Future wars

Bush announces a plan to withdraw troops from Europe and Asia in order to counter threats abroad and focus efforts on the Middle East, Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington

---

Click to view caption

President Bush speaks during a campaign rally in Sioux City, Iowa (photo: AP)

Acting on the consideration that terrorism and "rogue states" in the Middle East will be the main threats facing America in the 21st century, US President George W Bush announced on Monday a major plan to pull out American troops based in Europe and Asia. During a stop on his campaign tour, Bush told war veterans in Cincinnati, Ohio, that he has decided to bring home 60,000 to 70,000 US troops based mainly in Germany, South Korea and Japan over the next 10 years as part of an overall strategy to confront new threats facing the United States and to protect its interests abroad. About 100,000 family members and civilian employees associated with the uniformed troops will also return to the United States.

Bush said that the current posture of US troops abroad suited the antiquated purposes of the Cold War and the threat of the former Soviet Union. However, with the emergence of terrorism as America's new enemy following the 11 September attacks in New York and Washington, Bush has been forced to reevaluate the deployment of troops. "Over the coming decade, we will deploy a more agile and more flexible force, which means that more of our troops will be stationed and deployed from here at home. We will move some of our troops and capabilities to new locations, so they can surge quickly to deal with unexpected threats. We will take advantage of 21st century military technology to rapidly deploy increased combat power. The new plan will help us fight and win these wars of the 21st century," Bush said.

While reporters from the countries most affected by Bush's decision packed the briefing rooms at the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department to get more details on the plan and when it will be implemented, senior officials sought to calm their fears. Officials said that more work has to be done in consultation with governments to agree on the details, and that the repositioning will not begin for four to five years.

Meanwhile, Bush critics, mainly from the Democratic Party, warned of the consequences of his plan in relation to key allies such as Germany and South Korea, and even went so far as to claim it was "politically motivated". The Bush administration, however, denied these charges, saying that the decision to pull troops out of Germany had nothing to do with its opposition to the war in Iraq. They also denied that the recent disagreement over how to deal with North Korea led to the decision to reduce the US military presence in South Korea. One senior Pentagon official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, insisted that the US has been discussing these plans with Germany over the past three years, mainly in light of new threats following the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, the same official acknowledged that some US troops will be redeployed to Eastern European countries, who are now considered to be loyal US allies.

Former NATO Commander, Gen Wesley Clark, who failed to win the Democratic Party's nomination to compete against Bush in the upcoming presidential elections, issued a sharply worded statement in which he criticised the new plan, particularly in relation to South Korea. Clark said the plan sent the wrong message to North Korea, which poses a major threat to US security as it is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and has possibly provided such technology to other countries. Sources from the Bush administration, who also said not to expect any more major cutbacks in the US troops based in South Korea, pointed out that a decision had already been made to move one-third of that force, 12,000 troops, to Iraq.

Clark also questioned the wisdom of pulling troops out of Germany, highlighting the apparent contradiction in the Bush plan which stresses the importance of maintaining troops close to new sources of danger facing the United States, mainly in the Middle East.

The experiences of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have provided key insight into the future of warfare, with administration officials saying that the new wars the United States expects to face will not be won by large numbers of troops, but advanced technology and Forward Operation Locations.

A background document on the new plan released by the White House stated, as far as the Middle East is concerned, "cooperation and access provided by coalition partners during Operations Enduring Freedom (in Afghanistan) and Iraqi Freedom have provided us with a solid basis for other forms of future cooperation." The document added that the United States, "will maintain, and in some cases upgrade, sites for rotational forces and contingency purposes, supported by forward headquarters and advanced training facilities ... rotational air, ground and sea forces will provide a presence, and assurance to our allies and partners, without permanence."

At the same time President Bush announced his plan to pull out troops from Europe and Asia, senior administration officials conceded that they had obvious long-term plans to maintain a major presence in the Middle East region, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan. "While we desire close relationships with Afghanistan and Iraq that will allow us to continue to play a positive role in their rebuilding efforts and in long-term regional security, any decision on a long-term US presence in these countries is a sovereign choice for their people and governments," the White House document said. With the United States being the occupying power and the main provider of badly needed reconstruction money in both countries, it is highly unlikely that the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan will reject a request for positioning large numbers of US troops to their soil.

Other critics of the Bush plan pointed out that while it is true that clearly advanced US war capabilities enabled it to easily win wars against weak adversaries, such as the former regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the same experiences prove that a large number of troops are needed to control the situation and restore stability, especially if the United States insists on acting unilaterally. After nearly three years of occupying Afghanistan, the central government, backed by nearly 13,000 US troops, maintains only minimal control outside the capital Kabul. Meanwhile, in Iraq, Pentagon officials predicted before the war that they would be able to cut the number of troops there by one-third in one year. This has proven to be a totally faulty expectation, as they have been forced to bring in more soldiers without establishing stability.

Many believe that tough competition from Democratic rival, John Kerry, influenced Bush's new plan which is clearly aimed to win him some votes ahead of 2 November elections. Announcing plans to bring 60,000 to 70,000 troops back home was good news in several key Midwest states, where military bases were expected to be closed due to budget constraints.

Commenting on the plan, The New York Times said in an editorial on Tuesday that it made "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 resulted from failing to anticipate the long, and largely unilateral, American occupation of Iraq."