• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

What deficit reduction looks like..?

Fog said:
(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?
Click to expand...
In case you haven't noticed, we're "pivoting" toward Asia. Like Fester Said, many of the forces in EUCOM are there because it's more convenient than putting them in CENTCOM's AOR, plus there's AFRICOM to consider. Bringing the troops home is a nice bumper sticker for the Ron Paul crowd, but having a large force structure forward deployed actually saves resources, particularly when shit goes down in the middle east. Big picture view, all of you guys who are in favor of of going downtown in Tehran should have a hard on for keeping a standing force in Europe to draw from.
 
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fog
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.
 
helolumpy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bingo!
 
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!
 
Brett327 said:
I dunno, FOG, what's your point? Are "forces" in CONUS worth as much as those who are forward deployed? Might there be a reason why the National Command Authority places value in forward deployed forces? There are an enormous number of moving parts involved in moving and sustaining any fighting force
Click to expand...
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.
 
helolumpy said:
... in Europe, I would think that having a rotational concept of force deployments... BCTs... 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
Click to expand...

I was going to make a rough comparison between Army TPE (theater provided equipment; whatever gear the ripping unit isn't going to bring home--trucks, radios, computers, tents, furniture, you name it--which your unit will probably turn over to your relief next year) and Navy Sea Swap, but you covered that. This is like OIF-New Dawn/OEF, minus the combat ops and 6-9 vs 12-15 months.

The only thing I want to point out is the risk to the materiel. When units borrow their gear instead of owning it, they don't always take good care of it (this is true not only for the grunts and surface guys, we're guilty of it in naval aviation too). Sometimes you luck out and hand-me-down gear works great, but sometimes you don't and that's a big risk for some really smart people to analyze.

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

Meritorious day off for all my friends!!


Pags said:
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.
Click to expand...


TPFDD?

Deploying our naval forces take a lot of work too, but just in a different way. Things like FDNF and logistics hubs around the world work really great for us... but it took a few years up front to get those things up and running. If they were gone then we'd really notice a big difference. (Just stating the obvious here, but it's important to point it out.)
 
Jim123 said:
Deploying our naval forces take a lot of work too, but just in a different way. Things like FDNF and logistics hubs around the world work really great for us... but it took a few years up front to get those things up and running. If they were gone then we'd really notice a big difference. (Just stating the obvious here, but it's important to point it out.)
Click to expand...
The more I learn about how the other services work their logistics, the more I appreciate the way the Navy does business. Now that I've complimented the Navy supply system, I'm going to go and kill myself. :D
 
Jim123 said:
I was going to make a rough comparison between Army TPE (theater provided equipment; whatever gear the ripping unit isn't going to bring home--trucks, radios, computers, tents, furniture, you name it--which your unit will probably turn over to your relief next year) and Navy Sea Swap, but you covered that. This is like OIF-New Dawn/OEF, minus the combat ops and 6-9 vs 12-15 months.

The only thing I want to point out is the risk to the materiel. When units borrow their gear instead of owning it, they don't always take good care of it (this is true not only for the grunts and surface guys, we're guilty of it in naval aviation too). Sometimes you luck out and hand-me-down gear works great, but sometimes you don't and that's a big risk for some really smart people to analyze.



Meritorious day off for all my friends!!





TPFDD?

Deploying our naval forces take a lot of work too, but just in a different way. Things like FDNF and logistics hubs around the world work really great for us... but it took a few years up front to get those things up and running. If they were gone then we'd really notice a big difference. (Just stating the obvious here, but it's important to point it out.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's the acronym I was looking for. Glad to see my post-JMO brain dump was successful.

While there are plenty of logistical issues with The FDNF, an ARG or CSG doesn't have to be forward deployed. As long as there's one at sea in the AOR, you've got a very quick response on hand. The JMO OPORD really showed that (and that's the last nice thing I'll say about jpme). ARG with its MEU and a CSG takes 1-2 days to show up? Awesome. It's going to take how long to get an AEF here? And how much longer to get an army with some real punch here? No wonder the NCA likes the USN/USMC for regional response.
 
Pags said:
Yeah, there's the acronym I was looking for. Glad to see my post-JMO brain dump was successful.

While there are plenty of logistical issues with The FDNF, an ARG or CSG doesn't have to be forward deployed. As long as there's one at sea in the AOR, you've got a very quick response on hand. The JMO OPORD really showed that (and that's the last nice thing I'll say about jpme). ARG with its MEU and a CSG takes 1-2 days to show up? Awesome. It's going to take how long to get an AEF here? And how much longer to get an army with some real punch here? No wonder the NCA likes the USN/USMC for regional response.
Click to expand...

But that is the trade-off between the Naval Services and the land components.
The Marine Corps is designed to win battles, the Army is designed to win wars.
So, if the requirement is only speed for a "drive by" then the CSG or ARG/MEU is enough.
If the requirement is sustained power projection 24/7 for an extended period, then you are not getting that with the Naval Services.

So, yes, it does take longer for a BCT or AEF to get there, but for a long term presence, they may actually be better than the Naval Services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top