Kick’em Right in the Wallet
This might be the sweetest news of the day:
The Bush administration yesterday held out the possibility that it would reduce U.S. military presence in South Korea and Germany, both of whom have expressed increasing displeasure over the basing and use of U.S. troops there.
“There is a school of thought to rethink the numbers and types of forces we have in different locations as events warrant,” Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said. “Our objectives would be to maintain our military presence, to assure our friends and allies, while deterring, if necessary, and defeating adversaries.”
Although the administration said troop reductions have nothing to do with recent diplomatic rifts between the United States and the two nations, a senior official said the sudden action contains a not-so-subtle message.
“Let’s just say that if they take it as a slight, they’re paying attention,” the official said.
No number of US troops — many desperately needed elsewhere — can save the Germans or the South Koreans from themselves.
So, two people half a globe apart, cuturally and historically worlds apart think the same way about the role of US troops on their soil. And of course they are wrong. Maybe not.
BTW, US forces abroad aren’t the formidable economical factor most american think they are. Really not.
If the South Koreans want our bases gone, we should remove them. I’d be quite content if we limited our involvement in a future Korean conflict to bombing the North Koreans further back into the Stone Age, and let the South Koreans do the heavy lifting on the ground, particularly since the dimwitted postwar generation types who seem to make up the majority over there seem to think that Kim Jong Il really isn’t that bad of a guy. I’d just as soon have our troops out of the shadow of NK artillery, thank you very much. Of course, if the SK government changed their attitude towards our unwillingness to kiss Kim Jong Il’s pudgy tookus, I might be convinced to think differently.
As for the Germans, perhaps the troops based there now should be tasked to keeping the peace within the borders of a new ally–post-liberation Iraq. They could certainly use the money our presence would generate, and we’re going to need troops there anyway. Yet another way to stick it to the Axis of Weasels.
It’s time to bring them home. They served their purpose. Now let their removal serve its purpose, and let their absence serve its purpose. I’m quite ready for the change here.
It’s been time to leave Europe since the wall fell. I would have preferred even before that. The Europeans have had over 50 years to grow up and learn how to get along and yet, they can’t stop killing their ethnic minorities without us around to stop them. To spend one dollar on their ‘defense’ is one dollar too much. As for South Korea, it will be very easy to bring the troops back from the DMZ. We have much less of a ‘presence’ there then we do in Europe. At least the South Koreans have a serious military, you certainly can’t say the say about ‘old’ Europe.
> BTW, US forces abroad aren’t the formidable economical factor most american think they are. Really not.
Then Germany and SK won’t mind when the US military leaves.
Den Beste had an essay some time ago suggesting that any troops moved from Germany to the Gulf for the Iraq war should not and probably would not be moved back. Other former Soviet Bloc contries such as Poland have supported us gratefully and would love for us to station their troops there, we should reward their fealty as well as punish Germany’s treachery.
Regarding South Korea, bring ‘em all home. Every last one. That way we can deal with the North Korean problem the right way, by tomahawking the hell out of their reactor. The NoKo navy and air forces are a joke so the only place the fabled Million Man army can go is into SoKo, and we don’t want that now because of the large number of casualties for the troops there. Our troops deserve better than to be sacrificed defending an “ally” that doesn’t back us up when the chips are down.
“So, two people half a globe apart, cuturally and historically worlds apart think the same way about the role of US troops on their soil. And of course they are wrong. Maybe not.”
That’s a good observation that I feel deserves a response:
Yes, many of the folks within those two countries in which the US has stationed forces for decades are more than a little sick of us. Lets examine some of the factors involved.
First: Military units are primarily composed of lots and lots of young men who are in the “testosterone-soaked young warrior” phase of life. It is inevitable that they will interact with the locals and some of them will misbehave — sometimes seriously. That’s irritating as hell to the host country supporting foreign troops, why should they put up with that if they don’t have to? If the threat faced by the host country is gone or lessened, why not tell the allied troops to go? This is a completely reasonable attitude that I sympathize with, but it doesn’t have a heck of a lot to do with the moral or intellectual superiority of the host country.
Second: No self-respecting country wants foreign troops on its soil. That’s an affront to national pride. The only reason to tolerate such a thing is if the host country faces a threat that requires the presence of allied troops. In Germany’s case, they no longer face a direct military threat — Russia is both weakened and its borders have moved considerably eastward. Germany in now in the position France enjoyed during the Cold War. They have someone else between them and the threat — so now they can afford to be snotty towards those who help defend them. Even better, the old threat may not even be a threat anymore. That’s fair enough, but in this case the judgement that the foreign troops are now no longer needed has more to do with cost-benefit analysis, not some moral epiphany or tremendous mental insight on the part of the host country.
Third: The great, late-Cold War fantasy has been updated to the modern era: “It will all get better if the Americans go away”. Foreign troops quickly become a scapegoat for that element in the host country that wants to cut a deal with the threat. The idea seems to be that the wicked foreigners are forcing the poor host country into a confrontation with the guys across the border who have all of those divisions pointed at the host country. This is the most despicable of the reasons to want US forces to go, since it is fundamentally based on appeasement. It also seems to be the thinking of those in South Korea who want US forces to leave the country. Again, not exactly noble reasoning.
To put it more bluntly: some Germans want us to get lost because they don’t need us anymore. Some South Koreans want us to leave because they want to appease North Korea.
Lastly, it’s worth noting that we haven’t been asked by Germany or South Korea to pull our forces out. Some among the leadership in both countries like to flirt with the idea, but somehow they never get around to telling us to leave. If they did so, we’d be gone within a matter of months.
well we’re also occupying germany.. the french will freak when we leave…
why does the postwar generation always suck? 68ers boomers sk??? idiots!
Wes Dabney made an observation a few months ago, he thought it might be related, might not, but,
Germany’s economy started tanking about the time we moved out a lot of our personnel.
One of the more amusing “observations” made by the anti-war crowd is that we really shouldn’t count Spain and Italy as somehow pro-war because such-and-such poll shows that a majority of the locals actually oppose war. Therefore, signing the “Letter of 8″ or such doesn’t actually MEAN that the nation supports war.
Now, ignoring the mechanics of WHY these states would have gov’ts defying the will of their people, or how such gov’ts stay in power, or even what “representative democracy” sometimes means, what’s amusing is that, b/c will note that, in South Korea, at least, there have been major protests calling for the US forces to stay, and that a goodly portion of the government (mostly, now the opposition) opposes exacerbating US-ROK tensions.
Moreover, the tensions in South Korea came about almost overnight, w/ the election of a specific new President (Roh). So, if one were to use a “cowboy” analogy, one might almost suggest that the ongoing tensions there are due to the “cowboy” behavior of a “unilateralist,” rather than reflecting a popular sentiment.
Sandy quotes Wes Dabney, “Germany’s economy started tanking about the time we moved out a lot of our personnel.”
The way I always said it is, “Isn’t it interesting that the Japanese and German economies both tanked as soon as the Cold War ended?”
Now, we removed troops from Germany, but not from Japan. So I don’t think what happened was strictly related to troop withdrawls. But the observation stands: two countries which had enjoyed growth economies for decades saw that end when the Soviet Union vanished.
Japanese economic tanking had much more to do w/:
1. Overpriced assets (specifically, land);
2. Crony capitalism, typified by the interlocking chains of ownership within the keiretsu;
3. Unwillingness to confront the reality of their balance sheets when the land bubble burst;
4. Bureaucratic unwillingness to compel companies to confront said reality, rooted in large part in Japanese culture.
That, and the whole business, in the 1980s, revolving around devaluation of the dollar, relative to the yen, typified in the 1986 Plaza Accord (iirc), which suddenly made yen worth a heckuva lot more (and anything priced in yen worth a heckuva lot more).
I think it would be very, very difficult to draw a link among any of these things, and the doings of the USSR, especially since Japanese (as opposed to German) trade w/ the USSR was always fairly limited.
Rather, I think that it’s quite possible that Paul Krugman’s analysis (yes, that Krugman) about how the Asian economies expanded by increasing/improving inputs, rather than improving outputs (i.e., increasing efficiency) was dead-on. At some point, the former just runs out (there’s only so much input you can shove in).
Dean,with the end of the cold war,we also no longer tolerate Japan’s mercantilist ecnomic policies,maximizing exports while minimizing imports,which is why Washington apples are big sellers there now.
Dean,
That’s interesting (I freely admit to being an economic ignoramous). So what do you consider to be the cause of the German economic failure? I’ve always assumed it was the stress of absorbing East Germany into the West German economy.
Michael,
Yes, that’s part of it as well. Although the Japanese markets still have not opened up nearly as much as they could or should. For all that apples can make it in, my understanding is that rice does not.
But, the prolonged recession there has had some good effects. Many Japanese who once really BOUGHT the idea that Japanese stomachs required Japanese rice (at Japanese prices) now are interested in purchasing American rice (at American prices). Prolonged joblessness, fear of further layoffs, etc., will do that to you.
Patrick:
As I said, I claim no special expertise on Europe (whereas I’ve spent a few years getting ignorant about Asia).
My understanding of the German situation, however, falls upon several things:
1. The Germans DID spent an enormous amount of money on East Germany, but for all that they could improve the infrastructure, they could not necessarily wean folks off their work habits.
2. Those work habits, in turn, and the reliance on the unions, has retarded incorporation of info-tech, job restructuring, corporate restructuring, etc. One reason I’m opposed to greater political roles in the economy: Once it’s a political issue, economics takes a back seat to votes.
3. The decision to have a 1:1 Deutschmark:Ostmark trade, back during reunification, while it preserved East German salaries and savings accounts, grossly inflated the worth of most East German businesses, workers, etc. That, as w’ “2″, has still not worked its way through the system.
4. Shared w/ Japan, is the end of the post-war generation. The current twenty-somethings in both Japan and Germany are simply not willing to make the enormous sacrifices their parents did to improve their lot. Japanese twenty-somethings do not want to be “sararimen,” w/ 90-120 hours work-weeks. German absenteeism seems to be approaching Swedish levels, according to one report I’d read a while ago. Everybody working overtime to lift yourself up gives you add’l resources to work w/.
5. Most importantly, I don’t think the Germans (or many European states) have really gotten their head around the idea of capitalism-as-creative-destruction. Goes back to “3″ above, about politicizing the economy. A friend of mine and I have been tracking “leading-edge” technological and industrial areas for about fifteen years (geek hobbies, what can I say?). As a German, he’s long been worried about whether Europe could really compete w/ the US and Japan (and now China)—he grows less sanguine every year.
Think about it: Advanced materials, electronics, information technology, microchip fabs, genetic engineering, aerospace technologies (not simply building rockets, but sensors, materials, etc.), software development, computer engineering, systems integration.
In how many of these areas does the US lead? In how many of these areas does the US have a major presence (i.e., some number of companies, more than one)?
Now ask that of Japan.
Now ask that of Europe.
The answer should scare many Europeans (especially France and Germany).
Sure, sure, they work less, are happier w/ their smaller homes and better urban mass transit, etc., etc. But their agendas, not just in foreign policy, but technology, industrial organization, job generation, are less and less in their hands.
Just some thoughts….