Page 234 of 346

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Wed May 20, 2020 9:06 am
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 10:25 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 6:01 pm
old salt wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 4:50 pm Now on the Big Stick -- TR will get underway this wk with 3000 crew aboard, 1800 on the beach in Guam. 2 wks in vicinity of Guam doing landing requals for air wing flight crews, then back into Guam to embark the rest of the crew. Will probably hang around in W Pac just long enough to be relieved by the Nimitz strike group which is currently at sea conducting final predeployment exercise in SoCal op areas.

Tough duty for Navy crews. Deployments with minimal or no port calls. Isolation when ashore awaiting deployment. Staying at sea & deploying immediately after pre-deployment workups. Tough on Navy families.

https://apnews.com/0ad85bd579341d186acfe6dc7d8e8716
Is it just me or are the TR's movements awfully public?...I thought it was such a big deal when it was let out that folks were sick...
It has become a public issue. At this point, saying nothing would make it look worse & cast doubt upon the ship's ability to get underway & fight.
It will have been nearly 2 mos before it gets underway. Every release stressed that they could get underway if they had to.

I wonder if the extraordinary restrictions they've incorporated will be the new norm for all warships or is just to allow the TR to limp home with 3000 aboard. There's not room for a full 4800 ship's crew + air wing with those restrictions. We can't operate & fight a carrier with that small of a crew.
Yes, it's simply not that much of a problem to tell the world where the TR is and what its status is. Or at least any issue is outweighed by the public's interest.

When this first came to light, it was of huge public interest and the TR's readiness was already compromised, with the speed of addressing the issue being the gating issue as to return to readiness.

But the wailing about 'mission' and 'classified' etc was quite ridiculous given our adversaries' capabilities to know where a flip'n fight carrier is at any given time as well as it's patterns. Yeah, some terrorist in a cave doesn't know, but the adversaries where such would matter certainly do. This isn't 40 years ago.

The concern about the operational capacity under the safety restrictions is interesting. Are we sure we can't operate with 60% crew?

Not arguing with you, genuinely interested in your perspective which is certainly more informed than mine.

A more provocative question, though, is whether these various platforms are really those we should be relying upon in the current century. There's enormous intransigence in the military for moving beyond, but...

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Fri May 22, 2020 1:18 am
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 9:06 am
old salt wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 10:25 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 6:01 pm
old salt wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 4:50 pm Now on the Big Stick -- TR will get underway this wk with 3000 crew aboard, 1800 on the beach in Guam. 2 wks in vicinity of Guam doing landing requals for air wing flight crews, then back into Guam to embark the rest of the crew. Will probably hang around in W Pac just long enough to be relieved by the Nimitz strike group which is currently at sea conducting final predeployment exercise in SoCal op areas.

Tough duty for Navy crews. Deployments with minimal or no port calls. Isolation when ashore awaiting deployment. Staying at sea & deploying immediately after pre-deployment workups. Tough on Navy families.

https://apnews.com/0ad85bd579341d186acfe6dc7d8e8716
Is it just me or are the TR's movements awfully public?...I thought it was such a big deal when it was let out that folks were sick...
It has become a public issue. At this point, saying nothing would make it look worse & cast doubt upon the ship's ability to get underway & fight.
It will have been nearly 2 mos before it gets underway. Every release stressed that they could get underway if they had to.

I wonder if the extraordinary restrictions they've incorporated will be the new norm for all warships or is just to allow the TR to limp home with 3000 aboard. There's not room for a full 4800 ship's crew + air wing with those restrictions. We can't operate & fight a carrier with that small of a crew.
Yes, it's simply not that much of a problem to tell the world where the TR is and what its status is. Or at least any issue is outweighed by the public's interest.With both the TR & Reagan off the line, China responded to no US carrier in W Pac by putting their carrier to sea & operating through the Taiwan straits & between Japan & Okinawa. While more aggressively harassing Malaysian, Vietnamese & Philippine vessels. The initial hope was that the TR could make it back to Guam for what appeared to be a scheduled port visit. That became impossible when they had to berth crew in hotels.

When this first came to light, it was of huge public interest and the TR's readiness was already compromised, with the speed of addressing the issue being the gating issue as to return to readiness.Crozier's signal flare blew any hope of secrecy. If they could make it to Guam & isolate enough crew on base, without the hotels, they could have maintained ambiguity like the Reagan did in Yokosuka.

But the wailing about 'mission' and 'classified' etc was quite ridiculous given our adversaries' capabilities to know where a flip'n fight carrier is at any given time as well as it's patterns. Yeah, some terrorist in a cave doesn't know, but the adversaries where such would matter certainly do. This isn't 40 years ago.That depends on where the carrier is & if it can make it to it's home port. Look how little was know about the Reagan in Yokosuka. We don't know how big their outbreak was because they were already in home port. The Nimitz is talking extraordinary predeployment measures. Truman is being held at sea, offshore it's homeport, after it's deployment.

The concern about the operational capacity under the safety restrictions is interesting. Are we sure we can't operate with 60% crew?
No safely, for extended, full scale flight ops.

Not arguing with you, genuinely interested in your perspective which is certainly more informed than mine.

A more provocative question, though, is whether these various platforms are really those we should be relying upon in the current century. There's enormous intransigence in the military for moving beyond, but...
China is now the primary threat we're planning for. That's more Naval-centric. We're committed to building 4 Ford class carriers to replace the Nimitz carriers as they hit their 50 year/end of 2nd refueling life span. Modly was looking hard at smaller conventional carriers, but the new SecNav ditched that idea & committed to the Ford class. New subs -- anti sub/ship attack subs & new "boomers" -- missile subs (ICBM & cruise missiles) are all in the pipeline. New unmanned carrier aircraft (initially tankers) are coming soon, as is the carrier version F-35C. Marine Corps getting smaller, lighter & more shipborne/less expeditionaty, as we transition away from the 9-11 wars & return to countering near peer adversaries China & Russia. Hypersonic missiles also coming.

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:11 pm
by youthathletics
Kudos to the FBI for a potential thwarted attempt: Tampa Man Charged with Attempting to Provide Material Support to ISIS

The Department of Justice today announced the filing of a criminal complaint charging Muhammed Momtaz Al-Azhari, 23, of Tampa, Florida, with attempting to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, namely, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). If convicted, Al-Azhari faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison.....

...He also expressed admiration for Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen and spoke of his desire to carry out a similar mass casualty shooting. Additionally, Al-Azhari researched and scouted potential targets in the Tampa area, including Honeymoon Island. He also rehearsed portions of an attack and the statements that he would make during or in connection with such an attack.

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:04 am
by dislaxxic
We’ve Now Entered the Final Phase of the Trump Era
Foreign policy is not the most important issue facing the country right now, but a 48-hour period last week highlights the sheer chaos Trump is now fomenting at all levels of government. On Thursday, the Chinese Parliament ratified a new security law for Hong Kong that would effectively end the “one country, two systems” model. The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia released a joint statement condemning the move and promising action. The European Union condemned the law but was unable to agree on any punitive measures. Behind the scenes, U.S. diplomats were organizing an in-person G7 summit for late June at which the leaders would present a unified front on Hong Kong, backing it up with concrete steps—possibly imposing sanctions on China and having some G7 members granting refugee status to Hong Kongers. Trump tweeted that he wanted to gather in person as a sign of a return to normal after the pandemic shutdowns. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and French President Emmanuel Macron suggested that they would attend. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was more circumspect but said she would participate in the G7 in whatever form it took “to fight for multilateralism.” A G7 agreement was not a done deal, but senior administration officials believed the prospects looked good.

On Thursday night, protests broke out over Floyd’s murder. On Friday, Twitter issued Trump a warning for threatening violence with his tweet stating, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Trump responded by trying to distract. He gave a press conference at 2 p.m. in which he declared that he would terminate relations with the WHO and unilaterally announced a response to China’s actions against Hong Kong. Within hours, Angela Merkel let it be known that she was withdrawing from the summit. Miffed, Trump said the next day that he was postponing the summit and inviting Russia, Australia, India, and South Korea to join.

The postponement destroys any hope that a multilateral organization would condemn China’s actions against Hong Kong. Moreover, Russia is a staunch supporter of China’s position that Hong Kong is a purely internal matter that should be of no concern to the rest of the world. Some observers thought the invitation to more countries was designed to isolate China, but its practical effect was to deliver Xi Jinping a big win.
Trump is mangling foreign policy and appears increasingly overmatched, incompetent and weak. His vaunted "instincts" are driving the country, and in fact, the world, into a ditch.

#November3Can'tComeSoonEnough

..

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 11:36 am
by cradleandshoot
dislaxxic wrote: Tue Jun 02, 2020 10:04 am We’ve Now Entered the Final Phase of the Trump Era
Foreign policy is not the most important issue facing the country right now, but a 48-hour period last week highlights the sheer chaos Trump is now fomenting at all levels of government. On Thursday, the Chinese Parliament ratified a new security law for Hong Kong that would effectively end the “one country, two systems” model. The governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia released a joint statement condemning the move and promising action. The European Union condemned the law but was unable to agree on any punitive measures. Behind the scenes, U.S. diplomats were organizing an in-person G7 summit for late June at which the leaders would present a unified front on Hong Kong, backing it up with concrete steps—possibly imposing sanctions on China and having some G7 members granting refugee status to Hong Kongers. Trump tweeted that he wanted to gather in person as a sign of a return to normal after the pandemic shutdowns. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and French President Emmanuel Macron suggested that they would attend. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was more circumspect but said she would participate in the G7 in whatever form it took “to fight for multilateralism.” A G7 agreement was not a done deal, but senior administration officials believed the prospects looked good.

On Thursday night, protests broke out over Floyd’s murder. On Friday, Twitter issued Trump a warning for threatening violence with his tweet stating, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Trump responded by trying to distract. He gave a press conference at 2 p.m. in which he declared that he would terminate relations with the WHO and unilaterally announced a response to China’s actions against Hong Kong. Within hours, Angela Merkel let it be known that she was withdrawing from the summit. Miffed, Trump said the next day that he was postponing the summit and inviting Russia, Australia, India, and South Korea to join.

The postponement destroys any hope that a multilateral organization would condemn China’s actions against Hong Kong. Moreover, Russia is a staunch supporter of China’s position that Hong Kong is a purely internal matter that should be of no concern to the rest of the world. Some observers thought the invitation to more countries was designed to isolate China, but its practical effect was to deliver Xi Jinping a big win.
Trump is mangling foreign policy and appears increasingly overmatched, incompetent and weak. His vaunted "instincts" are driving the country, and in fact, the world, into a ditch.

#November3Can'tComeSoonEnough


"Trump is mangling foreign policy and appears increasingly overmatched, incompetent and weak. His vaunted "instincts" are driving the country, and in fact, the world, into a ditch."

Holy sheepdip Mr Dis. I just realized the queen of evil has been his mentor all along. :o It is finally all starting to make sense. trump must have his own super duper secret "reset" button. The same one the queen of evil use to have. :D

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:47 pm
by CU88
Trump now claims he only went to the underground bunker to inspect it.

Esper claims he only went to the photo op at the church because he thought it was a bathroom.

These people are idiots.

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:08 pm
by RedFromMI
CU88 wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:47 pm Trump now claims he only went to the underground bunker to inspect it.

Esper claims he only went to the photo op at the church because he thought it was a bathroom.

These people are idiots.
And they pushed the boundaries of protection around the White House another half block a short time ago. Not just idiots, scared.

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Wed Jun 03, 2020 2:47 pm
by Kismet
CU88 wrote: Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:47 pm Trump now claims he only went to the underground bunker to inspect it.
Esper claims he only went to the photo op at the church because he thought it was a bathroom.
These people are idiots.
No news here. We knew that already. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Salty (along with his other pal Vlad) should also be thrilled that WSJ is reporting that DOPUS Administration is reducing troop contigent in Germany by 9,500 or 28% of the total currently assigned there by September 1.

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2020 5:58 pm
by old salt
The TR is now underway & ready for full scale ops.

350 sailors remain on Guam in isolation or manning the Beach Detachment.
Will be flown back aboard when out of isolation.

https://apnews.com/1703bae03f3371da064b1934b0bee0bb

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2020 8:31 am
by 6ftstick

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:00 pm
by CU88
If anyone is on Instagram, you can find these postings on an account for the main designer of Animal Kingdom at Walt Disney World:

https://www.instagram.com/joerohde/?hl=en

He normally just discusses culture and design but recently posted these, and his graphics are powerful.


One. I thought I’d repost a series of IG essays from almost exactly two years ago, July 2018, describing the features of autocracy based on historical examples. They avoid any references to current events, although a lot of this will sound way more familiar than it did two years ago. Analysts say that if only 3.5 percent of a population actively counters an autocracy, it fails to take hold. 3.5 percent. In American that means about ten million people, just in case you’re counting crowds. So, Solidarity is important, because “divide and conquer” is one of the first rules of an autocracy. Race is a great tool for divide and conquer. Which brings us to The Black Lives Matter movement, an alarm call for everyone, because the injustice leveraged against that community poisons the whole system. Like Covid. Black lives matter because they are especially vulnerable to unjust social forces, so the powerful, whether official or not, can normalize behavior towards human beings that simply should not be accepted anywhere. That’s infectious to a society. We need a kind of political herd immunity towards injustice...just for moral reasons. But for the pragmatists, we can plainly see that the defenseless and disadvantaged are the test case for what can be done to any of us. When a man can be deliberately suffocated in public right in front of people, why be surprised when a pregnant woman is stomped on until she miscarries, or a blinded helpless woman kicked in the head, or projectiles fired point blank into peoples faces, elderly people assaulted and left to bleed, journalists shot at, passive bystanders attacked and other egregious misuses of power? If we allow inequity to be unaccountable, why be surprised when suddenly we face unidentifiable armed men who cannot be held accountable because they cannot be identified? BLM asserts that what we claim to be the rule of law is applied unequally. That makes it not the rule of law at all, but the rule of power. That power, unrestrained by law or empathy, will exercise its force upon everyone. We must fight for equality before the law, because power, once gained is rarely given back. You have to go get it.

Two. Autocracy. People don’t naturally gravitate to autocracy. Humans prefer a bit of hierarchy, but one in which the members have some influence over their leader. We aren’t naturally democratic, but we’re also not naturally slaves. We’re kind of share and share alike primates. So humans need to be convinced to opt for autocratic systems. One of the ways this is done is by creating a sense of emergency. “There is no choice. The situation has gotten so bad that we have to have a strong hand to bypass the normal rules.” When the filth and corruption and violence have gotten SO bad that anything is better, then the people will accept the normally unacceptable dictates of an autocrat. So, of course, autocrats promote a vision of a world in collapse, a disaster, a situation so bad that extraordinary steps must be taken. Hitler with his Reichstag Fire and “enemies within.” Duterte with his drug war. Robespierre and the Terror in France. I mean, this goes way back. It’s what Caesar tried to do and Augustus succeeded in doing. “I’m not here to break anything. It’s already broken!!! I’m your only hope to fix it.” But this line of thinking means that the autocrat requires a permanent state of emergency to prevent people from saying, “Whew! Glad that’s over! Okay dude, thanks, but step aside.” So, magically, there is always a new crisis. Often invented. For example, there is a good chance that the Chechen bombings that threw Putin into power were not done by Chechens. Scapegoats, wars, terrorism threats, economic trials all work to support exceptional executive power. Chicken or egg? Doesn’t matter. Crisis abets the consolidation of power.

Three. Autocracy. Autocrats are devoted to the myth of their own special personal exceptionalism. They are pathologically narcissistic. Because the autocrat lacks a clearly defined philosophy or platform, his or her legitimacy is simply held up by their own personal assertion. They are emphatically “who they are," not a selfless representative of a higher power. Therefore, any criticism of the system is taken as a personal attack. There is, in fact, nothing else to criticize, because the autocrat sees himself or herself as a replacement for laws, institutions, and ideas. So, in a way, it's true that a criticism of the state is a personal attack. However, because the attacks are seen as personal, autocrats also see them as very serious and threatening, calling for retribution and censorship. Narcissists are extremely sensitive to criticism. In an autocracy, criticism of the leader is treasonous, because the leader has replaced the law, the constitution, and any behavioral tradition with his or her self. "L'etat? C'est moi!" As Louis XIV said. "the State is Me!!" This is one of the reasons autocrats surround themselves with cronies and relatives, because these people are less prone to be critical. Being insiders, they have the time and access to cajole the autocrat, not to directly criticize. This contributes to the autocrats insulated world view, in which there is no criticism, so that even mild public criticism shocks and offends the autocrat, resulting in disproportionate smack-downs. Some autocrats eventually convince themselves that only they can lead the nation into the future, and that any form of regime change to counter them is unacceptable, especially democratic elections, which are unpredictable. See: Papa Doc Duvalier. Franco. Saddam. Mugabe. Mao. Stalin. Putin...All more or less lifers.

Four. Autocracy. Scapegoats. Someone has to be blamed. The crises don’t need to actually exist to excuse the use of power. They can just be invented. But the autocrat must have a scapegoat. This is because the autocrat is really a trickster. People need to be looking the other way or they will notice that they’re being tricked. Autocrats do not have a real political philosophy. Their desire to rule is narcissistic not idealistic. Therefore, their policies may or may not work. Lots of stuff can just be screwed up. Marcos was a disaster. Russia has an average per capital income less than India’s. North Korea is a mess. Venezuela has nearly collapsed. Autocrats are not expert governors. The autocrat does not focus on solving the problems that may have led to his/her rise to power. They focus on gaining and using power, period, because they are narcissistic. They need problems as an excuse for extraordinary power, or there’s no need for an autocrat. So. Instead of getting solved, these problems keep going, and keep getting blamed on scapegoat targets to throw focus away from the autocrat. Since the myth of decline fuels autocratic rule, there’s no incentive to solve the problem, only to blame it. And because autocrats are narcissistic, they truly believe it’s not their fault...so it MUST be somebody else. As one scapegoat gets used up, either by elimination, disempowerment, or irrelevance, another must be found. Everybody thinks they're not the target until, as with Pol Pot in Cambodia, it becomes clear that an autocrat will victimize literally anyone and everyone to maintain power.

Number five from my July 2018 IG posts. Autocrats and nostalgia. When Augustus Caesar took power after the civil war with Antony, he started a campaign of distinctly backwards-looking art and ceremony...very Old School. His pitch was that he was restoring the Roman Republic to the good old days. That was not really true. In fact, he was radically gutting the power of the representative government and setting up a media-driven dictatorship. The media was made marble, mosaic, and bronze. This is the Myth of Decline and the Romance of The Golden Age in action. Marcos used the same argument in the Phillipines. Putin goes on about the lost glory of the USSR. Hitler evokes the ancient Reich of Rome and the Holy Roman Empire, plus a lot of whining about lost glory after WWI. By staging the present as rotten, and mythologizing the past as an idealized model, you can get people to abandon the status quo and support an autocratic revolution. The myth of decline devalues the present as rotten, devolved, failed. Decline, even where it is real, is usually restricted to some subset of society while the whole is still quite viable...but that scrap of truth is waved as proof and people follow suit. The autocrats fetishized past is not the real past, but a romanticized story. And the autocrat has no true intention of restoring the past. That’s just something to say to get people to go along with the personal exercise of power. When Marcos took power, the Philippines had about the same economy as South Korea!! When he was ousted, it was more than ten times poorer, hardly “great again,” which was his slogan, but never his goal. His goal was self-aggrandizement.

Six. From the 2018 IG essays. Autocracy and the perversion of legality. The reason it’s so important to stop autocrats from getting an edge is because if they get a chance they will pervert the law. Rule of law means all people are subject to the same standard. Never underestimate the role of narcissism in autocracy. Autocrats believe themselves to be the source of order, not subject to it. This is true throughout history...but a recent example is Turkey. In Turkey, Erdogan stripped the courts of impartial judges and replaced them with cronies, restaffed police forces, restructured the electoral system so that there were no legal ways to stop him. Gangs of thugs would attack media outlets that criticized him, without fear of punishment because the police and judges were already bought off. When a leader does this, all legal means of opposition are cut off. This leaves opponents with no recourse but civil disobedience, like the many demonstrations in Turkey. These are illegal. So now, the autocrat becomes the law and opposition to the autocrat is a crime. An actual crime. So, with the excuse of a failed coup, Erdogan just arrested everyone who might oppose him, along with thousands of teachers and professors. Hungary and Poland now have laws that make it functionally impossible to win an election as an opposition party. Legal but not rule of law. Autocrats are the opposite of the rule OF law. They represent rule THROUGH law, which is no law at all but power. This suits the autocrat because, being narcissistic as autocrats typically are, law is an impediment to their personal power while power is the ultimate expression of personality.

Seven. Autocracy. Another autocratic control technique is to create an information fog. You read about this strategy all the time. People simply cannot tell what is true anymore. The USSR, now Russia, was notorious for this. Turkey and Erdogan. North Korea. The autocrat discredits any potential source of objective comment, like the press, universities, "experts," opposition parties, and the check and balance aspects of governmental debate. If these can be discredited, then, nobody knows where to turn to tell the difference between autocratic propaganda and actual news. It's not that people believe the autocrat. They don't. But they don't know what to believe, so they cannot take action. Ironically, this technique works better than suppressing the truth. Because if you suppress it...it must be true!!! You've heard it before, "Truth is the first victim." Truth isn't eliminated. It's just hidden in a mess of junk like a needle in a haystack. While everybody else is blinded, the autocrat can move unimpeded, hiding in plain sight. Putin is the reigning master of this technique. And modern information technology has made it particularly effective. By the way, this is a real Stalinist poster...not a parody or satire.

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:15 pm
by old salt
Here's the best article I've found detailing our troop drawdown from Germany
{lengthy excerpt for nonsubscribers}
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-dire ... 1591375651

President Trump has directed the Pentagon to remove thousands of American troops from Germany by September, a move that would dramatically reshape the U.S. military posture in Europe and reflects growing tensions between Washington and Berlin over military spending and other security issues, U.S. government officials said Friday.

The removal order would reduce the U.S. troop presence in Germany by 9,500 from the 34,500 service members who are permanently assigned there. It would also cap at 25,000 the number of American troops in Germany at any one time. Under current practice, overall troop levels can rise to as high as 52,000 as units rotate in and out or take part in training exercises.

The Trump administration ordered the change in a memorandum signed recently by White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien, the officials said Friday.

The decision drew criticism from some former senior defense officials and lawmakers concerned that it would further weaken a key alliance and empower U.S. adversaries. Moscow is likely to welcome the open display of differences between two key North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, U.S. experts said, though Russia didn’t comment publicly on the development.

One senior U.S. official said that the administration has been discussing the move since September and that it isn’t linked to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision not to attend a G-7 meeting Mr. Trump was to host in Washington at the end of June.

But the official acknowledged that it reflected the Trump administration’s long frustration with German policy, especially the nation’s level of military spending and its insistence on completing the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will channel Russian gas directly to Germany under the Baltic Sea.

A senior German defense official said his government hasn’t been formally notified of the move, though it had been hearing rumors through diplomatic channels that U.S. troop reductions were coming.

“We always knew Trump would lash out when he is under pressure domestically, but we thought he would first pull out of Afghanistan,” the official said. “This move will not help friends of the U.S. in Germany who are working hard to preserve the trans-Atlantic relationship, but it will boost the anti-American sentiment that has been spreading here.”

Germany’s defense minister promised last year to meet the NATO goal of spending 2% of its GDP on defense, but the target date for reaching that objective is 2031.

Richard Grenell, the former ambassador to Germany who recently stepped down as the acting director of national intelligence, has long pressed for a significant troop cut, though the administration wasn’t of one mind on the question and some other officials hoped for a more modest reduction.

As part of the decision, the Trump administration is also rethinking the number of U.S. troops sent to Germany on a temporary basis for training, the officials said.

Germany has long been a major hub for U.S. military training in Europe, and an array of important American military bases are located there. They include major military training ranges at Grafenwoehr and Hohenfels, as well as the headquarters for the U.S. Air Force and Army forces in Europe. The U.S. Africa Command also is located in Germany.

The Pentagon embraced a defense strategy in 2018 that calls for stepping up efforts to deter possible Russian and Chinese aggression. As he has campaigned for reelection, Mr. Trump has urged returning troops from what he has called the “endless wars” in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

Critics say that in pushing to reduce the U.S. military presence in Germany, Mr. Trump appears to be hamstringing his own military strategy.

Frederick Hodges, a retired Army general who previously commanded U.S. Army forces in Europe, said the U.S. presence in Germany has facilitated the Pentagon’s ability to project power in Europe and beyond.

“Russia has done nothing to lower its threat to our allies. Why would we want to reward that behavior with a reduction of our forces in Europe?” Gen. Hodges said. “Germany is the most important ally we have in Europe. This looks like punishment somehow.”

Mr. Trump’s order would give the Pentagon some flexibility in carrying out cuts as long as there were no more than 25,000 troops in Germany at any period, a person familiar with the plan said.

Some American officials suggested that the U.S. might meet that ceiling and still maintain a significant force in Europe by shifting some of the troops to Poland and other European nations while bringing the rest home.

One official said that more than 1,000 of the troops leaving Germany would be deployed to Poland, which is meeting the NATO military-spending goal and has decided to stop buying Russian gas altogether after 2022.

The infrastructure in Poland and other Central European countries, however, generally isn’t as well developed as in Germany. And the suddenness of the move might concern allies, including South Korea, which is locked in a dispute with Washington over how much it should pay to defray the cost of the U.S. military deployment there.

“A move like this not only erodes trust with Germany but with other allies, too,” said James Townsend, a former senior Pentagon official for Europe and NATO. “Other allies will be asking, ‘Will I be next?”

Congress has yet to be officially informed of the decision. Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, criticized it as a “favor to Putin and another leadership failure by this administration that further strains relations with our allies.”

The Quincy Institute, a think tank that favors a limited role for the American military, praised Mr. Trump’s decision, urging that the administration follow it with a broader strategy that “empowers Europe to take responsibility for its own security.”

The Trump administration has taken other actions that have proved controversial regarding U.S. defense in Europe.

In May, Rep. Eliot Engel (D., N.Y.), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and other lawmakers complained that the Pentagon was taking funds from military construction efforts in Europe to pay for the border wall with Mexico. The cuts involved $274 million in spending that had been intended to construct sites to store munitions, fuel and other logistical requirements.
The re-establishment of the US Army V Corps, in Ft Knox Ky, with a HQ Command Post in Germany indicates a restructuring of our presence to defend NATO's E front. 1000 of the troops drawn down from Germany will be stationed in Poland.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... sence.html

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:37 pm
by a fan
As I learned from Syria, I'll believe it when the troops ACTUALLY leave, and ACTUALLY come home. If all that happens is that they are simply moved elsewhere overseas....meh.

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:48 pm
by old salt
old salt wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:15 pm The re-establishment of the US Army V Corps, in Ft Knox Ky, with a HQ Command Post in Germany indicates a restructuring of our presence to defend NATO's E front. 1000 of the troops drawn down from Germany will be stationed in Poland.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... sence.html
This is the biggest part of the drawdown in Germany -- the deactivation of a USAF F-16 squadron which was reactivated in 2010, after being deactivated om '94 after the Cold War. We'll see if that squadron is based elsewhere overseas, in the US, converted to Air National Guard, or disestablished.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/480th_Fighter_Squadron

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:54 pm
by old salt
a fan wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:37 pm As I learned from Syria, I'll believe it when the troops ACTUALLY leave, and ACTUALLY come home. If all that happens is that they are simply moved elsewhere overseas....meh.
:roll: Syria was the shift of a small number of deployed troops. This is a shift/reduction in forces permanently based overseas.
Look at the history of that F-16 squadron & you'll see how long they've been based in Germany = '1976 - '94 / 2010 - 2020.
That's 22 of the past 44 years.

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:28 pm
by a fan
So you're rolling your eyes because I want to see it ACTUALLY happen before applauding?

Am I supposed to pretend like it's "troop reduction" when a submarine moves 1000 miles?

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:17 pm
by Kismet
Not sure where to put this but it seems as good as any - any time OS/RR tries to demonize those "Euroburgher" allies of ours while giving Vlad a seeming pass



This past weekend was the 76th anniversary of the Normandy Landings - Every year, French caretakers take the sand from Omaha Beach and scrub it into the letters on markers (to give them the brown/gold colouring) at Normandy American Cemetery & Memorial. The point is to show that the grave has been visited recently. The rain washes the sand away, that shows time and how, despite its passing the French people still remember....every year they remember.

IMHO, we should all think about it and also remember. It was a time where we fought Nazis/Fascists rather than enabling them. :!:

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:12 pm
by CU88
No shock here.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-beth ... -facebook/

This "behind the screen" hate could be posted on multiple topics here, but I chose this one. They are only apologizing for being caught expressing their beliefs. The only American deserving a free ride education, career training and possession of a gun is a white male...

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:20 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
CU88 wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 3:12 pm No shock here.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/scott-beth ... -facebook/

This "behind the screen" hate could be posted on multiple topics here, but I chose this one. They are only apologizing for being caught expressing their beliefs. The only American deserving a free ride education, career training and possession of a gun is a white male...
https://nypost.com/2020/06/06/marines-b ... -war-ends/

Re: The Politics of National Security

Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2020 7:28 am
by cradleandshoot
Kismet wrote: Mon Jun 08, 2020 1:17 pm Not sure where to put this but it seems as good as any - any time OS/RR tries to demonize those "Euroburgher" allies of ours while giving Vlad a seeming pass



This past weekend was the 76th anniversary of the Normandy Landings - Every year, French caretakers take the sand from Omaha Beach and scrub it into the letters on markers (to give them the brown/gold colouring) at Normandy American Cemetery & Memorial. The point is to show that the grave has been visited recently. The rain washes the sand away, that shows time and how, despite its passing the French people still remember....every year they remember.

IMHO, we should all think about it and also remember. It was a time where we fought Nazis/Fascists rather than enabling them. :!:
+1 great post. My dad has friends from his unit buried in that cemetery. My son went to that cemetery with some of his friends from work a couple of years ago. The French have astounding respect for all those American soldiers that gave their lives liberating their country. My dad had astounding respect for all the French cognac, brandy and wine that they also liberated. :D He fell off of the back of a truck driving through one small town. The local French folks picked him up and greeted him with bottles of wine before he could get back to the truck. Viva la France...