Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (43802)	8/19/2004 8:38:33 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 81568

We haven't needed troops in Germany since the Warsaw Pact broke apart. It's not like this is a new idea. There were troops reductions in Europe to the tune of ~200,000. One can argue the economic advantages of having forward deployments, e.g., the host country picks up a considerable expense. Moving bases from Germany to Poland isn't likely to be cost beneficial. Also, the Army is planning on a AC Force Reduction of ~10,000; the Air Force is planning on a AC Force Reduction of ~20,000 and the Navy is planning on a force reduction of ~60,000. You've got a force reduction of some 90,000. They have to come from somewhere. I suppose if an alternative is to close US bases, closing forward bases is easier to get pass Congress. airforcetimes.com Involuntary cuts won’t be necessary, officials say Air Force officials repeated on Tuesday that they believe they can cut nearly 20,000 airmen from the force without resorting to massive involuntary cuts. The Navy, which is also seeking to cut its manpower, disclosed last week that it will remove about 60,000 active-duty sailors by 2011, and that it plans to ask Congress and the Defense Department for permission to bring back early retirement boards for officers and senior noncommissioned officers. and army.mil [see page 1.] jttmab