Bases should be moved

The nature of the threat American forces will confront in the future has changed in recent years. We no longer need to amass giant armies to confront the Soviets head on. Following this dramatic change, it is time to update our military's strategic position around the world to counter the new danger.\nThere just isn't any reason to keep over 70,000 American troops in Germany anymore. The territorial integrity is secure and won't be threatened any time soon. After all, Western Europe is one of the most stable places on Earth. Even if Russia did decide to attack Germany and France tomorrow, I'm not sure we'd know which side to support. U.S. interests are now probably more in sync with Moscow than Paris or Berlin, where the German chancellor won re-election last year by campaigning against America. \nInstead of huge overpriced bases in unappreciative Western countries, it is becoming more likely that our forces will move to the pro-American Eastern Europe. As an alternative to massive bases, we would use smaller, cheaper "lily pads" spread amongst post-Soviet block nations like Poland, Bulgaria and Romania who have been surrounded by more instability than their Western allies. These countries have strongly supported America and its decisions while trying to modernize their sagging economies. In fact, the move east would allow us to use facilities like barracks and huge runways once built by the Red Army. \nAmerican views and values are slowly diverging from some of our Western counterparts, the mutually beneficial relationships are now more likely to be found east of Berlin. Don't we want to base forces in nations that are going to back the United States objectives abroad?\nThat being said, top military officials have claimed the move from Germany predates our recent incongruity about Saddam. They believe, and I agree, it's time to rethink our outdated Cold War positioning strategy and ready ourselves for smaller conflicts that require speed and precision.\nIn Asia, we should begin moving into welcoming capitalist nations that would greatly benefit from the protection and economic boost American bases provide. Once the immediate North Korean crisis is over, we need to begin redeploying those troops now based in South Korea to other strategic positions like Japan or Taiwan. Koreans are beginning to resent America's large presence there, and the North Korean threat is now more of a nuclear one. If conventional warfare should call us back to the peninsula then we'll deploy from other footholds.\nSaudi Arabia has mentioned that as soon as our Iraqi invasion is over, they want us to remove our bases from their country. This certainly isn't surprising, but perhaps the best place to relocate would be Iraq itself. It would certainly be a beneficial move for the Iraqi people, especially in economic terms. According to a Feb. 14 broadcast of Minnesota Public Radio, American bases, like Germany's, provide about 6,000 jobs and bring the region over $1 billion.\n An important part of America's attempt at trying to create an increasingly agile force is the move to more carrier based fleets. We need to deploy with more rapidity than we now possess, and make more strikes from where we are virtually untouchable: the air and the sea.\n The point is that we must start looking at ways to arrange and maintain overseas forces in the fastest, yet cheapest ways without compromising safety or morale. It's time to reevaluate our military situation around the world, considering our current multi-front war, and these recent ideas are a good start. America should remember to find troubled venues in welcoming territories; Germany is really just the opposite. When trouble appears we can't have our whole Air Force sitting in Ramstein, most of our navy in Norfolk, and 37,000 troops collecting dust in South Korea.