How much money would we save if we ended our Cold War commitments in Germany and Japan?
Why do you think what we are doing in Germany and Japan, now, is a Cold War commitment? The perceptual error you make as an assumption leads you to idiotic conclusions.
The Cold War foot print is already significantly reduced. The US reduced the armed forces in Europe from more than two full up Army corps (and a huge HQ and C2 overlay on that) to a couple of divisions (-) over a period of ten years. The Six Hundred Ship Navy of Lehman's years, (actually 580 something) is well below three hundred, and quite possibly shrinking beyond that. We shall see what the UAV development does to power projection in the next decade or so.
I'll argue we could probably reduce that footprint further, and have argued so more than once when I was on a staff that worked on such matters. I would need to do a bit more checking, but there are probably a few more reductions on the table, shut downs, that need some political grease to complete. Been out of touch for a while on the gory details. FWIW: a number of US bases in Europe have become dual use/NATO facilities since the wall came down, I worked on a few projects in Greece and Spain in the 1990's related to that subtle change.
Due to the practical political considerations based on the continuance of the TransAtlantic Alliance, a non-trivial minimum of bases, training facilities, C2 backbone, and basing rights (air and sea) in Europe, not just Germany, is a sensible position.
While I have been a "bring the boys home from Germany" grinder for about fifteen years now, I don't ignore, as you do, the political ties that bind us to Europe. Collective security is part of that. For all the carping we do back and forth across the pond, we still have a lot of political interests in common.
We could completely pull all combat forces out of Northern Europe IFF the political arm of our government, and allied governments, wished to assume greater risk. At present, they do not wish to, but I think your presumption of Russia as the problem is a twenty year old picture you've chosen not to update.
Note: Logistically, if we continue to be present in Africa and or the Middle East, you can't shut down the logistic links in Europe. Won't work. ( For Lurker, I don't know if that answers your question.)
I have to assume we soend billions to keep all of our soldiers in these two countries.
You know nothing, but your guess is within the right order of magnitude.
And since there is NEVER going to be a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, I think its safe to say we can significantly reduce our troop levels in Europe.
We already did. Massive reduction. That's part of how the Seventh Corps ended up in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991.
And as far as protecting Japan from a Soviet or Chinese invasion/attack..is that really plausible anymore?
You make an error in assuming that is why we have forward based air and Naval forces in Japan. Korea is part of the reason ....
What I do see happening is that we, for political reasons that benefit Japan and us, in the long run, move out of Okinawa. Should have happened a while back, IMO, but this sort of thing takes time.
I think our defensive postures have become soo very entrenched...that we may simply not know how to get out of them.
Since you willfully ignorant, it doesn't matter what you think.
But you know what? We don't need to defend these place anymore.
Governments in the US and the places where we have forward deployed forces disagree with you. This is a two way deal, not a one way deal. Note, we are OUT of the Philippines (in terms of basing), have been since about 1991/1992. We reduced our footprint in Korea while Rummy was Sec Def. I'll argue we can further reduce there soon, pending Seoul/Pyongyang relations stabilizing a bit.
I bet we could save a good $50 billion a year by reducing our European and East Asian commitments.
We might, and in time I hope we do, but the shared political risk of doing so, at present, is unpalatable.
Come on all your fiscal Conservatives, back me up!!
Who is with me?????????!!!!!!
Who would follow an idiot?
Another point on defense/security/military spending: the current numbers are somewhat inflated due to two different wars/major contingency operations being on going ... for seven and nine years respectively. As Iraq spools down in the next two years, assuming President Obama's plans remain intact for that, you'll see the defense authorizations necessary for that sucking chest wound decrease. Likewise in the longer term for Afghanistan.
I have hopes that the defense budget will fall towards 420-440 billion in near to mid term as that happens. Maybe further.
DR
