Out of growing frustration with some European countries, in particular Germany, and their perceived unwillingness to support the US in the Middle East, President Donald Trump last week announced that he will remove 5,000 American troops permanently based in Germany over the next six to 12 months. He also warned that this could be the first step in a sizable drawdown of US forces from Europe.
This is not the first time Trump has threatened to withdraw forces from Europe. He did the same during the final year of his first term but those plans were never implemented after he lost the 2020 election.
But Trump is not alone in reducing America’s military presence in Europe. In 2013, President Barack Obama also withdrew almost 10,000 troops from Europe, including every American tank, leaving the continent without a single US tank on its soil for the first time since the Second World War. This was done as part of his administration’s failed “reset” with Russia. Just months after the last US tank left Europe, Russia annexed Crimea.
Currently, the US has about 68,000 troops permanently based in Europe. This represents about an 86 percent reduction from the Cold War high of 475,000 troops in the 1950s. Still, due to training exercises and the arrival of rotational forces, the total number of American troops in Europe can at times approach 100,000.
Critics often rely on outdated Cold War assumptions to argue that US troops are no longer needed in Europe
Luke Coffey
During the Cold War, the mission of US troops in Europe was clear: defend Western Europe, stop the spread of communism and, if necessary, defeat the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies on the battlefield. But since the end of the Cold War, the case for why US troops should remain in Europe has not been conveyed adequately to the American public.
Instead, critics often rely on outdated Cold War assumptions to argue that US troops are no longer needed on the continent. This misses the point. The reasons for keeping American forces in Europe today are different from those of the Cold War, but they are no less important.
In the 21st century, there are two main reasons why it is important for the US to keep forces in Europe.
The first is economic. Europe is too important to America’s economic security for it not to have a direct security role on the continent. About half of the world’s gross domestic product is found between North America and Europe. According to a recent report by the US Chamber of Commerce, Europe is America’s No. 1 destination for exports. The report goes on to say that 48 out of the 50 US states export more to Europe than they do to China. Europe is also the single largest source of foreign investment into the US. Last year, about 56 percent of all foreign investment into America originated from Europe, totaling about $3.5 trillion.
The stability and security across Europe that have contributed to the region’s economic prosperity — and in turn benefited the US — have been made possible in part by the continued presence of American military forces in Europe and Washington’s continued participation in NATO. This presence is not an act of charity. It is a strategic investment in a region whose peace and prosperity directly affect American workers, businesses and consumers.
The second reason US forces in Europe benefit their homeland is geography. One needs to look beyond Europe’s traditional borders to understand why it is beneficial for America to have bases and troops deployed on the continent.
From North Africa and the Levant to the Black Sea, the Caucasus, Russia and the Arctic, the regions surrounding Europe have long been sources of unpredictability and, at times, instability for American interests. Overlaid on this same broad region are some of the world’s most important trade routes, energy corridors and transit chokepoints.
Having US forces deployed in Europe gives policymakers more options and greater speed when reacting to events
Luke Coffey
Having US forces deployed in Europe gives policymakers more options and greater speed when reacting to geopolitical events. These bases also help America project force even farther afield.
A recent example is the US air campaign against Iran. Without access to European airspace and basing, which was arguably made possible by a military relationship going back decades and underpinned by the presence of US military forces in Europe, the campaign would have been far more difficult to execute, if not impossible. In this sense, the large US garrisons of the Cold War have become America’s forward operating bases of the 21st century.
It is understandable that the Trump administration has placed the defense and security of the homeland and the Western Hemisphere at the center of its national security strategy. But the US already has about 85 percent of its military personnel permanently based within the country. Removing 5,000 troops from Europe will not meaningfully strengthen America’s role in the Western Hemisphere. It will, however, significantly weaken a key deterrent presence in Europe.
Perhaps most alarmingly, the decision to remove 5,000 troops from Europe does not appear to be part of a larger plan or strategy. Instead, it seems designed to settle a political grievance the White House currently has with the German government. That is no way to make decisions about America’s global military posture.
Europe will continue to be an important geopolitical region for the US. The presence of its forces there deter adversaries, reassure allies, support its operations beyond Europe and protect an economic relationship that is vital to American prosperity.
Hopefully, the announcement that these troops will be removed is simply part of the heated rhetoric Trump often deploys against Europeans and will not come to fruition. The US should make decisions about its force posture in Europe based on its own long-term national interests, not short-term political frustration.
BY: Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
