News Bush announces plans to withdraw thousands of U.S. troops from abroad

[russ_watters]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-08-16-bush-troops_x.htm

President Bush on Monday announced plans to shift as many as 70,000 U.S. troops who are now stationed in Western Europe and Asia in one of the largest realignments since the end of the Cold War.

Some of the troops would be moved to posts in Eastern Europe while others would be based in the United States, available for deployment overseas, White House officials said. It remained unclear if the overall number of U.S. troops stationed overseas would drop.

Long overdue. Though it appears a lot of details are still to be worked out.

 

[kat]

anyone seen anything in the foriegn news? I'm particularly interested in the views of the people of the countries who troops are being deployed from.

 

[kat]

Never Fear Kerry's Here! To the tune of Mighty mouse

Kerry to set out case against US troop realignment

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Where's Mitch Miller when we need him. http://www.melaman2.com/cartoons/singles/m-mouse.html

 

[Prometheus]

Without knowing all of the details, I think that it might be a good idea.

However, this is a major policy change. I think that it is not appropriate to announce such a plan with only 3 months left to his presidency, particularly since if he loses the policy shift might run into trouble.

I think that Bush should have waited until he sees if he will win the election, and only then if so should he initiate such a significant policy change.

 

[kat]

DoD has been planning on this for awhile. It's one of the reasons why my Stepmothers position is being eliminated and she is switching to work for the dept. of social security...which we know is only going to continue to grow...

 

[member 5645]

It's a great idea.
I love the complaining going on at the BBC's site about how this is goign to hurt so many economies. haha

 

[member 5645]

Without knowing all of the details, I think that it might be a good idea.

However, this is a major policy change. I think that it is not appropriate to announce such a plan with only 3 months left to his presidency, particularly since if he loses the policy shift might run into trouble.

I think that Bush should have waited until he sees if he will win the election, and only then if so should he initiate such a significant policy change.

3 months left to his presidency? That's 4 years and 3 months, sir ;)

 

[selfAdjoint]

3 months left to his presidency? That's 4 years and 3 months, sir ;)

No smiley? Or are GOPers above such things?

 

[member 5645]

No smiley? Or are GOPers above such things?

what?
I'm above using physicsforums.com's inefficient, non standard UBB code for smilies, yes :)

Notice there is a wink on my last post. Get off the partisanship.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And there was a nod in mine. Tu quoque.

 

[russ_watters]

Without knowing all of the details, I think that it might be a good idea.

And that is, of course, the big question: what are the details? Those 70,000 might not be coming home but rather permanently re-assigned to Iraq. That wouldn't be much fun...

However, this is a major policy change. I think that it is not appropriate to announce such a plan with only 3 months left to his presidency, particularly since if he loses the policy shift might run into trouble.

Even if he's a lame duck, he's still the President. I am quite sure, though, that this announcement was carefully timed.

 

[Prometheus]

3 months left to his presidency? That's 4 years and 3 months, sir ;)

I see that you subscribe to the multiverse theory.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Pulling troops out of Korea, is lunacy! If we weaken our posture along the DMZ, South Korea will fall. This would be like giving a country to Saddam, but in this case he really does have WMDs! Bush logic.

 

[kat]

Riiiight okay..South Korea will fall...uh uh...thanks for the opinion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm glad to know that you're paying attention.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I found this while looking for something else. I thought it was interesting and I am posting the link for this reason alone. No comment is otherwise intended.

MOVING U.S. FORCES:
OPTIONS FOR STRATEGIC MOBILITY

The Congress of the United States
Congressional Budget Office

What combination of strategic mobility forces--airlift planes, sealift ships, and sets of military equipment prepositioned abroad--best suits the needs of the United States? Since the Department of Defense (DoD) no longer plans to confront a well-armed Soviet Union in a European conflict, some people might argue that its need for mobility forces has declined. But today the Administration envisions a smaller, yet more flexible, set of forces that can counter regional aggressors anywhere in the world. For that reason, proponents say a robust system for transporting military forces over intercontinental distances is more important than ever.

This analysis, conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for the House Committee on National Security, looks at several alternatives for modernizing DoD's strategic mobility forces and compares the costs and capabilities of each option with those of the Administration's plan. In keeping with CBO's mandate to provide objective analysis, the study makes no recommendations.

Rachel Schmidt of CBO's National Security Division prepared the study under the general supervision of Cindy Williams and R. William Thomas. Shaun Black developed CBO's analytic model for sealift analysis and wrote sections of Chapter 3. Nathan Stacy wrote most of the discussion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet in Chapter 2 and Appendix B. Jo Ann Vines, Jeannette Deshong, and Victoria Fraider of CBO's Budget Analysis Division provided the cost analysis. The author would like to thank Evan Christman, Ivan Eland, Wayne Glass, Frances Lussier, and Doug Taylor of CBO, as well as numerous employees of the Department of Defense and the military services, for their help. Philip Webre and Arlene Holen of CBO, David Kassing of RAND, and Owen Cote of Harvard University's Center for Science and International Affairs provided thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of the study. (The assistance of external participants implies no responsibility for the final product, which rests solely with CBO.)

Christian Spoor edited the manuscript, and Marlies Dunson provided editorial assistance. Judith Cromwell produced drafts of the study. Kathryn Quattrone and Jill Sands prepared the report for publication.

June E. O'Neill
Director
February 1997

[continued for many pages]

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=11&sequence=0&from=0