Panetta's strategy

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Pima, Jan 3, 2012.

  1. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,809
    Likes Received:
    956
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/us/pentagon-to-present-vision-of-reduced-military.html

    Interesting article because it does attack everything on top of that quote from the 35 to cutting troops to the Navy and their nuclear program to leaving Europe and Asia from a personnel position.

    Maybe somebody has the knowledge to answer this, but wouldn't that be tied to our deals with the govt regarding leasing the installations? It would seem to me that it may be difficult to do this from a political perspective.
     
  2. osdad

    osdad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2010
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    28
    Maybe somebody has the knowledge to answer this, but wouldn't that be tied to our deals with the govt regarding leasing the installations? It would seem to me that it may be difficult to do this from a political perspective.

    Not sure how it would work now but back in the 80's when I was at an Army installation, we spent many millions on new facilities (including $20M for a new hospital that we never moved into) only to turn them over to the Germans when we closed 3 of 5 kaserns. They were happy to accept them.
    Vielen Dank
     
  3. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think there were too many who could have predicted the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989.
     
  4. MemberLG

    MemberLG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    2,807
    Likes Received:
    444
    I don't know, but my guess is that the leasing of the installations will have minimum impact. Leases can be terminated, especially if the host country don't want us there. I think we are spending a lot of money to relocated USFK HQ down south from Seoul. A part of the reason was that we were too close to the border, but another part of the reason was that USFK HQ was occupying a former Japanes Colonial complex and sitting in a prime real estate location in Seoul. It's like a having a foreign miltiary garrison in middle of Washington DC.

    Okinawa is another example, I believe locals don't want us there but the central government want us there or vice versa.
     
  5. patentesq

    patentesq Parent

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    1,587
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. This is an interesting political shift from (1) "don't give 'em an inch" to (2) "defend in depth". In Germany, we followed the "don't give 'em an inch" policy and had the ground troops basically lined up next to the border because it was politically not feasible to inform the Germans that our plan would be to sacrifice cities like Fulda until we could see where the main thrust was coming from and then attack them on the flank. I did not know that we had shifted to a "defend in depth" strategy in Korea, which is actually a more prudent approach. Of course, I suspect it's okay for the locals to accept this approach if doing so also opens up prime real estate.
     
  6. raimius

    raimius USAFA Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,239
    Likes Received:
    273
    Moving south also makes the "tripwire" harder to break. Are we backing off from the idea of instant retaliation to DPRK aggression? Maybe I'm reading too much from the tea leaves! :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page