7 ms·

U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says

62 points by mikhael 6mo ago

doctaj 6mo ago
https://archive.ph/TvRui https://archive.ph/TvRui
- thaumasiotes 6mo ago
  That's just an empty pane saying "please disable your ad blocker".
kogus 6mo ago
If this is the Trump Administration's "punishment" for "disloyalty", then we are in for a treat. Hopefully US forces can also be withdrawn from Japan, Iraq, Italy, Guam, and the other 180 locations where they are currently unnecessarily stationed.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- ku-man 6mo ago
  [dead]
- arvid-lind 6mo ago
  I'm thinking it's meant to appear as a punishment for disloyalty, but withdrawing troops like this only hurts the US and NATO. As we've seen in the Middle East recently, the hosts don't get any kind of security guarantees. Overall it meets the primary directive of this administration, which is to weaken the United States as a superpower and make way for Russia.
  - pohuing 6mo ago
    It does remove money from local economies. The drawdown of the British hurt my regional economy quite a bit.
    - arvid-lind 5mo ago
      That makes sense. It's like packing up a very small city of US influence abroad, just more embarrassing self-destructive petulance from Trump. He probably wants a headline that looks like he's hitting back more than anything.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- tharkun__ 6mo ago
  Withdrawing 5k troops that are probably just rotational troops that ... go home without replenishment is different from actually shutting down bases. Unless Germany denies the US Ramstein airbase and spying operations, you can safely bet they'll stay. Even if they withdraw everything that isn't required to just keep operating the airbase and listening posts, they'll at least keep those around for as long as they are able to actually use them.
- crises-luff-6b 6mo ago
  [dead]
curmudgeon22 6mo ago
> The Pentagon said the withdrawal was expected to be completed over the next six to 12 months. Germany is home to around 35,000 active-duty U.S. military personnel, more than anywhere else in Europe.[1] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-troops-germany-withdraw-nato-trump-9.7185198 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-troops-germany-withdraw-nat...
- icegreentea2 6mo ago
  The articles mention withdrawing a BCT (which is ~4000 people) form Germany. The US currently has 2 BCTs "fully" in Germany. The 2nd Cav Regiment (a Stryker unit.. so infantry mounted on 8x8 APCs) and an Armoured BCT on 9 month rotation (so tanks and IFVs). There have been a bunch of studies indicating that the rotational ABCT costs more than even a truly forward deployed ABCT. My bet is that it's the ABCT that is going to get withdrawn. It's both the flashier unit, and likely has the highest impact on freeing up money. This also lines up with the withdrawal timelines... since the unit is rotational, they just need to wait for the end of rotation, and just... not send another. Much less disruption. While the timing was obviously conjunction with current events, this draw down was likely to happen at some point in this term, even in absence of Iran things. Trump literally tried to do this at the end of his last term.
rayiner 6mo ago
Good. It’s not 1945 anymore, we don’t need to keep occupying Germany.
- trhway 6mo ago
  now Germany has a choice - to spend hundreds of billions for conventionally armed military to defend itself and still face risks of war or just a few billions to develop and produce nukes (using already existing Pu from the power plants) and have everlasting peace. Germans are rational people as i heard.
  - Ksv28 6mo ago
    They can learn a lot from the Swiss who spend a whole lot of less time and energy reacting daily to what the US thinks, says and does.
    - tharkun__ 6mo ago
      How many military bases does the US have in Switzerland again? Oh, the number is zero? Germany? Well guess what, the US has a very prominent airbase and listening station in Ramstein and a bunch of other military installations there. Also: History.
      - watwut 6mo ago
        But none of that benefits Germany that much. Being in aliance like NATO with duty for mutual protection benefits them, but american military basis are setup primary for american benefit. Germany would want them in Poland or such, near to Russia which is an actual threat.
        rayiner 5mo ago
        Isn’t the main benefit to America of bases in Germany connected to its commitment to defend European security? If the U.S. didn’t have NATO obligations, how much would it benefit from having German bases?
karim79 6mo ago
Germany is silent on the Gaza genocide, and silent on the ethnic cleansing of Lebanon. Also Donald Trump doesn't have a fucking clue. To get back to the point, I actually do not understand why there are any US soldiers here to begin with. Is it just posturing?
- icegreentea2 6mo ago
  There are two broad reasons why the US has troops in Germany (and in Europe overall). 1. Because the Europeans wanted them there. NATO was a big security blanket, and certainly since the end of the cold war, up to say... 2014, America -wanted- a compliant Europe. 2. Because Europe is an amazing springboard into the middle east, and America just can't help but get itself involved in dropping bombs on the middle east. 1 ties into 2. A compliant Europe is less likely to raise objections to being used as a forward base for bombing Iraqis and Iranians. It's only in the last 10-15 years that the US realized that perhaps it was/had squandered it's lead to China, and dropped the ball (Europe at fault too) on properly containing (or addressing) Russia, and it would sure be nice if it could focus on the Pacific.
  - tharmas 5mo ago
    And number 3: To ensure that Germany and Russia never team up to be a world super power that would rival the USA. That's the main reason they are there.
    - brazukadev 5mo ago
      OP is probably from the US and only see "America" as the good guy.
nikeyshon 6mo ago
https://archive.ph/hFHiE https://archive.ph/hFHiE
CMay 6mo ago
Not sure this really means anything, but we've been fairly transparent that we want to redirect attention and funding towards the pacific.
wg0 6mo ago
[flagged]
Jtsummers 6mo ago
For the many commenters that can't be bothered to exercise their reading comprehension skills: This is not reducing to pre-WWII levels, this is reducing down to 2022 levels (pre-Russia discovering their military can't win a war against Ukraine). It's mostly symbolic because Trump is a thin-skinned idiot and his staff wanted an easy way to appease him and make it look like something important was happening.
yongjik 6mo ago
This may not be the end of the days of America the Superpower... but it may be the beginning of the end.
orwin 6mo ago
Maybe Germany will stop being the Trojan horse of the US inside the EU, at least for the defence. Trump honestly have been great for EU sovereignty. It's a shame that his decisions caused that much suffering, which prevents me to truly be happy that he controls the US, but I do believe he is a net positive for the EU.

62 points by mikhael 6mo ago

doctaj 6mo ago

https://archive.ph/TvRui https://archive.ph/TvRui

thaumasiotes 6mo ago
That's just an empty pane saying "please disable your ad blocker".

kogus 6mo ago

If this is the Trump Administration's "punishment" for "disloyalty", then we are in for a treat. Hopefully US forces can also be withdrawn from Japan, Iraq, Italy, Guam, and the other 180 locations where they are currently unnecessarily stationed.

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
ku-man 6mo ago
[dead]
arvid-lind 6mo ago
I'm thinking it's meant to appear as a punishment for disloyalty, but withdrawing troops like this only hurts the US and NATO. As we've seen in the Middle East recently, the hosts don't get any kind of security guarantees. Overall it meets the primary directive of this administration, which is to weaken the United States as a superpower and make way for Russia.
- pohuing 6mo ago
  It does remove money from local economies. The drawdown of the British hurt my regional economy quite a bit.
  - arvid-lind 5mo ago
    That makes sense. It's like packing up a very small city of US influence abroad, just more embarrassing self-destructive petulance from Trump. He probably wants a headline that looks like he's hitting back more than anything.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
tharkun__ 6mo ago
Withdrawing 5k troops that are probably just rotational troops that ... go home without replenishment is different from actually shutting down bases. Unless Germany denies the US Ramstein airbase and spying operations, you can safely bet they'll stay. Even if they withdraw everything that isn't required to just keep operating the airbase and listening posts, they'll at least keep those around for as long as they are able to actually use them.
crises-luff-6b 6mo ago
[dead]

curmudgeon22 6mo ago

> The Pentagon said the withdrawal was expected to be completed over the next six to 12 months. Germany is home to around 35,000 active-duty U.S. military personnel, more than anywhere else in Europe.[1] [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-troops-germany-withdraw-nato-trump-9.7185198 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-troops-germany-withdraw-nat...

icegreentea2 6mo ago
The articles mention withdrawing a BCT (which is ~4000 people) form Germany. The US currently has 2 BCTs "fully" in Germany. The 2nd Cav Regiment (a Stryker unit.. so infantry mounted on 8x8 APCs) and an Armoured BCT on 9 month rotation (so tanks and IFVs). There have been a bunch of studies indicating that the rotational ABCT costs more than even a truly forward deployed ABCT. My bet is that it's the ABCT that is going to get withdrawn. It's both the flashier unit, and likely has the highest impact on freeing up money. This also lines up with the withdrawal timelines... since the unit is rotational, they just need to wait for the end of rotation, and just... not send another. Much less disruption. While the timing was obviously conjunction with current events, this draw down was likely to happen at some point in this term, even in absence of Iran things. Trump literally tried to do this at the end of his last term.

rayiner 6mo ago

Good. It’s not 1945 anymore, we don’t need to keep occupying Germany.

trhway 6mo ago
now Germany has a choice - to spend hundreds of billions for conventionally armed military to defend itself and still face risks of war or just a few billions to develop and produce nukes (using already existing Pu from the power plants) and have everlasting peace. Germans are rational people as i heard.
- Ksv28 6mo ago
  They can learn a lot from the Swiss who spend a whole lot of less time and energy reacting daily to what the US thinks, says and does.
  - tharkun__ 6mo ago
    How many military bases does the US have in Switzerland again? Oh, the number is zero? Germany? Well guess what, the US has a very prominent airbase and listening station in Ramstein and a bunch of other military installations there. Also: History.
    - watwut 6mo ago
      But none of that benefits Germany that much. Being in aliance like NATO with duty for mutual protection benefits them, but american military basis are setup primary for american benefit. Germany would want them in Poland or such, near to Russia which is an actual threat.
      - rayiner 5mo ago
        Isn’t the main benefit to America of bases in Germany connected to its commitment to defend European security? If the U.S. didn’t have NATO obligations, how much would it benefit from having German bases?

karim79 6mo ago

Germany is silent on the Gaza genocide, and silent on the ethnic cleansing of Lebanon. Also Donald Trump doesn't have a fucking clue. To get back to the point, I actually do not understand why there are any US soldiers here to begin with. Is it just posturing?

icegreentea2 6mo ago
There are two broad reasons why the US has troops in Germany (and in Europe overall). 1. Because the Europeans wanted them there. NATO was a big security blanket, and certainly since the end of the cold war, up to say... 2014, America -wanted- a compliant Europe. 2. Because Europe is an amazing springboard into the middle east, and America just can't help but get itself involved in dropping bombs on the middle east. 1 ties into 2. A compliant Europe is less likely to raise objections to being used as a forward base for bombing Iraqis and Iranians. It's only in the last 10-15 years that the US realized that perhaps it was/had squandered it's lead to China, and dropped the ball (Europe at fault too) on properly containing (or addressing) Russia, and it would sure be nice if it could focus on the Pacific.
- tharmas 5mo ago
  And number 3: To ensure that Germany and Russia never team up to be a world super power that would rival the USA. That's the main reason they are there.
  - brazukadev 5mo ago
    OP is probably from the US and only see "America" as the good guy.

nikeyshon 6mo ago

https://archive.ph/hFHiE https://archive.ph/hFHiE

CMay 6mo ago

Not sure this really means anything, but we've been fairly transparent that we want to redirect attention and funding towards the pacific.

wg0 6mo ago

[flagged]

Jtsummers 6mo ago

For the many commenters that can't be bothered to exercise their reading comprehension skills: This is not reducing to pre-WWII levels, this is reducing down to 2022 levels (pre-Russia discovering their military can't win a war against Ukraine). It's mostly symbolic because Trump is a thin-skinned idiot and his staff wanted an easy way to appease him and make it look like something important was happening.

yongjik 6mo ago

This may not be the end of the days of America the Superpower... but it may be the beginning of the end.

orwin 6mo ago

Maybe Germany will stop being the Trojan horse of the US inside the EU, at least for the defence. Trump honestly have been great for EU sovereignty. It's a shame that his decisions caused that much suffering, which prevents me to truly be happy that he controls the US, but I do believe he is a net positive for the EU.