Trump Reportedly Weighing Withdrawing Troops From Germany, White House Denies

The Trump administration is evaluating the costs of transferring or withdrawing troops from Germany, where the United States has its biggest contingent outside the country, The WaPO reported on Friday adding that President Donald Trump has already discussed the proposal, which has worried European Nato allies, with military officials.

Citing anonymous sources, the Post stressed that the study was only an internal examination of options at this stage.

Among the options under consideration are repatriating a large contingent of the approximately 35,000 active duty troops, or a full or partial move of the military personnel from Germany to Poland, AFP notes.

However, a White House National Security Council spokesman denied any such analysis. Pentagon spokesman Eric Pahon also denied any plans for a withdrawal.

"The Pentagon regularly reviews force posture and performs cost-benefit analyses," he said in a statement.  "This is nothing new. Germany is host to the largest US force presence in Europe -- we remain deeply rooted in the common values and strong relationships between our countries. We remain fully committed to our Nato ally and the Nato alliance."

Trump due to attend the transatlantic group's summit in Brussels on July 11-12, when he is sure to pressure allies to spend at least two percent of their GDP on defense, in accordance with a target Nato members agreed to reach by 2024.

Germany, which has had tense ties with the US in recent months, has already indicated it will be unable to meet that goal. Poland, however, has met the target. Trump insists that Washington is shouldering too much of the group's financial burden.

US troops have been stationed in Germany since World War 2, and the presence there serves as a base for US operations in Africa and the Middle East.

Comments

Joe Trader DingleBarryObummer Sat, 06/30/2018 - 16:36 Permalink

Poland will be getting a permanent NATO base. Get used to it. The rotational forces were just an incremental step.

 

Plus I like Poland's approach - you have canada's trudeau who's putting on a napoleon syndrome clinic - then you have Poland: buys US LNG, buys F-16s, JASSM-ER, Patriots, with HIMARS, blackhawks, F-35s on its wishlist (nukes for Poland have also been brought up) - and has an offer on the table to pay $2 billion per year to the US for a permanent military base in low-cost Poland - this is how you play according to Trump's rules - and I'd like to think that whatever China loses in terms of trade is for the winning of 1. US manufacturing and 2. allies playing by Trump's rules. The best possible power move is to align as closely to Trump's plans as possible.

In reply to by DingleBarryObummer

Captain Nemo d… Joe Trader Sat, 06/30/2018 - 19:48 Permalink

buys US LNG, buys F-16s, JASSM-ER, Patriots, with HIMARS, blackhawks, F-35s on its wishlist (nukes for Poland have also been brought up) - and has an offer on the table to pay $2 billion per year to the US for a permanent military base in low-cost

And still asks ...it is 10 o'clock, do you know what time it is?

In reply to by Joe Trader

philipat Captain Nemo d… Sat, 06/30/2018 - 23:06 Permalink

And now for a non-neocon common sense view. Getting US troops out of Europe is a win/win which will allow Europe to independently assess its own defense needs and plan accordingly without external interference. In this process, Europe may even wake up to the fact that Russia represents no threat to Europe and would enter into a comprehensive Treaty, especially if no US forces are on the ground in Europe. Russia is a natural trading partner for Europe and was, until recently, the largest consumer goods market in "Europe". It might also come to understand that within the context of ongoing US (and UK) provocations of Russia, WWIII would almost certainly start with the eradication of Western Europe, not the US. And, of course, Europe's immigration problem is entirely as a result of all the US senseless ME wars on behalf of Israel.

So yes, it's a win/win; the US can save all that money to spend on, well, more "defense" and Europe can develop an independent "defense" policy based on its own best interest, just as does the US.

In reply to by Captain Nemo d…

FireBrander FireBrander Sat, 06/30/2018 - 14:40 Permalink

Candidate Trump: "NATO is outdated".

MSM/EU response: "Trump is a madman".

President Trump: Backs away from ending NATO in public...but in private he keeps chipping away...didn't the EU announce a while back about plans for a "European" military? Sure would make it easier to CRUSH the like of Italy.

4 or 8 years of Trump, if he has his way, and the NATO of old will be unrecognizable...FINALLY!

In reply to by FireBrander

Bone Digger FireBrander Sun, 07/01/2018 - 10:40 Permalink

FireBrander: By 'unrecognizable' I'm guessing you mean emaciated and toothless?  After 4 or 8 years of Trump will the EU have already crumbled (possibly formed into several nation blocs), will it just perhaps be under way or is it possible it'll hold firm?  Can the EU afford to maintain it's own free standing military or even cobble together a functional one from member nation forces?  What if Trump threatens to slash US funding for NATO again in demand for greater cost sharing?  How likely a possibility is that happening?  Adding to the Eu's economic concerns are the new tariffs and trade renegotiations Trump has imposed/further pushing for. As it stands I believe it's not going to impact the EU much, but is there potential here for real damage to be done, to say, force certain agendas/outcomes?  There's also the loss of expected revenue from the derailed Iran Deal, and when you further consider that the EU is watching itself being squeezed out of newly formed trade agreements between nations increasingly liberated from their commerce strangleholds i.e. China, India and Russia, well, the situation appears troubling. In the upcoming summit between Trump and Putin on the 16th I hope a strategy for lifting Russian sanctions will be discussed. Wouldn't that be best for everyone?  The EU needs that cheap gas and more trade, right?  

After lurking here a bit I decided to leap into the maw, admittedly an economic toddler intending to gain some insight from this group while I learn.  Hello to all.

In reply to by FireBrander

SDShack FireBrander Sat, 06/30/2018 - 15:35 Permalink

The reason for NATO changed after the implosion of the Soviet Union. It's now just another tool of the Global Security State to protect the Petro$ via Regime Change against any "perceived threat", even if they have to "manufacture" the threat via a false flag. Cases in point...Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria. Probably could add Turkey in the crosshairs, which is a hell of an irony given the fact that Turkey is part of NATO.

In reply to by FireBrander

LaugherNYC FireBrander Sat, 06/30/2018 - 15:49 Permalink

We should keep our troops there, and simply be paid for it as mercenaries by NATO. No need for them to gear up. Just send us a check every quarter, incur late fees and penalties if you’re not prompt, and solve the problem. 

It is amazing to watch our liberal media trying to put Trump’s election and Brexit at the feet of Russian meddling. If Russia was successful in changing these votes through social media posting, God bless them. That Facebook ads and bogus blog posts could outweigh the MASSIVE MSM bias against Trump and against Brexit would be absolutely incredible if it weren’t so...absolutely incredible.

Russia really should stay the fuck out of our politics, but if our system is so weak and doing such a bad job that it is vulnerable to Facebook posts, maybe something needs to change.

In reply to by FireBrander

james diamond squid TeethVillage88s Sat, 06/30/2018 - 14:44 Permalink

recipe for success:

1.  divide usa into lib/progressive and old school-- separate countries

2.  old school brings all their military home and 

             a.  this manpower is deployed within the old school country

             b.  old school country runs a balanced budget--(little military spending)

             c.   unemployed/homeless/baby mommas are put to work on infastructure projects (no work=no money)

             d.   values and morals are restored.  

             e.   government and regulations are minimized.  

            

 

(lol--this won't work--the collective mindset is too far gone--the globe is too small--im a fool for even posting the above)

 

In reply to by TeethVillage88s

Hans-Zandvliet The First Rule Sat, 06/30/2018 - 21:58 Permalink

The US is NOT part of NATO, NATO is part of the Pentagon and the rest of the NATO countries are just lapdogs, vassals of Washington.

NATO's function is NOT to protect Europe from Russia either. Russia spends not even one tenth the amount of the Pentagon on defense.

The US Department of War, uses NATO as a tool to bully the rest of the world into submission or else bomb them back to the Dark Age. The US Department of War needs NATO to maintain the US Empire.

So why should the European vassal states of NATO pay for maintaining the US Empire. Washington should pay its vassal states for backing and covering up its NATO war crimes.

But, as a European I fully agree that the European countries should simply abandon NATO: the sooner, the better for Europe and the entire world!

In reply to by The First Rule

The Ram The First Rule Sat, 06/30/2018 - 22:12 Permalink

I see many of the people here on the Hedge don't fully understand NATO. Perhaps back when Stalin was around, NATO was about 'western defense', but in recent decades NATO is a control mechanism.  The US troops are there for occupation not 'defense', less western Europe start thinking about getting off the reservation.  Of course, it's expensive keeping the US troops there, so there may well be factions in the deep state who may not want to pay the cost of occupation any more.  My guess is that the US troops will stay.  Remember the EU is definitely part of the NWO, Ziosphere, Deep State or whatever other moniker you want to give the current control system.  

In reply to by The First Rule

Matteo S. The First Rule Sun, 07/01/2018 - 08:15 Permalink

Oh my God ! How can you believe in such a countersense ?

 

The US created NATO in order to bind all west European countries under its rule. NATO is to the US what the ring of power is to Sauron : a ring to bind them all.

 

European military spending is enough to defend European countries. The US is overspending to maintain its worldwide hegemony and demanding that European countries pay more to finance US worldwide hegemony and perpetuate their submission to the US.

 

For more than half a century, the US has been fighting and preventing any possibility for western European countries to organize and independant European defense.

And when, in 1989/1991, the Cold War ended, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved and the USSR exploded, while the US administration realized that NATO had fulfilled its part and was objectively no more necessary to Europe’s defense, Bush decided to perpetuate NATO in order to perpetuate and extend US domination in Europe.

Germany is, like most other European countries, an occupied territory. Sure, many rulers of these countries agree to this submission, but public opinions less and less do, except in Poland and the Baltic States.

 

Maybe part of the US units in Europe will be stationed in Poland, the Baltic Stated and Romania. This would not be good for peace. These would be a warmonger neocon move.

In reply to by The First Rule