US scales back troops at Europe bases to save $500 million

[webfact]

US scales back troops at Europe bases to save $500 million
By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon Thursday unveiled sweeping plans to consolidate its forces in Europe, taking thousands of U.S. military and civilian personnel out of bases mostly in the United Kingdom and Portugal, in an effort that will save about $500 million each year.

Off-setting some of the troop reductions in the U.K., the U.S. has selected RAF Lakenheath in Britain to be the first permanent European base for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The restructuring will take place over the next several years, and the first F-35 aircraft would arrive in the U.K. in 2020. They will replace F-15 fighter jets, which are leaving.

The changes involve mainly Army and Air Force personnel and facilities, and would result in the overall reduction of about 2,000 U.S. workers in the U.K. About 3,200 would come out of RAF Mildenhall while about 1,200 staff would be added at RAF Lakenheath with two squadrons of F-35 fighters.

The Pentagon has been systematically taking U.S. forces out of Europe in recent years, reflecting the ongoing decrease in the size of the Army and Marine Corps as well as the increased emphasis on the Pacific and a desire to shift additional troops into Eastern Europe and other regions where tensions with Russia have grown.

Many of the closures affect smaller bases that were remnants of the Cold War.

"We must seek greater efficiencies with respect to our presence in Europe and ensure we are focusing resources where they can have the greatest effect," said U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe.

Derek Chollet, the assistant defense secretary for international security affairs, told Pentagon reporters Thursday that the consolidation will not affect U.S. military operations or America's ability to respond to its European partners. He said there are roughly 67,000 U.S. forces all across Europe, and since that total fluctuates as troops rotate in and out, that number will remain about the same.

Under the new restructuring, the U.S. would remove troops from about 15 bases, returning those installations to the host nations. While there would be additional base consolidation in Germany, the U.S. would end up with a few hundred more troops there after shifting some from the U.K.

John Conger, the acting assistant secretary of defense for energy, installations and environment, said it will cost about $1.4 billion to implement the closures and changes, with about one-third of that involving new construction and improvements.

As an example, Chollet noted that improvements are needed in some Eastern Europe nations where troops have been doing the more recent rotations.

U.S. officials also have finalized plans to cut about 500 military personnel from the Lajes military base in the Azores islands - a proposal that had drawn opposition from leaders in Portugal. Two years ago, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with officials in Lisbon about the plan, which was expected to save about $350 million over 10 years.

The U.S., at the time, agreed to reassess the move, but the Pentagon has now concluded that the plan to scale back personnel at the Lajes base should go forward. The plan reduces U.S. military, civilian and contract personnel there by two-thirds.

While permanent basing is declining, the military is ramping up its program to rotate forces in and out of Europe for training and exercises. Over the past year, the U.S. has sent a variety of troops, including special operations forces, to exercises and training in Eastern Europe, including Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, as part of an effort to reassure allies in the region who are worried about Russia's increasing aggression.

The U.S. cuts can have a deep economic impact on the host nations, since they would likely trigger local job cuts, including workers who support base operations, maintenance and other services. Conger said about 1,100 host nation jobs would be eliminated and another 1,500 would be affected, mainly because they would be moving to other locations in Europe.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-01-09

[rickirs]

"We must seek greater efficiencies with respect to our presence in Europe and ensure we are focusing resources where they can have the greatest effect,"

WWII is 70 years past. The Cold War is 35 years past. European nations have recouperated, Germany has reunified, the EU has become a unifying force for European consolidation of resources, and NATO provides security. It's past time that the US reorganize what physical presence it needs in Europe to protect USA interests as opposed to carry security responsibility for European nations. Europe needs now to safeguard its own freedoms.

The USA needs to better locate security assets in the Asia-Pacific theater as threats there continue to grow, no thanks to Thailand's left leaning military government. Saving $500 million in Europe means $500 million elsewhere, and that can include investment and development funding, not just a military buildup. The US has recently renewed a 10-year lease for its Cebu military facilities and most likely will have a physical presence in Vietnam - this time by invitation.

[JingerBen]

"We must seek greater efficiencies with respect to our presence in Europe and ensure we are focusing resources where they can have the greatest effect,"

WWII is 70 years past. The Cold War is 35 years past. European nations have recouperated, Germany has reunified, the EU has become a unifying force for European consolidation of resources, and NATO provides security. It's past time that the US reorganize what physical presence it needs in Europe to protect USA interests as opposed to carry security responsibility for European nations. Europe needs now to safeguard its own freedoms.

The USA needs to better locate security assets in the Asia-Pacific theater as threats there continue to grow, no thanks to Thailand's left leaning military government. Saving $500 million in Europe means $500 million elsewhere, and that can include investment and development funding, not just a military buildup. The US has recently renewed a 10-year lease for its Cebu military facilities and most likely will have a physical presence in Vietnam - this time by invitation.

Could you explain in more detail what you mean by threats in the Asia Pacific region being related to "...Thailand's left leaning military government." ?

That's absolute nonsense!

Stop posting drivel.

[nodomino]

The U.S. State department worked overtime to create a 'crisis' in Ukraine that now is used to justify continued US occupation throughout Europe. Since when is the military concerned about money? Having squandered one and a half TRILLION dollars on the F-35 which cannot fly in bad weather, is years behind deployment and has been denounced as an obsolete and ineffective boondoggle by most of the air defense establishment including the designer of both the A10 and the F-15 it cannot fulfill the mission assigned to it.

[MrTee]

Can't say I am unhappy about this.

buhbye

[marko kok prong]

They would save even more money if they stopped bombing and invading various parts of the world.

[CMNightRider]

They would save even more money if they stopped bombing and invading various parts of the world.

What's this, American Haters Anonymous?

[GentlemanJim]

Can't say I am unhappy about this.

buhbye

Unfortunately there will be a lot of people around Mildenhall that will be unhappy as jobs are lost, house prices plummet, businesses go bankrupt etc etc. Mildenhall brings a massive amount in to the local economy. Sad for those folks.

[ALLSEEINGEYE]

The US spends more on it's military than the next 12 largest countries combined!!! Just shy of 1 trillion dollars. They could half that amount and would still spend far more than any other country.

If they did this (and they will not) they could have their massive deficit under control in less than 2 decades instead of watching it spiral out of control.

Many Americans would never stand for this though. They are happy to take money from education, avoid health care reforms etc etc.

They want a smaller government with less taxes but want to spend a trillion dollars a year on defense.

I just don't get it.

[how241]

Better to move those forces to Asia , Africa, or the Middle East. Europe has been quiet for a long time now.

[nodomino]

They would save even more money if they stopped bombing and invading various parts of the world.

What's this, American Haters Anonymous?

The USA and NATO represent 70% of global military spending. When the subject is money and the military it is difficult NOT to include America (which by itself represents 50% of global military spending) and given the impact of the product of all that money on people all over the world, I would suggest that only the very simple-minded would equate questioning the wisdom of those expenditures as being an expression of hatred.

[Yahooka]

The U.S. State department worked overtime to create a 'crisis' in Ukraine that now is used to justify continued US occupation throughout Europe. Since when is the military concerned about money? Having squandered one and a half TRILLION dollars on the F-35 which cannot fly in bad weather, is years behind deployment and has been denounced as an obsolete and ineffective boondoggle by most of the air defense establishment including the designer of both the A10 and the F-15 it cannot fulfill the mission assigned to it.

"continued US occupation throughout Europe." Please enlighten us which countries in Europe that are currently occupied by the USA ?!?!

[NeverSure]

Over the past decades Germany has needed to spend next to nothing on military because the US concentrates air and naval bases there. Looks like same same.

This has allowed Germany to look more prosperous than it would if it had to compile a complete military. Germany then Lords it over much of Europe that it's the Big Dog.

As an American I wish the US would pull clear out of Europe. European nations are advanced and if they want defense they should buy their own. If they don't think they need it, up to them.

I have no idea why the American people should be defending Europe. There certainly isn't equal sharing in costs, even though the EU has a GDP about the same size as the US.

Let them eat cake.

[danmarnj]

The US spends more on it's military than the next 12 largest countries combined!!! Just shy of 1 trillion dollars. They could half that amount and would still spend far more than any other country.

If they did this (and they will not) they could have their massive deficit under control in less than 2 decades instead of watching it spiral out of control.

Many Americans would never stand for this though. They are happy to take money from education, avoid health care reforms etc etc.

They want a smaller government with less taxes but want to spend a trillion dollars a year on defense.

I just don't get it.

European militaries aren’t prepared to deal with their own defense. European security remains dependent on the might of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and NATO increasingly is dependent on the might of the United States. The European nations NATO was set up to defend contribute less and less to the organization. If the US were to significantly reduce military spending in the defense of Europe, I'm afraid Europe is not prepared to defend against any Russian or Islamic adventures

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/11/18/247235/europe-facing-multiple-threats.html#storylink=cpy

[mania]

Over the past decades Germany has needed to spend next to nothing on military because the US concentrates air and naval bases there. Looks like same same.

This has allowed Germany to look more prosperous than it would if it had to compile a complete military.

Germany has not been allowed to rearm/have an Armed Military for the most part since WWII So their not spending was not because of US having bases there.

When the Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949, it was without a military. Germany remained completely demilitarized and any plans for a German military were forbidden by Allied regulations.

They were eventually allowed to rearm in the 90's I think but within limits set by the Treaty of final settlement?

As for saving 500million?? pffft

The US plans to close 15 Cold War-era military bases in Europe despite the Russia crisis, but net troop numbers will remain more or less the same.

But total defense spending is to stay at over $600 billion - more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, Germany, Japan, and India put together.

https://euobserver.com/defence/127153

Edited January 10, 2015 by mania

[NeverSure]

Over the past decades Germany has needed to spend next to nothing on military because the US concentrates air and naval bases there. Looks like same same.

This has allowed Germany to look more prosperous than it would if it had to compile a complete military.

Germany has not been allowed to rearm/have an Armed Military for the most part since WWII So their not spending was not because of US having bases there.

When the Federal Republic of Germany was founded in 1949, it was without a military. Germany remained completely demilitarized and any plans for a German military were forbidden by Allied regulations.

They were eventually allowed to rearm in the 90's I think but within limits set by the Treaty of final settlement?

As for saving 500million?? pffft

The US plans to close 15 Cold War-era military bases in Europe despite the Russia crisis, but net troop numbers will remain more or less the same.

But total defense spending is to stay at over $600 billion - more than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, the UK, Germany, Japan, and India put together.

https://euobserver.com/defence/127153

Still living in the last century? 1990's?

Yes, I saw same same for Germany. It sucks for the US taxpayers.

First Germany (and Japan) get help rebuilding their economies after WWII, and then the US agrees to defend them.

I still don't know where the EU is except they spend precious little on the military while the US has a huge presence there.

[mania]

Yes, I saw same same for Germany. It sucks for the US taxpayers.

First Germany (and Japan) get help rebuilding their economies after WWII, and then the US agrees to defend them.

I still don't know where the EU is except they spend precious little on the military while the US has a huge presence there.

I do not think it is so much the US agreeing to defend them as wanting to have strategic US missile placements & air bases available for refueling/rearming etc.

In fact not long ago I remember much protesting that Germany did not want the US missiles there as it painted them as a target amongst other concerns.

But I do agree it sucks for the US taxpayers & the US should pull back to its own borders.

As it has & continues to drag the US down into ever more debt.

[EyesWideOpen]

I am an American, who has watched my tax dollars being pissed away my whole life

on overseas crap, and at the same time watched domestic infrastructure disintegrate.

No public health care here , and limited access to higher education unless you are rich.....

I say bring back every single American troop back home, and close every base.

Then if penny ante country A attacks penny ante country B, America will step in

and save country B for a price. If there is an implied acceptance of American being

the policeman of the world, may as well be paid for it.....

By treaty, Japan and Germany in essence have no military. And both countries

are economic dynamoes. Hmmm maybe there is a link between using the financial

and human resources of your country to advance it, versus using it on useless military

hardware that is antique crap in 15 years...

[Jay Sata]

In the case of Mildenhall the base has been a total waste of money and duplication of the neighbouring base at Lakenheath just a couple,of miles away.

The tankers that fly from the former can just as easily use the fast jet site at Lakenheath.

[ToS2014]

The US spends more on it's military than the next 12 largest countries combined!!! Just shy of 1 trillion dollars. They could half that amount and would still spend far more than any other country.

If they did this (and they will not) they could have their massive deficit under control in less than 2 decades instead of watching it spiral out of control.

Many Americans would never stand for this though. They are happy to take money from education, avoid health care reforms etc etc.

They want a smaller government with less taxes but want to spend a trillion dollars a year on defense.

I just don't get it.

I personally was shocked to see how the divide in discretionary spending and non discretionary spending in the US has flipped. In decades past discretionary spending, think in this case spending on national defence or the DoD, far out stripped non discretional spending, think social programs that when past are written seemingly in stone. As government passes more social programs non discretional spending will continue to eclipse discretional spending. Non discretional spending is now 65 percent of the budget; 50 percent of that mandatory spending is on various social security programs, while another 39 percent is on "...avoid[ing] health care reforms etc etc".

Yes, an argument can be made that the US spends quite a bit on its defense, currently 55 percent of discretionary spending. However, it would behove those that like to bash the US and its military that is does do quite a bit of good deeds, one of those good deeds are to hunt those that would like to take freedoms away from those who question the DoD's budget.

For a bit of a better background on how the US spends, and more to the point on discretionary and non discretionary spending check out the cited percentages from this link, one of many...

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

One last point that would be interesting...I wonder what the combined GDP is for the "next 12 largest countries combined". Then compare the percentage of GDP to military spending between all countries. Would be more of an 'apple to apple' approach to the argument.

Edited January 12, 2015 by ToS2014