marcus_crassus
04.06.04, 13:35
zrodlo: NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/04/politics/04MILI.html?hp
sciagnalem bo strona dostepna tylko dla rejestrowanych uzytkownikow.
A Pentagon Plan Would Cut Back G.I.'s in Germany
ASHINGTON, June 3 — The Pentagon has proposed a plan to withdraw its two Army
divisions from Germany and undertake an array of other changes in its
European-based forces, in the most significant rearrangement of the American
military around the world since the beginning of the cold war, according to
American and allied officials.
Pentagon policy makers said the aim is to afford maximum flexibility in
sending forces to the Middle East, Central Asia and other potential
battlegrounds. But some experts and allied officials are concerned that the
shift will reduce Washington's influence in NATO and weaken its diplomatic
links with its allies, all at a time of rising anti-American sentiment around
the world.
The proposal to withdraw the divisions comes at a time when the Army is
stretched thin by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Pentagon officials
said the move, which has been under consideration for some time and involves
forces in Asia as well as in Europe, is unrelated to the current fighting.
Under the Pentagon plan, the Germany-based First Armored Division and First
Infantry Division would be returned to the United States. A brigade equipped
with Stryker light armored vehicles would be deployed in Germany. A typical
division consists of three brigades and can number 20,000 troops if
logistical units are included, though these two divisions have only two
brigades each in Germany, with the other brigade in the United States.
In addition, a wing of F-16 fighters may be shifted from their base in
Spangdahlem, Germany, to the Incirlik base in Turkey, which would move the
aircraft closer to the volatile Middle East; a wing generally consists of 72
aircraft. Under the Pentagon plan, the shift would be carried out only if the
Turks gave the United States broad latitude for using them, something that
some officials see as unlikely.
The Navy's headquarters in Europe would be transferred from Britain to Italy.
Administration officials are also discussing plans to remove some F-15
fighters from Britain and to withdraw the handful of F-15 fighters that are
normally deployed in Iceland, though final decisions have not been made.
Administration officials said Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense
for policy, recently briefed German officials on the plan. The Germans were
told that the withdrawal plan had yet to be formally approved by President
Bush and that the United States would listen to their concerns, an American
official said.
Officials said they expected the major decisions on the rearrangement to be
made in a month or two. But the main direction of the Pentagon plan appears
to be set.
"Everything is going to move everywhere," Mr. Feith said a year ago, as the
Bush administration was beginning to develop the details of its plan. "There
is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it
used to be."
For Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the reasons for the reshuffling
seem clear and compelling: that the purpose of military units is to fight and
win the nation's wars, and they should be stationed in locations that enable
the United States to use them most efficiently and with minimal political
restrictions.
"It's time to adjust those locations from static defense to a more agile and
a more capable and a more 21st-century posture," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters
on Thursday on a flight to Singapore.
Proponents of Mr. Rumsfeld's plan see little merit in keeping a large number
of forces in Germany now that the cold war is over. They argue that the
United States would be better off withdrawing most of them and establishing
new bases in Southeastern Europe, from which forces could be rushed if there
was a crisis in the Caucasus or the Middle East.
"From a strategic point of view, there is more sense in moving things out of
Germany and having something in Bulgaria and Romania," said Joseph Ralston, a
retired general and a former NATO commander.
But some experts and allied officials are concerned that a substantial
reduction in the United States military presence in Europe would reduce
American influence there, reinforce the notion that the Bush administration
prefers to act unilaterally and inadvertently lend support to the French
contention that Europe must rely on itself for its security.
Montgomery Meigs, a retired general and the former head of Army forces in
Europe, said substantial reductions in American troops in Europe could limit
the opportunities to train with NATO's new East European members and other
allies. While American forces can still be sent for exercises from the United
States, he said, it will be more difficult and costly to do so.
"You will never sustain the level of engagement from the United States that
you can from Europe," he said. "We will not go to as many NATO exercises or
have as many training events."
Other specialists have warned that the greatest risk is the possible damage
to allied relations.
"The most serious potential consequences of the contemplated shifts would not
be military but political and diplomatic," Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson
Ward of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies
wrote in an article published last year in the journal Foreign Affairs, well
before the extent of the changes now planned became known."Unless the changes
are paired with a sustained and effective diplomatic campaign, therefore,
they could well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the United
States."
Gen. James Jones, the American commander of NATO, has supported the
withdrawal of the two divisions from Europe on the understanding that
American ground units would rotate regularly through Europe, allied officials
say. But some allied officials believe it is less clear that the Pentagon
will finance and organize the regular rotation of forces that are central to
General Jones's vision, especially since so much of the United States' energy
and effort is focused on Iraq.
Already, administration officials have said a brigade of troops is to be
shifted from Korea to Iraq. That reflects both the demand for additional
forces in Iraq and the new thinking about positioning forces in Asia.
Pentagon officials insist they are effectively managing relations with key
allies. "What we have been hearing from the allies privately and publicly is
that they understand the U.S. is changing and want to stay connected," said
Andy Hoehn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy. "The real
message is that we have been consulting with the allies and the result has
been pretty positive."
The Pentagon plan was discussed at a May 20 meeting of top United States
officials. Administration officials declined to comment on the record about
the session. A State Department official said that the meeting was
a "snapshot at a given time," and that some ideas have continued to be
refined since then. In the meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who
was once the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he thought it was
unlikely that the Turks would agree to allow the United States to operate
freely from Turkish bases. Gen. Richard B. Myers, the current chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said securing Turkey's agreement was a long shot
and indicated that he favored keeping the F-16's in Germany, according to an
account of the session that was provided.
No United States forces are to be removed from Italy. The Navy's European
headquarters, however, is scheduled to move from London to Naples.
Earlier plans to move that headquarte