[Mb-civic] NYTimes.com Article: Misconceived Military Shuffle

[michael at intrafi.com]

The article below from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by michael at intrafi.com.



/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\

GARDEN STATE: NOW PLAYING IN SELECT THEATERS

GARDEN STATE stars Zach Braff, Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard
and Ian Holm.  NEWSWEEK's David Ansen says "Writer-Director Zach
Braff has a genuine filmmaker's eye and is loaded with talent."
Watch the teaser trailer that has all of America buzzing and
talk back with Zach Braff on the Garden State Blog at:

http://www.foxsearchlight.com/gardenstate/index_nyt.html

\----------------------------------------------------------/


Misconceived Military Shuffle

August 17, 2004
 


 

The troop redeployment plan announced yesterday by
President Bush makes little long-term strategic sense. It
is certain to strain crucial alliances, increase overall
costs and dangerously weaken deterrence on the Korean
peninsula at the worst possible moment. Meanwhile, it will
do nothing to address the military's most pressing current
need: relieving the chronic strain on ground forces that
has resulted from failing to anticipate the long, and
largely unilateral, American occupation of Iraq. 

Mr. Bush provided few new details yesterday, confirming
only that over the next 10 years, about 60,000 to 70,000
uniformed troops, along with some 100,000 family members
and civilian employees, would be transferred from bases and
other military installations in Europe and Asia to the
United States. 

It has been known for some time that the Pentagon wants to
pull back perhaps half of the roughly 70,000 soldiers now
in Germany and a third of the nearly 40,000 troops in South
Korea. Further cuts in Europe and Asia will be needed to
reach Mr. Bush's totals, especially since some of those
withdrawn from South Korea may be headed toward other parts
of Asia. 

The Bush administration justifies these movements by
pointing to fundamental changes in the geography of threats
since the end of the cold war. In Asia, however, that
geography has not changed all that much. 

The most dangerous threat still comes from North Korea,
which is now thought to be building nuclear weapons. At a
time when negotiating a halt to that buildup is imperative,
Washington has inexplicably granted Pyongyang something it
has long coveted - a reduction in American troop levels -
instead of building those reductions into a bargaining
proposal requiring constructive North Korean moves in
return. The Korean pullback also sends a dangerous signal
to the North that America is devaluing its alliance with
South Korea. 

In Europe, the withdrawals are less immediately dangerous,
but they will be expensive because Germany pays a hefty
share of the costs for the American military bases located
there. 

While sending military personnel back to Kansas or Colorado
may avert some base closings and make local politicians
happy, it will cost the taxpayers money. Furthermore, the
military will also lose the advantage that comes with
giving large numbers of its men and women the experience of
living in other cultures. 

The administration seems to be planning to establish new
installations in Eastern Europe, but they are more likely
to be used for occasional exercises than as permanent
bases. An increased presence in Eastern Europe is fine, but
it need not come at the expense of our German bases.
Although it is certainly true that American troops no
longer have to sit in Germany to protect Western Europe
from the Red Army, many of today's battlefields, like Iraq
and Afghanistan, are in fact closer to Germany than they
are to the United States. 

The Pentagon is right to stress lighter, more mobile Army
brigades. It is also good to aim to reduce the number of
job and location changes in a typical Army career. With the
huge personnel demands of Iraqi operations forcing repeated
tours, extended tours and involuntary callbacks, such
sensible steps aimed at raising morale and encouraging
re-enlistments are welcome. But over all, this plan marches
in the wrong direction. Instead of reflecting and
reinforcing America's core alliances, the new plan dilutes
them. 

Despite the Pentagon's denials, it seems deliberate that
the two largest withdrawals have been proposed for
countries that the Bush administration has had serious
differences with in recent years, over Iraq in the German
case, and over negotiating strategy with North Korea in the
case of Seoul. Both countries have been working hard to
patch up relations - South Korea is one of the few American
allies with troops in Iraq - but the Pentagon does not seem
interested in reciprocating. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/opinion/17tue2.html?ex=1093766474&ei=1&en=4648bffd1cb24b5e


---------------------------------

Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:

http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company