Were you aware we were borrowing military equipment from our allies?

SSgt Alex Robinson — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:34:50 -0400

http://fortune.com/2015/10/19/us-army-nato-borrowing-helicopters/?xid=yahoo_fortune

The U.S. Army Is Borrowing Military Gear From NATO Allies

Amid increasing agitation from Russia

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2015 10:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 22:38:59 -0400

During a time of budget constraints it is not odd to see equipment and additional resources cross loaded with allied nations. However, we are careful not disclose sensitive information.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 20 at 2015 2:22 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 02:22:20 -0400

Shades of Jimmy Carter!

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 20 at 2015 7:44 AM

SGT David T. — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:44:06 -0400

We sell them to them in the first place so why not. Force multiplier lol

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Oct 20 at 2015 8:38 AM

SSG Ed Mikus — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 08:38:18 -0400

Yes, that is part of many of the lower level agreements.

Response by LTC Paul Mullins made Oct 22 at 2015 2:05 PM

LTC Paul Mullins — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:05:50 -0400

There are a lot of reasons this occurs. One of them is typically these operations are conducted under a NATO authorization and various countries contribute. As stated, we sell our equipment to our allies so that it is compatible with ours and to keep our product lines open, because in between our equipment buys the lines would close and that business model doesn't work. It is also one of the most expensive things to do, move aircraft and all the support and when your ally offers to provide them as their contribution, two birds with one stone. It isn't that we don't have them, or that they are not available, or that we don't have the money to deploy them, it just might make sense for a wide variety of reasons political or otherwise.

With regard to forces, we also found out in 2003 that the two divisions we had kept in Germany post-cold war forward positioned to rapidly respond to contingencies (primarily European) could not do that. They couldn't respond because the European governments did not agree with our invasion of Iraq. Germany slowed us down. Then the mayor of Amsterdam shut down the port for 3 days in protest. In the end, 1st CAV DIV moved from Ft. Hood to the port of Beaumont, TX, shipped through the Panama Canal and arrived in Kuwait way ahead of 1ID and 1AD. So the obvious answer was to remove all combat forces from Europe with few exceptions as it provided little or not advantage. The permanent forces there now are primarily HQs elements to fulfill our NATO and other treaty requirements.

Lot of reasons why this is done. Some good, some bad.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arthurs made Oct 22 at 2015 4:06 PM

MAJ Matthew Arthurs — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:06:09 -0400

Yes, this is nothing new. We're not borrowing because we don't have it, and this probably has little to do with the current administration.