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!
