Germany Says Protection of U.S. Bases to End

BERLIN (Reuters) - German Defense Minister Peter Struck said Germany will stop protecting U.S. military bases in the country at the end of 2004 and would not send troops to help a NATO force police Iraq, a newspaper reported Sunday.

"We want to put an end to the German army's protection of American installations by the end of the year," said Struck in an interview with Welt am Sonntag. "We're now negotiating an end to the guarding process." A Defense Ministry spokesman said discussions about ending the German army's policing of U.S. bases had been going on since the start of the year. "The United States is gearing itself up for this accordingly," the spokesman said.

Some 2,500 German soldiers have protected U.S. barracks and other installations from attack since the start of 2003 because many U.S. troops stationed in Germany -- who would normally have performed the task themselves -- are now in Iraq.

Struck also said Germany would not take part in any prospective NATO security force in Iraq once the U.S.-led coalition transfers sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government at the end of June.

"It seems highly uncertain if and when NATO will be asked for support," said Struck. "Whatever the case, Germany will not take part in it. The army will only provide special aircraft to transport wounded if this proves necessary."

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5008673

Why should the US have its military all over the world?

I know, I know, we don't have enough jobs for the men and women in the military. But a big military just means that we have to keep starting wars to justify it.

Our bases in Germany pump billions of dollars into their economy. After the falling out at the UN, there seems to have been a decision made to start abandoning those bases. If we do, it will be a severe blow to the German economy. At least one community is trying to save "their" base.

Same thing happens in this country each time we go through a round of base closings. The local area takes a major hit.

To be willing to give up the benefit in order to get the US off their backs. Actually, I have read that the benefit is not as great as imagined in the communities because the US soldiers and their families buy on base.

The jobs open to civilians probably goes a long way towards fostering good will of sorts.

There was an article just in the last week or so about this. You are correct. I believe without these bases, most of these towns would fold up.

This attitude isn't going to help them one bit with these decisions.

the French ambassador to the UN blindsided Powell. We already knew we were going into Iraq come hell, high water or both. What you're seeing are unofficial sanctions. It may even affect elections in Germany if it hasn't already.

It's not just in this country people don't like losing their jobs and business. The voters always sack the elected honcho in those times just like Bush is looking at rerun of his father's failed relection.

Bases were built after Germany lost the war and very soon after became frontline in the Cold War. Formally, Germany was under occupation until the German Reunification took place. US bases (and bases by other nations) remained under NATO treaties, giving the US exterritorial status there. Also, Germany has granted other NATO allies overflight rights on its territory.

When the Iraq war started, anti-war forces argued that Germany had the obligation to withdraw these rights, based both on the German constitution that forbids any participation or even help in a war of aggression, and clauses in the NATO treaties that would allow Germany to do so. This was swiftly rejected by political parties and court decisions. As well, the government denied it had any knowledge about what was going on on the US bases, which in fact played an important role in deployment of forces and materials, and denied any knowledge about German airspace used by US planes on bombing missions to Iraq. Meanwhile, we could watch and hear B52 bombers on their way from their U.K bases to Baghdad and back.

Despite the official NO to the war, Germany helped the U.S. in several, mostly indirect ways:

- Not withdrawing overflight rights (as Austria and Belgium did, despite being NATO allies)
- Granting and protecting free movement of troops and material by train and road to airports and/or ports
- Deploying AWACs (with mixed NATO crews)from their base in Germany to Northern Turkey under the disguise of "protecting Turkey", but in fact for the surveillance of airspace deep into Iraq
- Sending German troops with special equipment to detect ABC weapons to Kuwait
- Deploying German Navy in the Gulf region
- Replacing US soldiers protecting US bases with German troops, which is the subject of the news cited here.

why do you suppose they are withdrawing the protection support now?

Kerry said we need to work with "The United Kingdom, France, and Russia..."
I thought it odd at the time that he left out Germany.

Perhaps, this is an attempt to end a co-dependent relationship?

:shrug:

which is already stretched to the max w/unit rotations in Iraq and nobody to replace those units recently extended beyond a year. Cheney/Rummy may use the negotiated loss of German base guards as an excuse to force US base closure in Germany and move on with their grand scheme to build/rebuild new bases in Romania, Poland and Bulgaria, privatizing the base support battalions in the process (huge money-maker for Halliburton).

The huge downside for the US, aside from Halliburton's get-rich scheme, is that eastern bloc bases will be costly, with those countries picking up little, if any, of the tab (unlike Germany and Japan); the army tours will be unaccompanied, offering no incentive for reenlistment due to too much time away from family as a result of back-to-back deployments currently on-going for some time to come; dependent families have a much better support base overseas than they would have stateside--enduring extended deployments in the states would place added stress on the military family, affecting enlistment/reenlistment; the US army hospitals in Germany are an essential receiving point for casualties. Those base hospitals won't be going anywhere, but who is going to protect them?

Recent Stripes letter:

Count blessings

As I sit and read letter after letter about the 1st Armored Division’s extension in Iraq, I’m struck by the tone of the majority of the letters. My husband just left for Afghanistan and will be gone for at least a year. His orders were extended before he even got over there.

I encourage all those in Germany to count their blessings. They live on bases where they have a support network of friends and contacts. They have access to a military hospital. I live in the Midwest and don’t have any contact with anyone else going through what I’m experiencing. There are good things that can come out of any situation. It’s up to each individual to search for the nugget of goodness.

I pray for each and every servicemember and their families — for their safety, patience and optimism.

Katie Schork
Springfield, Ill

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=21784

with the planned permanent bases in Iraq to conquer that region of the world.

going on since the late days of Clintons admin. I've been trying to follow this along with some of the subtle attempts at changes in the IMF and World Bank policies and control.

Yeah, I know it's from CATO, but it gives a pretty decent background on the ESDP. I've got a feeling Shrub disagrees with the recommendations of the report (pdf).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-394es.html

Another article from 2 years ago -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,675197,00.html

Bush comes to shove

Nato was being counted out a few months ago. Now the US is using it to control the new Europe

Simon Tisdall
Thursday March 28, 2002
The Guardian

While Britain and other member states ponderously plod towards agreement on the EU's eastern enlargement, the Bush administration is steaming full speed ahead with the reunification of Europe - under US auspices, on US terms, and primarily for US purposes.
This worrying extension of American power and influence is happening almost without debate in western European capitals, under the noses of leaders in France and Germany preoccupied with elections and of others, in Britain, Italy and Spain, too willing to do Washington's bidding. Yet the US plan, now being pursued by high-level envoys, has enormous political, military and commercial implications.

Such US expansionism across Europe, proceeding in tandem with its equally unabashed move into central Asia, may represent the true dawning, after a decade of false starts, of the age of the solo superpower. It is probably irreversible. And it poses fundamental questions for European integrationists and nation-staters alike.

The chosen vehicle for this grand American putsch, this new, US-orchestrated concert of Europe, is the traditionally US-led Nato alliance; the catalyst was September 11; and the crunch will come at next November's heads-of-government Nato summit in Prague. Up to seven eastern European countries - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania will be invited to join Nato in Prague. Others such as Croatia, Macedonia and Albania will remain in line, hoping their turn will come soon. Yet others, such as Ukraine and Georgia, will edge closer. And if all that were not enough, Russia itself will by then in all probability have been drawn into a sort of associate membership, too. At that point, Nato could girdle the entire northern hemisphere.

more...