What deficit reduction looks like..?

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/03/navy-cruisers-buck-mckeon-lawmaker-upgrade-spending-031912w/

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/03/military-senator-kills-plans-for-new-brac-round-032112w/

I know, I know - its blasphemous to criticize this right? But, at some point isn't somebody in WA DC going to have to agree to cut something other benefits...?

I'm starting to wonder if a lot of the budget cuts DoD offered up aren't in the "crazy like a fox" category. The Air Force in particular. "Okay, okay, Senator, if you insist, we'll keep our Block 30 Global Hawks and all those bases... We tried to do our bit for defecit reduction."

Shhhhhhh

But seriously, good point.

We could easily reduce our Army/AF presence in Europe by 50% without hurting our overall defense posture. Most of it was created to counter the Cold War efforts of the Soviet Bloc USSR which is anything but a bloc nowadays. Our NATO partners have underspent on their own defense needs for 60+ years. It's high time we allow them to fend for themselves on regional defense. JMHO.

I don't think anyone seriously thinks we're in Europe to keep an eye on the Fulda Gap any more, but keeping forces there has its uses. How many casualties are flown from the Sandbox to Landstuhl (as opposed to an extra 10-ish hours to get them back Stateside)? And I don't think we're homeporting four surface shooters in Rota for the balmy climate.

Pivot to Asia or no, we still have national interests in the Med and Middle East...may as well take advantage of the proximity and infrastructure (political and logistical) that Europe offers.

We offered up a carrier...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57363407/u.s-to-keep-11-aircraft-carriers/

Geez, UF, do we need 50,000 soldiers & airmen to accomplish that? We have the entire 3rd AF HQ'ed in Europe as well as USA Europe which has 4 major combat brigades in Europe. IMHO, we could bring half those folks home tomorrow & still do everything we are currently tasked. If we want to cut total defense spending without killing our forces, we have to do some of this stuff. What rumours of wars are you seeing in Europe nowadays?

I would argue Mobility. The carriers dont only protect one area, they have the potential to be almost anywhere. Besides I dont think Fog is saying we get rid of those forces, we just get them out of Europe.

Brett: I thought you are the smart one, War College & all. I wasn't suggesting that we eliminate those forces, just bring them home (that's the USA) as Statesman reiterated. It's much cheaper to keep those forces at existing stateside bases than to deploy them & their families to Europe, FCOL. Carrier Air Groups have NOTHING to do w/ that argument, and, yes, they're mobile.

Most of what is being discussed about here is already happening.

The bulk of forces left there will be part of the 21st TSC, a signal command, and the regional medical command. So it's getting smaller. I'd say 2 BCTs is about right considering all the stuff that be going on lately in the med.

(a) Europe ain't as dangerous as it was 25 years ago, (b) bringing 50% of Army/AF commands currently deployed to Europe (w/ their families) back to the USA will save several $BN/yr, and (c) our european allies need to begin paying for their own defense. Want more?

Because those forces aren't there to defend Europe. They're there because it's closer to the Sandbox.

I think we're bringing pretty much all our forces in Europe home anyway, but for money reasons than because we don't need them there.

There was a 10 year period between the fall of the Berlin wall and 9/11. During that 10 years there wasn't much emphasis on drawing down the forces assigned to EUCOM.
When Rumsfeld became SECDEF, part of his plan for Transformation was to bring more units home and PrePo more gear around the world. There was discussion of pulling forces out of Germany and bringing them home, while at the same time building compounds in Poland that would store a lot of our gear which troops could fall in on if needed.

Talking to some of the Army bubbas here at War College, the word on the street seems to be that EUCOM will be getting stripped of a lot of forces that will come back to CONUS.

As far as these troops being closer to CENTCOM AOR, I ask for what job? Right now BCT's are rotating through and there is very little excess capability to surge large amounts of troops.
If a BCT (specifically a SBCT or HBCT) were to deploy, it seems that unless they unit was going to fall in on top of PrePo stocks, loading all the equipment they need would be easier (and cheaper) in CONUS then moving to a port in Germany or elsewhere in Europe.

I can't buy the AFRICOM need for a large troop presence because the majority of our effort there will be along the lines of HA/DR. If the AU REALLY wanted U.S. combat troops on the ground in Africa, then they wouldn't have balked at the AFRICOM HQ being on the continent. They pushed back, so the HQ remains in Germany (and rumor has it will be moving into JFCOM's old spaces in Norfolk). African officers that I've spoken to all to a individual have all said they welcome American support for humanitarian assistance and training, but not for providing stability forces.
The argument I would like to propose is we may keep a sizable force in Germany to counter-balance Russia. Russia has been creating a leaner force (ask Georgia if the Russians can still fight) and Putin "needs a bad-guy" to rally his people. We are the convenient bad-guy for pretty much everyone else in the world, so why not Russia? Finally, consider that Russia has been providing support to Syria as of late. We may want to keep a hammer close by, in the event Putin decides to increase his sphere of influence even further.

The U.S. Army presence in Europe is already a shadow of its former self (from 25 years ago). So is the USAF and USN presence. Not commenting on what's needed, just on what's happened already.

uh oh - i guess this puts you in the category of:

While redux in Europe might serve the strategy, I don't think that moving forces around achieves the kinds of top line cuts that the DoD budget may see. The budget fight will be centered around the new balance of payroll and equipment dollars given a reduced topline. One of the best comments I heard at a flag panel at Hook was, "you can do a lot more with mediocre equipment and great people than you can with mediocre people and great equipment."

I would not equate my position to that of Ron Paul. I don't believe in the isolationist position he takes. Since our economy is dependent on the global trade of goods, world stability is in our national interests.
Like Mario Puzzo wrote in The Godfather, "you can't make money, when you have a gun in your hand". The U.S. economy needs stable global trade in order to prosper, therefore military action detracts from our ability to grow the economy.

As for the position in Europe, I would think that having a rotational concept of force deployments vice a PCS-based force would be better. When you send families over, you need to build (and therefore fund) all the infrastructure that families need. Hospitals that have pediatrics, schools, day-care, and a larger Exchange and Commissary are all required to support families.
If EUCOM went to a rotational force construct (think Navy deployments for 6-9 months) then you would reduce the footprint and infrastructure required to support that force. Think Qatar rather than Germany.

I am not smart enough to say what amount of presence is required to be a credible deterrence (and counter-balance) to Russia's regional hegemony in the area. But, when you look at us deploying TBMD ships to Rota, I think saying we need NO presence in EUCOM theater is unrealistic.
My SWAG would be maybe keeping two BCTs (1 HBCT and 1 IBCT(air mobile)) with a supporting CAB and Theater Sustainment Brigade would be a good starting point. A CONUS based unit would train-up and then deploy to EUCOM for 6-9 months. The equipment would remain in place and the personnel would "sea swap" the gear in theater. This should reduce the costs of sustaining the equipment in theater.

For the Air Force, as forces rotate back from CENTCOM, the AEF construct can start doing deployments to EUCOM AOR as well. It will actually be easier for the Air Force to take up a rotational deployment construct into EUCOM since that is how they have traditionally manned CENTCOM.

The Marines have always been more rotational and expeditionary, and they really don't have a large foot print other than their three concentration centers in NC, CA and Oki. They will just keep doing what they have always been doing.

The Navy will pursue the sea-swap concept on the TBMD ships in Rota. This will work ASSUMING (I know big assumption) that the Navy will actually dedicate the funding to maintain the ships in theater. Having doing a sea-swap on two helos on my last deployment, it's a gamble on what you're getting when you arrive.

So, to sum up, Europe is not as important a theater as 20 years ago, however, we (the U.S.) must maintain our presence in theaters around the world as a stabilizing force. Our economy needs a stable world order to prosper. So, to cut costs, go with more rotational deployments of the actual fighting forces rather than PCS-ing families over for 2-3 years in order to save in overall support costs.
Finally, a reasonable approach to risk management needs to be undertaken. How much risk is the U.S. willing to take in allowing a region to destabilize prior to the commitment of a significant U.S. military presence? That question is much above the pay grade of everyone here. What level of mayhem will the U.S. tolerate before we commit our military? We must allow the local intergovernmental organizations (EU, AU, ASEAN, etc) to handle problems before we commit U.S. troops. That has always been a difficult question to answer and I offer former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Dafur (a lack of interference) as data points to say the U.S. needs to determine what is the threshold of mayhem before we intervene.

Now I will go back to grading OPART exams and thanking FFC for giving me a lovely Friday off!

all one has to do is look at the movement tables (cant remember their exact name) for units to see why the NCA likes forward deployed forces. Army forces in particular take a lot of other assets to move them and it takes a lot of time to get them there.

Then when she said she was gonna, like, wreck my car...I didn't know what to do.