Should US Forces return/expand in Europe?

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 May 2015 07:56:49 -0400

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2015/04/30/eucom-head-consider-force-structure-increase/26658351/

EUCOM Head: Consider Force Structure Increase

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon should weigh whether force structure in Europe should be grown, according to the department's top military officer on the

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 8:55 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 May 2015 08:55:51 -0400

Right now the climate in Europe in is such fluctuation - both economically & politically - that I think we should adopt a "third party" type mindset. Sit back & watch what happens. Maintain our current status there. If the need/opportunity arises that shows we should increase our presence - Russia doing more than just puffing it's chest - start building forces back up again.

Until then, I think we need to stand pat.

Response by LTC Scott O'Neil made May 1 at 2015 9:03 AM

LTC Scott O'Neil — Fri, 01 May 2015 09:03:20 -0400

The Russian threat really never disappeared it just hibernated. Russia is governed by a hard line old time Kremlin Crony with ties that lead back to the old KGB. Having said that Putin is puffing his chest after 10 or so years of economic prosperity and stability. Now the economics of Russia have begun to crumble and after loosing its buffer between mother Russia and the West it has to regain its ground and showcase itself as a true threat to the democratic world. I have posted before there are 3 real threats to the US both physically and fiscally the Russians, Chinese and Terrorism from South East Asia. We have to project our forces strengthen NATO to be prepared to fight an awaken Russian Bear after a long and painful hibernation.

Response by SPC Donald Moore made May 1 at 2015 11:01 AM

SPC Donald Moore — Fri, 01 May 2015 11:01:53 -0400

We were in Europe for three reasons: WWI, WWII, and the threat of Soviet expansion.
We didn't want another war in Europe. We had just fought two within 50 years and many people were tired of the fighting. That is why there was such a big anti war movement later in that century when we were involved in Vietnam. The vast majority of people didn't want to be in any of those wars, just like they want to turn a blind eye to what ISIS is doing over in the middle east now, they wanted to ignore what Hitler was doing to the Jews in Europe. We only even went into WWII because the president at the time incited the Japanese to attack us by embargoing them from buying our oil. The world is full of conflict, all the time, everywhere.
If we want to live in peace, we have to be ready to fight to maintain it. If we are not ready to fight for freedom, someone will come and take it from us. It is dead simple.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 1 at 2015 11:04 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Fri, 01 May 2015 11:04:07 -0400

Not to re-ring a bell, but how will this be paid for?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 1 at 2015 11:07 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 May 2015 11:07:30 -0400

I was stationed there twice for a total of six years. Unfortunately, most was spent in Graf or rotating through Bosnia. I do think they were a little short sighted in removing so many troops. I don't think it needs to be cold war levels, but definitely more than we have now.

Response by SGT James Elphick made May 1 at 2015 2:42 PM

SGT James Elphick — Fri, 01 May 2015 14:42:14 -0400

I think deploying troops on a rotational basis works better. It helps reassure our allies and cost us less money. Also, it allows more units the opportunity to learn and train with our foreign allies as opposed to just those stationed there. Also, by removing much of our permanent presence we are in a way telling our European allies that they are going to have to shoulder more of the weight, something or previous foreign policies did not want them to do.