[ad_1]
The Pentagon analyzes the cost and the impact of a large-scale withdrawal or transfer of US troops stationed in Germany, in the midst of growing tensions between President Donald Trump and Chancellor German Angela Merkel, according to people close to work. The effort follows Trump's expression of interest in withdrawing troops, made at a meeting earlier this year with the White House and military aides, officials said. US. Trump would have been surprised by the size of the US presence, which includes about 35,000 soldiers on active duty, and complained that other countries were not equitably contributing to common security or were not paying enough for the military. NATO
. has alarmed European officials, who are struggling to determine if Trump actually intends to reposition US forces or if it's just a tactic of negotiation before a NATO summit in Brussels, where Trump risks criticizing US allies for what he considers to be insufficient
United States Officials, who spoke of the condition of anonymity to comment on the unpublished effort, pointed out that the exercise is limited to an internal exploration of the options. Senior military officers are not yet involved, and the Pentagon has not been instructed to determine how to execute an option.
A spokesman for the National Security Council in the White House said in a statement that the NSC had not requested an analysis of the Defense Department on the repositioning of troops in Germany. But "the Pentagon is continually evaluating US troop deployments," the statement said, and these "analytical exercises" are "not out of the norm."
Several officials have suggested that Pentagon policymakers Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon rejected any suggestion of total or partial withdrawal from Germany and called this analysis routine
. strength posture and performs cost-benefit analyzes, "he said in a statement. "Germany is host to the largest presence of US forces in Europe – we remain deeply rooted in the common values and strong relationships between our countries. We remain fully committed to our ally of the United States. NATO and the NATO alliance. "
Since the end of the Second World War, the presence of US troops in Germany has been considered a bulwark against a possible Russian invasion of Europe and a gathering place for American operations in Africa and the Middle East. -East.
personnel-led change options to fuel a broader discussion of the presence of US troops in Europe. As part of the regular analysis of the cost and justification of its troops around the world, the United States has significantly reduced the size of its force in Germany compared to Cold War levels
. Scenarios for redeployment to the study include a large-scale return of US troops stationed in Germany to the United States and a full or partial movement of the United States (19659002). troops in Germany in Poland – a NATO ally who has achieved the goals of defense spending of the alliance and whose leadership is more in line with Trump
In recent months, Poland has proposed to spend at least $ 2 billion. The US military already has a rotating force in Poland, with other alliance members doing the same in the Baltic countries, as part of an effort to NATO to prevent the growing Russian aggression along the eastern flank of the Alliance. But Trump remains unhappy that many NATO countries are not spending at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense, a target that alliance members have agreed to reach in 2024 The United States spends about 3.58% of its GDP on defense.
Although several US administrations have called on Europe to spend more, Trump is particularly focused on the bottom line. Last week, the White House's frustration was highlighted during a controversial meeting in Washington between Trump National Security Advisor John Bolton and German Defense Minister Ursula von. der Leyen. Von der Leyen said the German budget projections planned to increase defense spending to 1.5% of the country's GDP by 2024. The White House was disappointed by the efforts of the government. Germany, according to officials
. Member governments had been informed of any Trump plan to raise the question of the withdrawal or repositioning of US troops in Europe at the summit, although all are aware of Polish lobbying to place at least some elements. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a member government before the summit.
The official said that Poland's offer was "peanuts by comparison" to US military investments in Germany, including "the value of 60 years of sunk costs." The head of NATO and others have suggested that the cost analysis of the US presence in Germany and a withdrawal option recalled Trump's request that had been leaked last winter go to war with North Korea, designed "to scare the lights of the day on everyone and get [North Korea] at the table." In this case, the official suggested, the goal may be to "pile up more trouble" on Merkel, while shaking the alliance in general and positioning himself as a spoiler at the top
Allies who host permanent US military footprints pay some of the costs in various ways: Japan and Korea of the South, for example, make s cash contributions, according to a 2013 study by Rand Corp. for the office of the US Secretary of Defense, while Germany supports the presence of US troops by contributions in kind. Based on its 2002 statistics, the study estimated that Germany offset about 33% of the costs of US military personnel stationed there. It is unclear how much savings would be made by bringing them all home, because the United States would still be responsible for paying them, in addition to housing and other staff costs. At the same time, a large portion of US troops in Germany is engaged in US military efforts outside of Europe and bases its operations in the nation.
The US military reduced its presence in Europe for years before the annexation of Crimea Russia from neighboring Ukraine in early 2014 prompted a change of posture, with Washington seeking to deter Moscow from further encroachments. US and Allied forces began to rotate brigades across the eastern members and the United States began sending back to the theater equipment such as tanks and helicopters.
Trump's disdain for this alliance – which he said "obsolete" during his presidential campaign – It's focused on Germany and Merkel in particular, including recent tweets saying that she was losing her grip on power.
von Bolton 's von der Leyen meeting and its importance to the net result occurred more than a year after Trump. in March 2017, Germany owes "large sums of money to NATO and the United States must be paid more for the powerful and very expensive defense that it provides to the 39; Germany "!
Trump's ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, also ruffled feathers, telling a conservative press organ this month that he wants to "strengthen" the European right – a comment that some governments Europeans consider it threatening.
Senior House Democrats approved a letter this week Seth Moulton, D-Mass., Called the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, to fire Grenell. A State Department official confirmed the receipt of the letter but did not comment on its content.
As Trump criticized NATO – describing him at the top of the Group of 7 in Canada as "worse than NAFTA," the trilateral trade agreement also denounced – the allies were comforted with the support of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and to some extent Pompeo.
At a Senate hearing on the State Department's budget, Pompeo spoke of "strong and unified Atlantic unity". We pushed them to increase their willingness to support NATO forces. "
Adding to the confusion of the overall US message at the moment when Trump favors better relations with Russia, Pompeo said that the administration was pressuring Europeans to maintain sanctions against Moscow, imposed on the country. annexation of Crimea
"It is time for them to be as concerned about repelling Russia as we are" and "to convince them that the sanctions regime is important to achieve While Trump has pondered why the Alliance continues to ostracize Russia on the Crimea and hinted that Russia would be readmitted to the G-7, Pompeo reiterated that "We reject" the Russian occupation of Crimea and the Georgia and the administration recognizes the threat that Moscow is putting on Eastern Europe. "The United States under Trump increased their funding for NATO forces turning in the Baltic States and Poland. "I think that this administration has been unequivocal about Russia, "said Pompeo.
The Pentagon's analysis on the foundation of Europe comes as relations between Trump and Europe plunged into its decision to impose tariffs on imports of 39 steel and aluminum, sparking titration measures and withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal, a pact seen in Europe as a model for peaceful conflict resolution. The president's decision to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on July 16 also adds a new twist to his trip to Europe, which includes a stop in London
However, under the statements on unity and necessity from NATO – and the alarm Trump – the alliance undoubtedly undergoes a tectonic change, and Trump can be as much its manifestation as its cause. Having lost his original reason for being at the end of the Cold War, he found new justifications for existence during the Balkan wars of the 1990s, followed by a focus on Afghanistan and the United States. against terrorism. The resurgence of Russia as a threatening force in Europe has recently endowed the alliance with a renewed goal
. But the question of where the Western Defense Pact fits into a 21st century where Europeans disagree with each other and with the United States. , on economic, trade and immigration issues, and in which the world is undergoing a fundamental realignment with the rise of Asia, has led some to consider a new arrangement.
– – –
Missy Ryan and Greg of the Washington Post Jaffe contributed to this report.
Source link
