Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> >
> > --- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > There is an indication that the administration
> is
> > > considering pulling
> > > troops out of S. Korea and reducing the force in
> W.
> > > Europe. Given the
> > > statements of the governments of S. Korea and
> > > Germany, it seems that the
> > > administration is thinking about a redefinition
> of
> > > its role in the world.
> > > It won't abandon the world and retreat into
> fortress
> > > US, but it may no
> > > longer be available to fight the main surge of a
> N.
> > > Korean attack. It
> > > might also move out of all of its German bases
> to a
> > > friendlier location in
> > > E. Europe, with a scaled back presence. My
> guess is
> > > that this will now be
> > > coupled with "why is this my problem?" response
> to
> > > issues like the Balkans.
> > > The US would intervene when world peace is at
> stake,
> > > but special attention
> > > to certain areas of the world would be reduced.
> > >
> > > Dan M.
> >
> > So, let's talk about this a little bit. Is this a
> > good idea or not? Actually, I'd suggest that this
> is
> > a discussion in two parts.
> >
> > 1. Is this a good idea _for the United States_?
I think that it is a slightly bad idea for the US to
pull out of Germany.
>From a purely strategic-location perspective, if there
is any justification for the US keeping troops in
Europe, it would be in Eastern Europe, since the next
European crises/conflicts will likely involve the
Balkans, Belarus, the Rep. of Moldova, Ukraine, or
Russia, in roughly that order of likeliness.
Now, I know very little about what sort of
*facilities* we actually have in Europe, but it seems
like whenever US soldiers get hurt in the Middle East,
the first stop is always Rammstein in Germany - so I
don't know how difficult it would be to duplicate
those facilities in another country. Likewise, if we
had a Prince Sultan-style airbase in Germany, it
probably wouldn't be worthwhile to try and move
something like that.
With that being said, however, we need to sort of
probe/pressure Germany to find out if they are
fundamentally going to align themselves as a friend of
the United States or if they are going to
fundamentally align themselves with the French as our
enemy.
Just one year ago, I was very hopefull about the
direction Germany was taking - especially as they
began to finally support military ventures outside
their borders in the Balkans, and then in Afghanistan.
It was possible that true strategic relationship
could be produced with a US-German pillarship of NATO.
The US would specialize in being the "thunder and
lightning" of offensive operations, and the Germans
would specialize in peackeeping (two fairly different
skill sets.) (The UK would sort of blue a glue
between them, participating in both.) I still have
hope that this could materialize, especially was
Schroeder gets bounced.... but it is a fundamental
question that the US needs to answer.
Keeping US troops in Germany may help keep Germany
aligned as our friend, in which case keeping our
troops in Germany will be well worth it, even with no
other strategic value. On the other hand, if
Germany is going to align itself with France as our
enemy, the possibility of Germany, paralyzing any
assets we keep in Germany over the long-term, as the
US becomes embroiled in some future conflict, is
frightening enough that it would be prudent to place
our military assets in countries that are more likely
to be fundamentally aligned with our strategic vision,
and indeed, just aligned with us as friends in the
future.
As for Dan's fear that pulling out of Germany will
lead to the US calling future Balkan-style conflicts
"not our problem", I see this as being unlikely -
especially under the current Administration. Not only
do I truly believe that the Bush sees the world
through a moral vision, but I believe that there is a
fundamental recognition that failed States are a
primary source of our most significant strategic
threat of the moment - international terrorism. I
think that the US will be very wary of letting any
more failed States arrise (and I think that this is a
primary reason the US is willing to let Palestine
languish under occupation until it democratizes... the
US feels safer letting Israel occupy Palestine than to
force Israel to create a Palestinian State that would
essentially be a corrupt and failing dictatorship.)
Anyhow, it looks like we may get to test this
prediction of mine fairly soon*, as reports this week
indicate that Papua New Guinea, already one of the
world's poorest countries, is on the verge of
collapse. We'll see how the US reacts... although
with one out of every one thousand Americans in the
Persian Gulf, are hands are a bit tied at the moment.
As for pulling out of the ROK, I think that it would
be a very bad idea. As many of you know, my basic
strategic forecast for the future is that China is the
greatest long-term threat to US interests, and as
China develops, I expect Cold War II to ensue between
the US and China in the next 50-100 (maybe 150) years
- probably complete with the same sort of proxy
battles that marred the first Cold War. As such, I
think that it would be phenomenally foolish to abandon
military bases in such a strategic location in the
next great conflict.
Moreover, it would be incredibly foolish to abandon
such bases until the DPRK situation is resolved.
First of all, bailing out on South Korea would lose us
all kinds of moral legitimacy in terms of
back-stabbing a country still perceived as our friend,
and bailing out on UN Resolutions that are still in
effect. Secondly, the DPRK is a strategic threat to
the United States, by the simple fact that it is
capable of selling nuclear weapons to terrorists, let
alone dropping a nuclear missile onto Anchorage or
Valdz, AK - and quite possible onto any of our major
West Coast cities. Basing troops in the ROK no doubt
greatly helps our intelligence , re: the DPRK, and if
the need for a first-strike against the DPRK's assets
ever arose (either because we felt that a sale or a
launch was imminent), having those bases in the ROK is
crucial.
> > 2. Is this a good idea for the rest of the world?
Absolutely not. The US is about the only thing
keeping the world for sliding into a Hobbesian
Gangsta's Paradise. Let's say the US packed up its
bags after the Cold War and went home. Today,
Slobodan Milosevic would be in Belgrade, instead of in
front of the Hague. Thousands more would have died
in the Balkans. Yasser Arafat would be in Tunisia,
if he was alive, and much more of the West Bank would
probably have been annexed by Israel. Saddam Hussein
would today control Kuwait, and probably much of Saudi
Arabia, and he would have nuclear weapons. Heaven
only knows how Osama bin Laden and the Taliban would
have turned out.
The ironic thing about all this anti-US sentiment
around the world, is that the world needs us more than
we need the world.
JDG - "Lafayette, We Have Returned", Maru
* - Well, the tiny Pacific island state of Nauru
(primary export - fossilized bird guano) collapsed two
weeks ago, but it is too small and isolated for its
collapse to matter to just about anybody but the
Nauruans.
=====
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq:
Your enemy is not surrounding your country — your enemy is ruling your
country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be
the day of your liberation." -George W. Bush 1/29/03
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
http://webhosting.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
