He cites the high upfront costs...but ignores the long term savings.
He cites the message it would send...but ignores the message he attempted to send last week.
This via DODBuzz.
Secretary Gates, counting the hours until he’s sprung from his five-sided dungeon, warned senators on Wednesday about the risks involved with closing U.S. bases overseas as part of potential cuts to the defense budget. For one thing, he said, it would probably cost money upfront, as opposed to saving it, to build headquarters and barracks and other facilities in the U.S. to house the troops who now live in Europe. For another, it might send a dangerous message:No Gates isn't right.
“What kind of signal to do you want to send the rest of the world, as far as America’s role in the world?” Gates asked. “At the same time as we’re cutting the defense budget, we cut State’s budget, and State has fewer assets to deploy aboard, we have fewer assets to deploy aboard — are we basically sending the message to the rest of the world, to China, Iran, North Korea, a variety of others … that the U.S. is closing up shop and going home and headed toward Fortress America again?”
Not only would that have a chilling effect around the globe, Gates said, he argued that the American military bases in Europe have actually helped stem the trend of diminished NATO usefulness that he famously warned about last week.“Our presence in Europe, one of the benefits it has brought — in addition to the fiscal benefit of having troops rotate from Germany to Afghanistan — one thing is has brought, is it has slowed, I think, this deterioration of NATO military capabilities,” Gates said.
Is that because European troops need to maintain a certain level of proficiency to keep pace with the Americans? asked Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland. Absolutely, Gates said.
“We train with them, we work with them, so they have to have capabilities to match us when we’re doing that,” he said.
Whatever you think of Gates’ arguments on foreign basing, his warnings appeared to add another bullet point to his list of things that DoD must keep — along with the now-familiar litany that includes the F-35, the KC-46A, Army and Marine Corps recapitalization, SSBN(X). At this rate, it’s getting difficult to see what things Gates would be all right with losing. Fortunately for him, with only 15 more days on the job, he won’t be around to have to figure that out.
What do you think — is Gates right?
He just proved that we're subsidizing European defense.
He just proved that they're not interested in their own defense.
He just proved that a big segment of Europe isn't worth the time or money.
Gates is wrong. Time to pull ALL our forces out of Europe.
So Sol, what do you propose to do about forces that are essential to your own defence in Europe, like the Ballistic missile radar at RAF Fylingdale? What would you do with the thousands of US nuclear weapons you still have based in Europe to help protect the US from Russia (those F15's that carry them can't fly all the way from the US). Where would you base the fleet that sits in Italy now? It'd cost a hell of a lot to move it from the Eastern Sea Board everytime you want it in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you want to pull out of Europe does that mean all European territory? Because that isn't just Europe, you have critical facilities in UK overseas territory like Diego Garcia.
I agree you could pull a large proportion of forces out, the UK is doing just that with it's forces in Germany, but forward basing is useful in some cases, so a blanket statement about pulling out seems poorly thought out at best.
not poorly thought out at all.
ReplyDeletethe current stance of forward basing is a cold war anachronism.
its no longer needed nor is at beneficial to the US. why? because it leads to the perception that the US will step in and handle any situation that needs solving.
nuclear weapons in Europe? pull them out. we need only ballistic subs, and land based ICBMs are more than adequate.
if we need air delivered weapons then they should be done by bombers not tactical aircraft.
did you know that the UK conducted more training exercises in the US than any other country? approaching 150.
they don't have a base in the US. we don't need a base over there.
Alright you want a change of strategy, thats fine. But you didn't address the other points about Fylingdales or British Overseas territories you use, or the forward naval basing that saves time and a lot of money.
ReplyDeleteforward bases are unnecessary. we need to make use of port facilities but we don't need to have a base for that.
ReplyDeletewe stop in singapore all the time and don't have a base.
we stop in australia all the time and don't have a base.
we don't need those bases.
we can close down the radars and establish a floating radar picket near the pole....
we don't need those bases.
Hey Sol, maybe you haven't noticed but our land based ICBMs are 30+ years old, and that Grim has a point in that we need that radar in Fylingdale and the base in Diego Garcia.
ReplyDeleteUSS Helm.
ReplyDeletei have noticed the age of our ICBMS but then i also note that our ballistic missile subs can handle not only first strike but second and third too.
i also note that we have a floating x band radar and can not only duplicate it but perfect it without the entanglement of having bases on foreign soil.
so yeah, i hear what he's saying just disagree.
Diego Garcia is nice but not essential. the USAF has flown bombing missions from inside the US all the way to Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq.
we're developing prompt global strike so that we will have even less of a need for forward bases.
its a cold war mess that we need to get out of (forward bases)....
its messed up the USAF and made them fighter centric instead of having a well balanced bomber force too (note the USAF during the 1950's)....
yeah i'm right and you guys are wrong.
Sol, the USAF during the 1950s was a bomber oriented force and was focused on nuking the Soviets, and did not concentrate on fighters or the air support mission like today.
ReplyDeleteAlso, maybe you haven't read Defense Tech yet, because the most recent X-51 test was ended early, and the program overall has been having problems.
And tell what the name of this floating X-band radar is, as I haven't heard of it.
We need Diego Garcia because of the forward basing there and it helps when fly B-52 and B-1 missions in Africa, the middle east and Asia.
One last thing, have you heard anything about the "Darkhorses" 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines sustaining 9 casualties in 4 days?
Sol, were you aware that around 1/3 (A base in England and monitoring stations at Diego Garcia and Ascension Island) of your GPS ground stations are based on sovereign UK soil.
ReplyDeleteThat is something you can't sea base or move about as they are positioned for full Earth coverage. You saying that GPS is a "nice to have" for the modern US military, or would the vast majority of US operations grind to a halt without it.
My point is that sometimes you do have to cooperate with foreign nations for basing, and the UK has some pretty prime real estate when it comes to some of your key systems.
First off a double negative equals a positive: "No Gates isn't right"
ReplyDeleteSecondly for all those who say abandon foreign bases, its means just that! The US would be nullifying its treaty obligations which would DIMINISH our allies confidence in the US. Or to put it in terms you might say: "The US would be turning tail and running away"
Thirdly how the hell do you expect US forces to move forward - all the way from CONUS - in a timely manner if they do not have staging and logistic stops along the way? You don't really buy the Rumsfeld BS that we can fly our troops to where they need to go do you? The distances invovled times the mission duration times the lift required, try to work out that equation? Not enough airlift in the world to do that!
And do you really think your beloved amphibs go bobbing around the oceans without getting supplied from overseas bases by MSC auxiliaries?
You might want to rethink this one?
BTW during DS/S, more than 200,000 tons of prepositioned cargo left of MPS and APF ships from DGAR and were landed in theather in less than two weeks. Not to mention the multiple B-52 missions from that airbase. So no way we are giving up DGAR.
USSHelm - floating radar is SBX now under MSC. Primarily a testbed for BMD radars.
ReplyDeletewhat the fuck are you talking about a double negative equals a positive.....its language not math.
ReplyDeletesecond, i could care less about treaties that were signed when there was a rival super power that has been defeated and is no longer a threat.
third your love of the MSC is a trip. no body wants to see them go away but your trying to put them in the same class as combat ships is insane...or drug induced.
and no i don't want to rethink that tripe you just spouted.
lastly i don't give a fuck how much tonnage a cargo ship off loaded and don't care about sortie rate out of Diego Garcia.
its called global strike. launch from the US, refuel at foreign airports and be gone but no damn bases paid for by the US are needed.
Global strike is ludcrious. IF the US has pulled out of foreign bases, do you really expect foreign countries to allow our warplanes refueling rights? Hell even Turkey said no to ship refueling during DS/S.
ReplyDeleteAmpibious LIFT equals warships plus sealift ships. The different types complement each other in accomplishing the mission of how do the Marines get forward with enough to win - simple as that. It ain't math.
I guess you are neither a strategist, logistician nor English student?
don't like it?
ReplyDeletethen GET THE FUCK OFF MY BLOG YOU ARROGANT BASTARD!
roger that
ReplyDelete