
What capabilities are lost? How is the alliance weakened? The Stryker brigade and an additional 1,900 are leaving Europe. Given Germany's refusal to have more than a token military, the Germans can hardly object to a Stryker brigade returning to the United States. Maybe the nearly 2,000 are the difference between free Europe and Europe conquered by the Russians?
Pray tell, Germany, please explain.
And explain why the mighty German economy couldn't add a single armored brigade to make up for the Stryker brigade?
Look, I'd rather reinforce Europe to deter the Russians. But I've been losing that battle for a long time.
And I'll be damned if I let the Germans cop that attitude and get away with it.
UPDATE: AFRICOM headquarters is part of the 12,000 reduction but it is not known where it might go--elsewhere in Europe or back to the United States. Is the headquarters part of the moving to America total or the elsewhere in Europe total?
There didn't seem to be a third option of "waiting to see." Although to be fair that was a description of EUCOM moves.
Or maybe I'm misreading the article and the plan to move AFRICOM headquarters was part of the "plan" for EUCOM but the personnel involved are completely separate from the 12,000. discussed.
Yet the talk all along was for a reduction in Germany to 25,000. Does the AFRICOM move go below the 25,000 and perhaps give the Pentagon room to put something new into Germany and still be under the cap?
UPDATE: On the separate reinforcement of Poland angle that will add 1,500 troops, an agreement with Poland was completed:
Under the agreement, a division command will be housed at Poznań, while a training center will be located at Drawsko Pomorskie, a frequent host of multinational NATO exercises. There will also be an Air Force logistics hub, a headquarters for a rotational Combat Aviation Brigade, two separate special ops facilities, and another base near the German border that will house an Armored Brigade Combat Team.
America is not abandoning NATO.
UPDATE: More on Poland: "Poland has agreed to fully fund infrastructure for:
- A command post of the Army’s V Corps headquarters
- A US division headquarters in Poland
- A joint-use Combat Training Center in Drawsko Pomorskie, among other training locations
- Facilities for an Air Force MQ-9 drone squadron
- An aerial port of debarkation to support the movement of forces in and out of the country
- Facilities to support special operations forces so they can conduct air, ground and maritime operations
- Infrastructure for an armored brigade combat team, a combat aviation brigade, and a combat sustainment support battalion"
This does not represent "abandoning" NATO.
UPDATE: The false charge isn't new and still isn't true.
UPDATE: More thoughts.
UPDATE: Late options. Rotating troops is more expensive than basing them there. But rotating is good practice for reinforcing Europe. Ideally I'd like more troops there and rotations.
