U.S. lawmakers hammer Pentagon over lack of detail on Germany troop cuts

By Idrees Ali

 

FILE PHOTO: Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Adam Smith speaks during the House Armed Services Committee hearing on 'Department of Defense Authorities and Roles Related to Civilian Law Enforcement' in Washington, DC, U.S. July 9, 2020. Michael Reynolds/Pool via REUTERS

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans, expressed frustration with the Pentagon at a hearing on Wednesday over the lack of details surrounding President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw thousands of troops from Germany.

 

In July, the Pentagon announced that it would withdraw about 12,000 of 36,000 troops from Germany, in fallout from Trump’s long-simmering feud with Berlin over military spending, but said it will keep nearly half of those forces in Europe to address tension with Russia.

 

Two senior Pentagon officials appeared before a House Armed Services Committee hearing, where lawmakers pressed them about the cost of the troop withdrawal, how long it would take and how much the administration had coordinated with European allies before making the decision.

 

They got few answers during the sometimes contentious 2-1/2 hour hearing.

 

"What the hell is going on, so we can exercise our oversight?," said Democratic Representative Adam Smith, the committee chair.

 

James Anderson, the acting undersecretary of defense for policy at the Pentagon, said the military did not yet have details and would share plans as they are developed.

 

Anderson, when asked whether U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper had provided Trump the plan to draw down troops or if the president had made a decision and then directed the Pentagon to do it, said he was not privy to those conversations.

 

"Then why are you here?" Democratic Representative Bill Keating said.

 

The top Republican on the committee, Representative Mac Thornberry, said it appeared that the troop reduction was a result of White House officials - not the Pentagon - trying to get the president to agree on a troop cap in Germany.

 

Trump has faulted Germany, a close U.S. ally, for failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target and accused it of taking advantage of the United States on trade.

 

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Mary Milliken and Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-10-01

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

Donald is an "idea guy". Details aren't his forte. Ought to know that by now.

1 hour ago, Emdog said:

Donald is an "idea guy". Details aren't his forte. Ought to know that by now.

More an airballoon figure, let it up and wait till someone shoots it down.

If not then it's a good idea.

 

Perhaps the pentagon is stonewalling hoping for a change in administrations therefore not having to move the personnel because Angela hurt donalds feelings 

33 minutes ago, Tug said:

Perhaps the pentagon is stonewalling hoping for a change in administrations therefore not having to move the personnel because Angela hurt Donalds feelings 

She hurt his pocket. Big difference. He has the skin of a Rhino but she ain't ponying up her 2%

7 hours ago, webfact said:

Trump has faulted Germany, a close U.S. ally, for failing to meet NATO’s defense spending target and accused it of taking advantage of the United States on trade.

All true. So what's the beef?

1 hour ago, jinners said:

She hurt his pocket. Big difference. He has the skin of a Rhino but she ain't ponying up her 2%

It’s not (his) pocket Donald John trump is a narssisit he is mentally ill he has a very thin skin indeed he wouldent hesitate for a heart beat to ruin your life if you hurt his feelings I don’t think you have been paying attention 

Thank you Donald Trump. Please remove your troops and make Germans responsible for their own defence.

 

I look forward to our nuclear arsenal already.

 

We can create one of the world's leading military powers once again. 

 

God bless this American president.

50 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

All true. So what's the beef?

 

Read the OP. Or even the headline.

4 hours ago, Tug said:

It’s not (his) pocket Donald John trump is a narssisit he is mentally ill he has a very thin skin indeed he wouldent hesitate for a heart beat to ruin your life if you hurt his feelings I don’t think you have been paying attention 

 100% True!

Those troops in Germany cost the USA taxpayer millions of dollars. Why not let Poland have some of that money?  Good idea that, send the soldiers closer to Russia. 

10 minutes ago, IAMHERE said:

Those troops in Germany cost the USA taxpayer millions of dollars. Why not let Poland have some of that money?  Good idea that, send the soldiers closer to Russia. 

 

Unless mistaken, that's the sort of information which was sought - and the gist of the OP being that no information of value was provided. Given that's more a political decision than a military one, not very surprising. All the more so when it comes to Trump's administration.

Just go, EU needs their own defense force, they'll never build it if yanks are hanging about.

33 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Just go, EU needs their own defense force, they'll never build it if yanks are hanging about.

Exactly. If the Americans were to bring home their military worldwide maybe they could better look after their own people.  Obviously munition corporation lobbyists stand in the way of that. 

Trump is sending them to train in Russia 

13 hours ago, DrTuner said:

Just go, EU needs their own defense force, they'll never build it if yanks are hanging about.

Indeed. And if they don't build it, who cares... One of our reasons for keeping troops in Europe was to keep France and Germany from going at it again. That reason is probably no longer germane. And protecting western Europe from Russia -- why should the US even care. Christ, I'm still miffed at losing a grandfather in WWI, a war the US had no business in, but in which it lost 100,000 men. While Holland, staying neutral with a war in its back yard, lost none. Bizarre.

 

Anyway, bring the troops home; use all those savings from no longer paying NATO (for our share -- and THEIRS) to bolster our foundering schools; and convert the active duty troops to reservists and home town guardsmen. Then, as we slam the door on our way out, give the ingrateful Europeans the bill for their never-paid-back Marshall Plan.

 

Christ, Trump's an embarrassment -- but some of his MAGA policies certainly resonate.

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

Indeed. And if they don't build it, who cares... One of our reasons for keeping troops in Europe was to keep France and Germany from going at it again. That reason is probably no longer germane. And protecting western Europe from Russia -- why should the US even care. Christ, I'm still miffed at losing a grandfather in WWI, a war the US had no business in, but in which it lost 100,000 men. While Holland, staying neutral with a war in its back yard, lost none. Bizarre.

 

Anyway, bring the troops home; use all those savings from no longer paying NATO (for our share -- and THEIRS) to bolster our foundering schools; and convert the active duty troops to reservists and home town guardsmen. Then, as we slam the door on our way out, give the ingrateful Europeans the bill for their never-paid-back Marshall Plan.

 

Christ, Trump's an embarrassment -- but some of his MAGA policies certainly resonate.

That point of view certainly worked in the middle east didn't it? NOT! When after plunging the region in to chaos on the basis of fake evidence (WMDs) and a poodle called Blair, The idiot that is Obama withdrew troops and allowed ISIS the take over huge swathes of land resulting in mass murder and mayhem for the whole region. There is no benefit from America going down that route again. Oh, and if you're still really smarting about the loss of a grandparent you never knew, in a conflict over a century ago, perhaps you should get out more.

50 minutes ago, jinners said:

The idiot that is Obama withdrew troops and allowed ISIS the take over huge swathes of land resulting in mass murder and mayhem for the whole region. There is no benefit from America going down that route again.

You mean, if the US leaves Europe -- ISIS will take over huge swathes of the Old World, resulting in mass murder? Golly, maybe then Europe will be forced to ratchet up its forces to meet the challenge. One can only hope....

On 10/2/2020 at 5:32 PM, JimGant said:

You mean, if the US leaves Europe -- ISIS will take over huge swathes of the Old World, resulting in mass murder? Golly, maybe then Europe will be forced to ratchet up its forces to meet the challenge. One can only hope....

You know exactly what I mean. Not sure if your comment is tongue in cheek or just a demonstration of US isolationism preference. Whatever, I agree there's a need for Europe to be more self supporting. Which is where we started with Trump pissing off Merkel expecting that she pay her fair share minimum.

On 10/1/2020 at 10:35 AM, jinners said:

She hurt his pocket. Big difference. He has the skin of a Rhino.........

trump has the skin of a rhino?? Are we talking about the same trump, the notoriously thin-skinned one, or an imaginary trump who takes it on the chin and moves on?

Edited October 6, 20205 yr by Phoenix Rising

On 10/6/2020 at 1:16 PM, Phoenix Rising said:

trump has the skin of a rhino?? Are we talking about the same trump, the notoriously thin-skinned one, or an imaginary trump who takes it on the chin and moves on?

Not a Tump fan eh?

All those overseas bases costs the US a fortune, and no doubt there are stakeholders making money from it. Why would the US have troops in Germany anyway? The Soviet Union is defunct and isn't Germany's defense their problem? Russia has a pretty reasonable defense but they don't have the logistics, nor probably the desire to bankrupt their economy, trying to invade Europe.

20 hours ago, Rancid said:

All those overseas bases costs the US a fortune, and no doubt there are stakeholders making money from it. Why would the US have troops in Germany anyway? The Soviet Union is defunct and isn't Germany's defense their problem? Russia has a pretty reasonable defense but they don't have the logistics, nor probably the desire to bankrupt their economy, trying to invade Europe.

 

Most relevant western intelligence and security services do not share your views (presented as fact) about Russia not being a threat. Granted the threat changed some since the USSR days, but not as in nothing to see here, folks.

 

USA troops positioned worldwide go hand in hand with playing top dog. Sure, it comes at a cost - but there are obvious benefits to it on multiple levels. I doubt you are not aware of it.

This is further proof that Trump is a Russian agent. How can we protect our allies in Europe when Trump transfers troops from Germany all the way to Poland. That’s like saying “Hey Putin invade Europe you’re allowed to”. 
 

if Biden were in office the US would have none of it!

2 minutes ago, ShindenGo said:

This is further proof that Trump is a Russian agent. How can we protect our allies in Europe when Trump transfers troops from Germany all the way to Poland. That’s like saying “Hey Putin invade Europe you’re allowed to”. 
 

if Biden were in office the US would have none of it!

 

Geography is obviously not your strong suit.

On 10/2/2020 at 4:38 PM, jinners said:

That point of view certainly worked in the middle east didn't it? NOT! When after plunging the region in to chaos on the basis of fake evidence (WMDs) and a poodle called Blair, The idiot that is Obama withdrew troops and allowed ISIS the take over huge swathes of land resulting in mass murder and mayhem for the whole region. There is no benefit from America going down that route again. Oh, and if you're still really smarting about the loss of a grandparent you never knew, in a conflict over a century ago, perhaps you should get out more.

Actually, if you want to claim idiocy for Obama's withdrawal, lay it at the feet of the Bush Administration. It was they who negotiated the withdrawal agreement that Obama merely followed.

6 hours ago, Morch said:

Most relevant western intelligence and security services do not share your views (presented as fact) about Russia not being a threat.

So, the US should stay in Europe -- as a tripwire? Russia is not a threat to the US mainland -- MAD assures against that. So why should my tax dollars go to defending Europe, especially when my cost is their savings? If Europe is worried about a Russian threat -- and if a US tripwire is seen as an effective deterrent -- then let them pay us full fare, which would probably be cheaper than funding for a defense without US presence. Then again, H... no! Bring the troops home to in-country bases -- let Europe sort things out for themselves.

 

Quote

USA troops positioned worldwide go hand in hand with playing top dog. Sure, it comes at a cost - but there are obvious benefits to it on multiple levels.

Please elaborate on the "obvious benefits." I'm tired, after a full career in the US Air Force, of playing world's policeman, with all its crummy world assignments.

13 hours ago, JimGant said:

So, the US should stay in Europe -- as a tripwire? Russia is not a threat to the US mainland -- MAD assures against that. So why should my tax dollars go to defending Europe, especially when my cost is their savings? If Europe is worried about a Russian threat -- and if a US tripwire is seen as an effective deterrent -- then let them pay us full fare, which would probably be cheaper than funding for a defense without US presence. Then again, H... no! Bring the troops home to in-country bases -- let Europe sort things out for themselves.

 

Please elaborate on the "obvious benefits." I'm tired, after a full career in the US Air Force, of playing world's policeman, with all its crummy world assignments.

 

Your claim that Russia is not a threat to the US mainland does not reflect intelligence and security agencies views. Don't know that MAD helps much with countering subversive actions, or cyber warfare, just to name two obvious examples of how Russia is a threat.

 

As said, I don't think that the nature of the threat remains constant - and changes in how USA troops are deployed abroad should certainly reflect that. Doubt it would be feasible, cost efficient or even in the USA's best interests to bring them all back home. 

 

Pressing European countries to show greater commitment for their own defense is alright. Although there are probably more efficient ways of going about it than those taken by Trump. I doubt that leaving Europe to fend for itself directly plays for USA's global interests - vacuum's aren't a thing. Generally speaking, IMO, a strong (but not challenger level 'strong') Europe is better for the US, as opposed to a weakened Europe, more pliable to pressures by the real competition, China and Russia.

 

There's also another angle - arms sales. If Europe was to become more self reliant, it would eventually cut procurement of USA made arms. The way it works now, many (especially air forces) buy Americans as the development of systems is costly, and integrating different platforms problematic.

 

Playing the world policeman comes with global leadership, and the style of dominance exhibited by the USA. If you think that the USA's economic opportunities, diplomatic clout and reach would have been the same without the force projection and binding ties these deployments generate - we'll have to disagree.

 

I fully get being tired of it. There's that. And the cost - both in lives and dollars. Rethinking the USA's role on the global stage, or at least, how it is best managed - that's alright too. I just don't see much coherent thinking offered on this score. Can't scale back, break away with allies, and still be able to curb the likes of China, for example.

 

 

On 10/2/2020 at 5:00 PM, JimGant said:

Indeed. And if they don't build it, who cares... One of our reasons for keeping troops in Europe was to keep France and Germany from going at it again. That reason is probably no longer germane. And protecting western Europe from Russia -- why should the US even care. Christ, I'm still miffed at losing a grandfather in WWI, a war the US had no business in, but in which it lost 100,000 men. While Holland, staying neutral with a war in its back yard, lost none. Bizarre.

 

Anyway, bring the troops home; use all those savings from no longer paying NATO (for our share -- and THEIRS) to bolster our foundering schools; and convert the active duty troops to reservists and home town guardsmen. Then, as we slam the door on our way out, give the ingrateful Europeans the bill for their never-paid-back Marshall Plan.

 

Christ, Trump's an embarrassment -- but some of his MAGA policies certainly resonate.

You clearly have no comprehension of the financial benefit of the Marshall Plan for the US. Massive increase in trade acquired to the US as a result as well as reduction in risk of future conflict (learnt from the strategic failure of the Versailles Agreement in 1919). US forces and bases in NATO represent significant advantages with infrastructure, allocation of resources and capability in conflict areas such as M.E. and Africa. The allocation of US funds to NATO countries, as opposed for US capability was completely misrepresented by trump, as well as the previously agreed financial commitments agreed by European NATO partners to be complied with by 2024. How much damage trump policies have created to world  wide stability is as yet unknown, hopefully the results will not come to fruition when Biden achieves power to repair relations with US allies as the traditional force multipliers.

On 10/20/2020 at 12:41 PM, ShindenGo said:

This is further proof that Trump is a Russian agent. How can we protect our allies in Europe when Trump transfers troops from Germany all the way to Poland. That’s like saying “Hey Putin invade Europe you’re allowed to”. 
 

if Biden were in office the US would have none of it!

You're are stark raving mad