{"id":46443,"date":"2020-09-30T20:17:01","date_gmt":"2020-09-30T20:17:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/uncategorized\/2020\/09\/30\/pentagons-plan-to-rearrange-forces-in-europe-gets-the-third-degree-from-both-sides-of-the-aisle\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T10:36:33","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T10:36:33","slug":"pentagons-plan-to-rearrange-forces-in-europe-gets-the-third-degree-from-both-sides-of-the-aisle","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/defensenews\/congress\/2020\/09\/30\/pentagons-plan-to-rearrange-forces-in-europe-gets-the-third-degree-from-both-sides-of-the-aisle\/","title":{"rendered":"Pentagon\u2019s plan to rearrange forces in Europe gets the third degree from both sides of the aisle"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Members of the House Armed Services Committee<\/a> ripped apart a Pentagon proposal<\/a> to move about 12,000 troops out of Germany during a Thursday hearing, questioning the civilian and uniformed officials testifying on everything from the lack of a cost projection to whether the move is just in response to an arbitrary cap set by the president.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under the plan, 11,900 troops would be pulled out of Germany<\/a>, with 2,500 of those relocating to countries like Belgium and Italy, while the other 6,400 would return stateside. But without a cost analysis, no timeline and, according to lawmakers, scant reasoning for the move at all, the plan has gotten a resoundingly poor grade from a committee with the power to approve or deny it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI don\u2019t think this plan was particularly well thought out and I worry about a number of aspects of its implementation,\u201d Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., HASC\u2019s chairman, said in his opening remarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First announced by Defense Secretary Mark Esper at the end of July, the proposal was borne of a U.S. European Command review, which each combatant command has gone through in recent months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Esper has argued that redistributing some troops throughout other points in Europe, while specifically bringing the 2nd Cavalry Regiment home and deploying it and similar formations as a rotational force focused on countries east of Germany and closer to Russia, would bolster the mission to deter that country\u2019s encroachment across its western border.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics of the plan have pointed out that it seems to fall directly in line with recent rhetoric from President Donald Trump, who has threatened to pull troops out of Germany for not meeting its non-binding goal of contributing 2 percent of its gross domestic product to NATO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c… there needs to be an overall strategic plan that is coordinated with allies, rather than have a bunch of rationalizations after the fact,\u201d ranking member Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The hearing comes as House and Senate negotiations are underway over the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act; the House version<\/a> includes a provision that would ban the administration from lowering troop levels below current levels until 180 days after Pentagon leaders present a plan to Congress and certify it will not harm U.S. or allied interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhere did number come from?\u201d Smith asked, questioning what requirement is fulfilled by moving 12,000 troops out of Germany.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 2,500 troops who would stay in Europe but leave Germany include the headquarters personnel of EUCOM and U.S. Africa Command, both currently housed in Stuttgart.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe decision to move AFRICOM out of Germany does not seem to make sense,\u201d Smith said. \u201cExcept, as came out in the briefing, it was necessary to get to the 12,000 number. That is not the way we should be making policy, and it is going to be very, very expensive.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The announcement has been largely derided as a political punch from the Trump administration. On the other hand, it has also raised questions of whether it will ever come to fruition if the president is not reelected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This is a textbook case that should be taught in [international relations] programs of how not to make a decision like this,\u201d Mich\u00e8le Flournoy, a former defense under secretary for policy in the Obama administration, told Defense News on Wednesday<\/a>. \u201cNo consultation with your ally … no real strategic analysis of the alternatives. This was a presidential impulse.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Flournoy is widely assumed to be Joe Biden\u2019s pick for defense secretary, should he win the presidential election Nov. 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c… our bases in Europe have been indispensable when we\u2019ve operated in other parts of the world,\u201d she added, including as a transit hub for Middle East deployments. \u201cSo I would not rush to just assume that we can dramatically change the posture.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why now?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Asked to justify why a rotational combat force is preferable to the permanent presence currently provided by the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, James Anderson, the acting defense under secretary for policy, told Smith that the model provides \u201cflexibility.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFlexibility sounds like a nice word, but it doesn\u2019t actually tell us anything,\u201d Smith said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Defense officials in the past have presented rotational forces as a better use of readiness, because they train up for a deployment and focus 100-percent of their time on the mission while in country. Alternatively, Germany-based forces have their families with them, but leave for months at a time for missions or training exercises.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While having a rundown of brigades rotating in and out of Europe might provide some flexibility in when and where troops are sent out, lawmakers were concerned that their intermittent presence would be a downgrade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd what does it truly net us?\u201d Smith asked. \u201cThat has an impact, certainly on the members serving, but also on our presence in those countries and our ability to respond.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anderson noted that despite resistance to change from Germany, the plan is expected to benefit both the U.S. and its allies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI\u2019m really having a problem connecting the dots with whether this is going to solve a problem, that I don\u2019t think exists,\u201d Jim Langevin, D-R.I., said. \u201cIn fact, I think it\u2019s going to create more problems than anything it\u2019s going to solve.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where to?<\/b><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Belgium has been batted around as the new home of EUCOM, a location is still up in the air for AFRICOM.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stood up in 2007, the Pentagon settled on Germany as AFRICOM\u2019s headquarters, where the Air Force and Marine Corps also have their Africa forces staffs, while the Army and Navy\u2019s Africa headquarters are in Italy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The assumption had been that U.S. Africa Command, also headquartered at Stuttgart, would follow EUCOM to Belgium, but Anderson offered that it could be relocated to another European country, a country in Africa or even to the U.S.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then there\u2019s the matter of relocating thousands of troops, and their equipment, assigned to 2nd Cavalry Regiment. Principally, that involves finding an Army post stateside with enough space and facilities \u2015 housing, schools, etc. \u2015 to accommodate them and their families.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Pentagon is \u201cstill formulating cost estimates,\u201d Anderson said, but he echoed Esper\u2019s July rough math of \u201csingle-digit billions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to an Air Force fighter squadron and support elements moving from Germany to Italy, 2,500 of the 11,900 personnel are airmen based at Royal Air Force Mildenhall, England, whose planned relocation to Germany is now canceled.<\/p>\n\n\n\t