Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Military Bases in Germany
New York Times ^ | June 14, 2004 | Editorial

Posted on 06/14/2004 6:34:32 AM PDT by OESY

The Pentagon is proposing sharp cuts in U.S. forces in Germany, which for more than half a century has been America's biggest military outpost in Europe. It's a bad idea, particularly at a time when the United States is struggling to rebuild its relations with its NATO allies.

Washington is hoping to cut its military presence in Germany — a little more than 70,000 soldiers — roughly in half. Two heavy divisions now based there, and the soldiers' families, would return to the United States. They would be replaced by a much smaller light combat brigade, while other units would be rotated in and out, at considerable cost, for short-term exercises. The Air Force is also thinking of moving some of its F-16 fighter jets from Germany to Turkey, where they would be closer to Middle East trouble spots but subject to restrictions by the host government.

The large American military presence in Germany has long symbolized the understanding at the heart of NATO — Washington's commitment to remain permanently engaged in Europe's security and to integrate its military operations with those of its major European allies. Recent history has only reinforced how important that relationship is to the United States. NATO is the only alliance capable of sharing some of the global military burdens that have now overstretched America's ground forces.

Many Germans, remembering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's scornful "old Europe" put-downs of their country last year, will see these withdrawals, and the accompanying German job losses, as payback for Berlin's diplomatic opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Washington denies that. But the Pentagon does seem to have a growing preference for stationing troops either at home or on the territories of allies ready to embrace President Bush's notions of unilateral preventive war.

Despite its criticisms of the Iraq war, Germany imposed no restrictions on the use of American bases during that conflict. It continues to deploy thousands of German soldiers to protect those bases, freeing American troops for other uses. Berlin also contributes $1 billion a year to the bases' support. Economically, the plan to bring the soldiers home is a loser.

The German bases have other advantages as well. They are much closer to the Middle East and Central Asia than bases in the United States and are in a safe country with a stable democracy and the modern conveniences that make life easier for troops on long tours overseas. Soldiers stationed there have access to a variety of training exercises and can enjoy down time with their families. The American military hospital at Ramstein Air Base, the largest outside the United States, provides specialized care for battlefield casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan as it did for those from Bosnia, Kosovo and the U.S.S. Cole.

There is nothing sacrosanct about maintaining particular Army divisions in Germany. The role of American military forces there has evolved considerably over the decades — from occupying a defeated enemy to deterring Warsaw Pact aggression to symbolizing Washington's post-cold-war commitment to remain militarily engaged in Europe. Along the way, the size of the American presence has evolved as well. In the nearly 15 years since the Berlin Wall fell, United States force levels in Germany have dropped by roughly 75 percent. Further reductions should not be ruled out. But the Pentagon's current plans are unduly drastic, unfortunately timed and suspiciously motivated.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Germany; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bases; brac; military; militarybases; nato
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last
This may be the first time that I have seen the New York Times write an editorial favorable to Germany, however oblique, since the Times wrote an editorial piece to entice West Germany to join the UN as a way to improve member funding.

Although there are meritorious strategic reasons for repositioning troops closer to areas of potential conflict, in my judgment as one who served three years with the US Army in Germany, such moves will have depressant effect on the morale of military families, absent soldier-family separation as a consequence of deployment. A similarity of cultures and values as well as the availability of English make Germany more hospitable than locations further east. (See Letter below, which encapsulates several of my experiences).

Moreover, if you thought the media demonized conservatives, it is not unlike the coverage Germany gets. However, conflicting images of what the press writes versus one's in-country knowledge creates a cognitive dissonance that is just as real. The stationing of troops in Germany is an effective antidote to unfair media treatment. That is, it is my observation that the antiwar sentiment and desire for friendship with France is grounded more in WWII devastation and postwar pacification/education programs than in anti-American bias. And it looks like, based on recent EU elections, their voters have lost confidence in Chancellor Schroeder, the Howard Dean of German politics.

* * *

To the Editor, New York Times, June 13, 2004:

Visiting Germany in 1963, my friends and I were eating at a restaurant in Munich when a group of Germans approached to ask if we were Americans. When we acknowledged that we were, they insisted on paying for our dinners because, they said, they had been German war prisoners in American custody and, unlike the Soviet captors, the American soldiers had treated them so well that they wanted to express their gratitude in this gesture.

It was a moving moment; the men and their wives stood around four young Americans, all weeping. And at that moment, we were proud to be American.

BARBARA A. CLEARY Dayton, Ohio, June 10, 2004

1 posted on 06/14/2004 6:34:32 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OESY
The Pentagon is proposing sharp cuts in U.S. forces in Germany, which for more than half a century has been America's biggest military outpost in Europe. It's a bad idea, particularly at a time when the United States is struggling to rebuild its relations with its NATO allies.

Wrong, NY Slimes. We protected that nation for 50+ years from invasion by a Soviet SuperPower. We spent billions to keep her West free. Let them pay their own bills for a while.

We at least have a right to consider cutting out on these ungrateful jackasses. Maybe some of the newly freed Eastern European nations want some cooperative alliances with America.

Leave it to the Slimes in New York to all of a sudden become concerned abou the military. Hypocrites.

2 posted on 06/14/2004 6:39:04 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Having also spent a great deal of time in Germany, I find the Germans to be an often-unpleasant mix of rabid, wild-eyed socialist/environmentalists (with the emphasis on "mental"), and unrepentant Nazi sympathisers of the "well at least the streets were clean and the trains ran on time" variety.

If we can't spend our money on people who share our values, let's at least spend it where it'll do some good.


3 posted on 06/14/2004 6:41:18 AM PDT by Redbob (we're going to miss you, Ronnie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

"It's a bad idea, particularly at a time when the United States is struggling to rebuild its relations with its NATO allies."

Aren't the proposed new host nations for American military installations in Eastern Europe also members of NATO?

It isn't even that I disagree with the Slimes position on most things, it has become that they are so bad at promoting their agenda - they could at least leave out the obviously erroneous or illogical.


4 posted on 06/14/2004 6:43:15 AM PDT by Let's Roll (Kerry is a self-confessed unindicted war criminal or ... a traitor to his country in a time of war)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OESY

I do think we need more welfare reform in Europe. There are places in this world that are in far greater need of our military services. Europe must find ways to shoulder the cost of their own defense. Like spoiled teenagers, they bite the hand that feeds them and resent their own lack of independence. I think that "old Europe" remembers the cost of appeasement. I think it is a lesson that adolescent Europe needs to learn anew.


5 posted on 06/14/2004 6:48:10 AM PDT by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
Add this to your list:

But the Pentagon does seem to have a growing preference for stationing troops either at home or on the territories of allies ready to embrace President Bush's notions of unilateral preventive war.

If allies are embracing it, then how can it be unilateral?

6 posted on 06/14/2004 6:49:24 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll
I don't think the NYTs complained when all the bases were closed and military dependents came home from Japan in the 1960s and 1970s.
btw, I didn't know NATO was still breathing.
7 posted on 06/14/2004 6:51:35 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (STAGMIRE !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Instead of maintaining troops and their families in Germany, I'd heard that the plan was to relocate our troops into smaller bases in the Balkans and nearer to the new flashpoints in the Middle East. We will have a large garrison in Iraq for many years to come, and from there we are in a superb position to respond to problems in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, etc.

Hummm, pretty smart play to have troops there in the middle of this viper's nest.

8 posted on 06/14/2004 6:51:49 AM PDT by DJtex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Recent history has only reinforced how important that relationship is to the United States. NATO is the only alliance capable of sharing some of the global military burdens that have now overstretched America's ground forces.

And exactly how many troops have the Germans committed to NATO operations outside the borders of NATO? As far as I can tell, the Polish contribute far more, and so it would appear to be more important to keep better relations with them than with the Germans.

9 posted on 06/14/2004 6:51:58 AM PDT by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Visiting Germany in 1963

That's a long time ago. Unfortunately, Germany has changed quite a bit since that those days.

10 posted on 06/14/2004 6:58:18 AM PDT by Seeking the truth ( www.0cents.com - Ronald Reagan Commemorative Stamp Coming Soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

The plan, to move all families, and half
of US Army forces, out of Germany, is a start.
You have to start somewhere.


11 posted on 06/14/2004 6:58:25 AM PDT by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Extraordinary how they manage to paint this as "more costly". We will be closing extremely expensive bases in Germany and units will now be stationed for shorter periods of time in cheaper locations like Eastern Europe where there will be no need for costly family support systems.

This plan has been in the works for quite some time actually. In fact it was already being talked about in the mid-90's when we acquired so much Eastern European real estate (in the Clinton days).


12 posted on 06/14/2004 7:03:14 AM PDT by 12B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NCjim

Mark for later reading...


13 posted on 06/14/2004 7:03:29 AM PDT by NCjim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

I share some of your perspective on Germany, but our military, despite what the Slimes thinks, is not an organization to use for social causes (furthering the feminist and gay agendas) nor a way of paying tribute to socialists. Our military is to fight and win our nations wars, not to appease our so called "allies"

When the Soviet Union on the other side of the Iron Curtain was the threat, it was appropraite (in our interest) to have bases in West Germany. That is no longer the threat, and there is no reason to have heavy forces based there. End of discussion. I don't even see the need to rotate troops through for exercises, at least not in Germany, maybe further east. (BTW, Clinton's 12 months in Bosnia are long since over, we need to leave the Balkans as well.) America's military is for American security. That is not being advanced by having 20% of our Army divisions in Germany.


14 posted on 06/14/2004 7:03:42 AM PDT by blanknoone (Viet Cong Vets for John Kerry!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4; SLB

Ping.


15 posted on 06/14/2004 7:08:19 AM PDT by FreedomPoster (hoplophobia is a mental aberration rather than a mere attitude)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

This article mixes half-truths, untruths, a mushy sentimentality and a stark refusal to face reality. In other words, the Times is living up to current expectations.

The Pentagon has said repeatedly that Ramstein is NOT going to be closed! Nobody with any knowledge of European deployments expects that it would be closed in the foreseeable future.

The military capabilities of NATO outside of the USA and Britain are suspect anyway. We really don't need their help, although it would be useful. If the Germans and French continue to think they can veto our national security needs and global responsibilities to stroke the egos of their leaders, though, they aren't worth the trouble.

The Times admits that moving two divisions is not a big deal. So what's their real beef? They don't like Dubya or Rummy, so they publish this piece of garbage.

I do business in Germany and France and there are many Germans and Frenchmen who appreciate D-Day and the Marshall Plan. Unfortunately, they are in the minority and many of them are passing on. The governments of these countries have far greater control over the media than in Britain or the USA, so naturally their populations are inundated with anti-American crap.

Rummy is right. Old Europe just isn't that important anymore. Ramstein is a perfect logistical base, but we don't need active troops in Germany.


16 posted on 06/14/2004 7:09:54 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (WE WILL WIN WITH W - Isara)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

If we can have base closures here at home, we can damned sure close them overseas. Due to the socialist politics of the lefty, california, congressional delegation many military bases were closed here that were relied upon by retired military families. I say close all of the bases overseas, except for the most strategic of them.


17 posted on 06/14/2004 7:11:33 AM PDT by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
That wet, ripping noise is the sound France's bowels letting loose. No Yanquee' troops to keep Le Hun at bay?

Hehe.. This move could be sweet revenge on France as well.

18 posted on 06/14/2004 7:14:04 AM PDT by Thommas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

There is nothing left to protect in Europe. Our bases were there as a strictly defensive measure. Same reason we are stationed in South Korea.

Why there are families there in the first place is beyond me. These areas are combat areas and should have always been treated as such. Having families there only put people in harms way.

Now that the Soviet Union collapsed and Communism is no longer a threat, moving these units to a more forward position for easier access to hot spots makes much more sense.

It seems that the only people complaining are the ones who put us there in the first place.


19 posted on 06/14/2004 7:17:01 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Only difference between the liberals and the Nazis is that the liberals love the Communists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Seeking the truth; Redbob
My experiences in Germany were more recent than 1963.

But in my rather extensive travels as a financial controller for TWA locations overseas, I found that if you are friendly, the people you meet are friendly. If you exhibit an "often-unpleasant mix of rabid, wild-eyed socialist/environmentalists (with the emphasis on "mental"), and unrepentant Nazi sympathisers," they will reciprocate in kind. You spew hate, they find you hateful. Isn't it interesting how attitudes reflect?

20 posted on 06/14/2004 7:17:45 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Let's Roll

"they could at least leave out the obviously erroneous or illogical."

What would that leave them?


21 posted on 06/14/2004 7:19:25 AM PDT by bad company (God speed Dutch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OESY
You letter to the editor about ex-German POWs buying your dinner to express gratitude for their past American treatment as POWs evokes several memories.

As a young boy, on Saturday mornings toward the end of WW-II, I would go to a Virginia naval base with my dad and spend the day roaming the base -- pistol range, exhibition baseball, chow hall, officers club, etc. -- and I was able to interface with German POWs a few times (as they worked under guard trimming roses). It was a good experience for me and them, and I can vouch that those I met were treated well.

Whne the war was over, German POWs were repatriated, but many of them quickly returned to settle in the United States.

One such German couple opened a carry-out hamburger place in my home town and the place was packed every day -- hard work, good quality, good service, and good prices.

Later in life, I told those stories to a young German national, born around 1965, and she told me that she'd been taught in Germany that WW-II German POWs were mistreated in America.

Personal stories like yours and mine are what put the lie to propaganda. Thank you.

22 posted on 06/14/2004 7:28:20 AM PDT by Stagerite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
It's a bad idea, particularly at a time when the United States is struggling to rebuild its relations with its NATO allies.

NYT again confirms Rumsfeld is doing the right thing

23 posted on 06/14/2004 7:29:32 AM PDT by Timocrat (I Emanate on your Auras and Penumbras Mr Blackmun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

YEAH! There is NOTHING worth protecting in Eurotard land. It is just a sinkhole of wasted funds. Indeed, NATO is an obsolete organization that has LONG been surpassed. Let the Eurotrash police themselves.


24 posted on 06/14/2004 7:29:50 AM PDT by gunnygail (Klintoon's, Arkansas' FIRST family of the trailer park!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
I lived in Germany.

I worked in Germany.

I worked for two different German companies for over 10 years.

I traveled extensively throughout Europe. Virtually all of my experience, including quite a few in the "Iron Curtain" countries, were great; except for anything and anyone from France!

People are people on a one to one basis but they are also the product of the propaganda they are fed.

You spew hate, they find you hateful

I assume that was directed to someone else?

25 posted on 06/14/2004 7:31:42 AM PDT by Seeking the truth ( www.0cents.com - Ronald Reagan Commemorative Stamp Coming Soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Many Germans, remembering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's scornful "old Europe" put-downs of their country last year, will see these withdrawals, and the accompanying German job losses, as payback for Berlin's diplomatic opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Washington denies that. But the Pentagon does seem to have a growing preference for stationing troops either at home or on the territories of allies ready to embrace President Bush's notions of unilateral preventive war.

. . . and the problem with this would be ?

26 posted on 06/14/2004 7:36:55 AM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gunnygail
Indeed, NATO is an obsolete organization that has LONG been surpassed.

NATO, being an obstacle to Communist expansion, is an organization that communists want to destroy.

Given that, and given Clinton's misuse of NATO forces, I'd say that putting an end to NATO might be a staged event.

27 posted on 06/14/2004 7:40:27 AM PDT by Stagerite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OESY
I found that if you are friendly, the people you meet are friendly

A 100 billion dollar subsidy of NATO isn't "friendly" ? Why are we subsidizing a rich country so heavily? Especially since it makes more sense to be deployed differently, from a strategic point of view...

I guess you don't put much weight on the fact that our heavy subsidy allows Germany to prop up their welfare state at the expense of their own self defense, while at the same time they resent our assertiveness and presence.. but they dont want us to go! To compare them to adolescents is apt.

Youre going to have to come up with a better reason than ...But this will counter their bad media!

28 posted on 06/14/2004 7:46:11 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: XJarhead; Michael81Dus
That's partly because the German constitution forbade the sending of troops to exterior theaters until 1999 (IIRC), partly because of the bad blood accumulated during WW2, and partly because the German troops were slated for first-line defense against the Soviet Bloc. Michael81Dus could be more specific about it.
29 posted on 06/14/2004 7:56:57 AM PDT by Atlantic Friend (Cursum Perficio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

Basically, none at all. It could be that the move is linked to German opposition to the Iraqi operation, but even if it was, these are American troops whose deployment in decided in Washington and nowhere else.


30 posted on 06/14/2004 7:59:51 AM PDT by Atlantic Friend (Cursum Perficio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Our troops are not there for the convenience of the Germans but for ours.

Some facts the NYT leaves out: The Clinton administration, just like Truman and Carter before them, gutted our military leaving us with far fewer forces to face just as great dangers. Therefore, we must make more judicious use of what we have.

The French, though part of NATO, provide no military assistance to NATO, troops or otherwise. They only obstruct. Let them replace our troops with theirs.


No matter what we do, other than capitulate, the NYT will criticize us.


31 posted on 06/14/2004 8:16:01 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Seeking the truth
I assume that was directed to someone else?

Of course.

On France and Chirac (and Schroeder), I've been tough. I came close to punching in the nose a currency exchange clerk who was abusing my father in Paris when my parents came to visit while I was stationed in Europe. In fact, on a vacation two years ago, when people asked, Why France?, I responded I was a masochist.

In my opinion, I couldn't have been more wrong. For two full weeks, my wife and I were treated royally. Many credit Jean Tiberi, the former mayor of Paris, with changing popular attitudes that helped his country's tourist industry. There is a lesson here for all of us. I also came to realize that boycotts hurt primarily those with the good working relationships with Americans; that is, those most friendly.

Meanwhile, the fact that Germany, Japan and Saudi Arabia financed the First Gulf War with contributions of $7 billion each, allowing us to claim we made a profit on the war, gets scant mention in the press. Military and economic contributions in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere are almost never mentioned. Perhaps, they too have learned lessons.

32 posted on 06/14/2004 8:17:48 AM PDT by OESY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Atlantic Friend; XJarhead

How many Poles are engaged in NATO operations?
Right now, several thousand German soldiers are in Afghanistan (NATO-led ISAF) and Bosnia as well as Kosovo.

By the way, Atlantic Friend (who must stand this heavy French-bashing here *sigh*), is right when he says that our constitution forbids attacks on other countries. Our constitutional court has decided in 1994 that we may engage in humanitarian missions outside NATO area and in 1999 that we may participate in a war if accepted by NATO or the UN.


33 posted on 06/14/2004 8:22:40 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus; XJarhead

I was about to say that Germany paid over 30% of NATO budget, and was the single largest contributor in terms of money (and maybe also in terms of troops, since every German unit is NATO-slated IIRC) but I don't know if this figure is still accurate.


34 posted on 06/14/2004 8:31:13 AM PDT by Atlantic Friend (Cursum Perficio)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus

Poles are everywhere.


35 posted on 06/14/2004 8:33:22 AM PDT by Lukasz (Hey don't look for my horrible mistakes, I'm learning English here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I have nothing good to say about the German Chancellor or Foreign Minister, but I would like to point out that the Bundeswehr and the Polizei have been providing force protection for all our installations, including dependent housing areas, and doing a good job. I have come across no news indicating any problems with the Host Nation Support US Forces receive from Germany. I believe the Bundeswehr is also in Afghanistan.

There is no need for a US Corps in Germany anymore, but boots on the ground give us a say in what goes on in Europe that we would not otherwise have.

I would like to see the 2nd Infantrycentric Stryker Brigade Combat Team (the artist formerly known as Prince the unit formerly known as 2nd ACR) move into Graf. From there they can rail to Black Sea SPOE's or road march to Luftwaffe bases in Bavaria for air transport. They would be a Central European Task Force, much like the 173rd is the Southern European Task Force.

36 posted on 06/14/2004 8:38:39 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (I've lost turret power; I have my nods and my .50. Hooah. I will stay until relieved. White 2 out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Our military is NOT a social program to benefit other countries economies. The purpose of having our military stationed outside the US is to insure our strategic interests. Germany has interferred with our training based on "environmental" factors, they have a higher cost of living than some of the other countries, and they have to be located where they can do us the most good MILITARILY!

These things were in the works LONG before the Iraq war. It's time the europeans developed their own militaries, and it's time we stopped exposing our people to the virulant Anti-Americanism rampant in Germany.

37 posted on 06/14/2004 8:40:00 AM PDT by McGavin999 (If Kerry can't deal with the "Republican Attack Machine" how is he going to deal with Al Qaeda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz

Do you´ve numbers?


38 posted on 06/14/2004 9:02:40 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer No. 4

Thanks, I appreciate your words, and it´s no different from what I have heard from others on this subject. I promise to invite a group of you to a beer or two when I get the chance to meet some GI´s in autumn.


39 posted on 06/14/2004 9:05:35 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OESY
It's a bad idea, particularly at a time when the United States is struggling to rebuild its relations with its NATO allies.

Without noting the source, I got as far as the second sentence before my conservative antennae signaled "leftist hit piece."

Why was I not surprised to find it was a NYT Editorial.

40 posted on 06/14/2004 9:16:56 AM PDT by RottiBiz (Help end Freepathons -- become a Monthly Donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY
Personally, if the NY Times thinks it's a bad idea - that's enough to convince me it's a great one. Once again they leap to the conclusion that it is we who need to improve our relationships with Old Europe. I suggest the onus is on them. They're the ones with limping economies, rampant unemployment and schizophrenia about the E.U.

Allied are countries that stand by you even when it's not in their obvious & immediate interest. They do so to preserve and enhance the long-term relationship. Germany and France have failed the test. They are no longer allies.

We need to reward our allies and penalize those who oppose us. Other countries will understand that and think twice about comparing us to Hitler or abusing an undeserved seat on the UNSC to thwart us.

41 posted on 06/14/2004 9:27:34 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OESY

Germany needs an Ambassador that speaks only english and french, not troops especially armored troops.


42 posted on 06/14/2004 9:34:35 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Michael81Dus
Last data 9 october 2003

4019 polish troops around the world, mostly Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bosna, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Pretty good contribution for such young democracy. They were engaged before as well in Israel and all other peace missions.

Now you can write number of German troops.
43 posted on 06/14/2004 9:35:34 AM PDT by Lukasz (Hey don't look for my horrible mistakes, I'm learning English here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56
Yep, NYT is trying to cover for the German socialists' anti-American behaviour, so they can slap us in the face and not pay the consequences.

We should reward Poland and the other new EU states along with other countries brave enough to stand up to the Islamofascists...

If the NYT is for something, i am immediately suspicious -- if i used to hold the same views they espouse, i'll quickly re-examine my views -- i must have missed something if i end up on the same side as the Slimes...

44 posted on 06/14/2004 9:44:30 AM PDT by chilepepper (The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz

7,750 men and women mostly in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, but also in Georgia, at the Somali coast line, Ethiopia, Eritrea.

Good job, I´ve met Polish paratroopers two years ago, they were kind and well trained.


45 posted on 06/14/2004 9:53:46 AM PDT by Michael81Dus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: STFrancis

ping

Not election related, but interesting.


46 posted on 06/14/2004 10:02:29 AM PDT by longjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

At least you had only good things to say about them.

Some of my comments from my nearly 6 years there aren't quite as nice.

But the closer to the border you got, the nicer they were to us GI's.


47 posted on 06/14/2004 10:04:19 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Coming to you live from HESCO city...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OESY
The large American military presence in Germany has long symbolized the understanding at the heart of NATO — Washington's commitment to remain permanently engaged in Europe's security and to integrate its military operations with those of its major European allies. Recent history has only reinforced how important that relationship is to the United States. NATO is the only alliance capable of sharing some of the global military burdens that have now overstretched America's ground forces.

NATO was created to "Keep the Russians out and the Germans down". Hence the continued occupation of Germany and the lack of a peace treaty 60 years after the end of WWII. The Bundesrepublik government is an instrument of the four occupying powers, not the actual German government in the sense of a constitutional authority with powers from the nation.

48 posted on 06/14/2004 11:09:30 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

Where were you when you were in Germany?
I was at Merrill Barracks, Nuernberg, and Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart.


49 posted on 06/14/2004 11:11:39 AM PDT by Cannoneer No. 4 (I've lost turret power; I have my nods and my .50. Hooah. I will stay until relieved. White 2 out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
The Nery York Slimes left out the fact that when Gore reorganized government during the Clinton Administration, 800,000 military personnel were cut. The NYT was silent then so now during the Bush Administration closing a few bases becomes important to them.
50 posted on 06/14/2004 11:18:14 AM PDT by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson