A Map of the Middle East

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 07, 2005, 01:06 PM | #

Exactly what is the justification given for keeping an American army in Germany?  Yes, I know, its size has been reduced.  But why is it still there at all?  Why hasn’t its size been reduced to zero?  Ditto Japan.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 07, 2005, 03:18 PM | #

Various non-security related reasons, Fred. For starters:-

1. Maintaining America’s European sphere of influence remains desirable even though the threat from the east is gone.

2. Military reach - provision of out-of-theatre support for ME forces.

3. Profile maintenance - American forces don’t strike much fear in the world if they are all safely enconsed in the car pool at Fort Baxter.

4. Flexibility, preparedness and response - you never know when and where force application will be required.

5. Asset maintenance - anyway, why give up a good base if you really don’t have to?

And from the German side:-

1. Comfort blanket - not that Hans is paranoid about Putin, you understand.

2. The mighty Greenback - popular with small businesses, ladies of the night etc.

3. Kinda difficult to tell ‘em to go, especially after all those 9/11 connections to Hamburg.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 07, 2005, 03:50 PM | #

GW, what, realistically, would be the downside for Europe—if anything—should the U.S. pull all its military forces out of there?  I’m not talking about effects on the local economies of the towns surrounding the bases (I see those effects as easily remedied by the German government anyway).  Are France and England afraid of Germany?  Is Germany afraid of Russia?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 07, 2005, 03:52 PM | #

As far as worldwide projection of force goes, lots of Americans are hoping for the day when the U.S. will stop projecting so much force around the world and begin solving its problems here at home instead.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 07, 2005, 05:00 PM | #

Fred:

‘The bigger they are, the harder they fall’. We will ( and are paying) pay a terrific cost for the belligerancy.

The book also has a similar map for US Miltary Bases in Central Asia. No map for Australia and Asian- which I understand we have a many installations.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 07, 2005, 05:13 PM | #

Geoff, remember all the talk about “the peace dividend” at the start of the 90s, when it was apparent that the U.S.S.R. and the rest of Eastern European communism had totally collapsed, removing the cause of all the humungous Cold War military expenditures?  Whatever happened to “the peace dividend”?  (That’s a rherotical question, of course—no need to answer it:  we all know perfectly well what happened to it.  It went into the same pockets it had been going into all along.  What, did anyone actually think for one second they were going to let the American people have some of their own money back?  Are you crazy or something?  Of course they weren’t!  They simply found other rationalizations for taking the money and in the process skimming their fifteen percent or thirty percent off the top or whatever the standard figure is that D.C. skims off the top of every dollar that passes through its grubby paws ...  Did people actually DREAM that something different was going to happen? ...  Well, it’s time to wake up if they did ...)

Posted by Tim on June 07, 2005, 10:14 PM | #

There aren’t many permanent US military installations in Australia. No US ships or armoured units or USAF squadrons based here. There is the Pine Gap / Nurrungar site which is apparently an important satellite receiving station, but that is about it. There was a joint USN/Australian communications facility at NW cape in WA but that has been transferred to Aust operation. US forces do train in Australia mostly at Australian facilities and with Australian forces. I don’t think it is accurate to describe Australia as a major host of US bases.

Posted by Geoff Beck on June 07, 2005, 10:22 PM | #

Tim:

Australia is just one node in the grid.

As I recall Pine Gap was a center of some sort of controversy, years ago.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on June 08, 2005, 09:18 AM | #

As far as I know NATO was designed partly to establish US hegemony over Western Europe, especially Germany. As it is structured, and with all those U.S. bases member European nations no longer have an independent foreign policy.

Same with the basing of troops in Japan. In reality they are there not so much to protect Japan (bases not necessary) but to maintain US dominance. Japan pays $5 billion per annum for this occupation. We may see the results: Germany and Japan do not have nukes, and frankly speaking do not have militaries that can operate externally without the US.

Posted by Guessedworker on June 08, 2005, 10:24 AM | #

... what, realistically, would be the downside for Europe—if anything—should the U.S. pull all its military forces out of there?

Won’t happen while Putin’s Russia is travelling towards a (possibly expansionist) nationalism.  It is clear now, I think, that Russia has her own path to tread.  She is’t going to become a happy-clappy member of the global capitalism club under the auspices of internationalist zillionaire thieves of Jewish extraction.  She wants her roubles back, and good luck to her.

Posted by Phil on June 14, 2005, 04:22 PM | #

It is clear now, I think, that Russia has her own path to tread.  She is’t going to become a happy-clappy member of the global capitalism club under the auspices of internationalist zillionaire thieves of Jewish extraction.

Indeed. No wonder Vlad keeps getting those lectures on “Human Rights”.