Troop Movement: Bush's troop redeployment may make military sense. But it's a bad idea

by David L. Englin
The New Republic Online, Aug. 18, 2004

President Bush announced Monday that he wants to reduce our city-like bases overseas by 70,000 troops and 100,000 family members and civilians over the next ten years. The plan would lead to the near-elimination of our military bases in Western Europe, as well as their massive infrastructure of houses, schools, stores, and everything else required to support permanently based U.S. troops and their families. These bases would likely be replaced by new, leaner stations in Eastern Europe, where American forces would deploy directly from the homeland, with nary a family member in sight.

The plan makes intuitive military sense: During the cold war we needed massive numbers of American forces permanently based in Europe to hold back the Soviets, whom we expected to come flooding across the continent at any moment. Now that the cold war is over, Europe should be able to take care of itself. And, of course, U.S. troops are needed elsewhere, namely in the Middle East.

But though the plan seems like a good move on the surface, it is in fact a terrible idea. First and foremost, it would end probably the best thing America has had going in public diplomacy during the past 50 years--and at a time when public diplomacy is vital to U.S. security. Easily recognized by their jeans and baseball hats, military families have for decades been front-line ambassadors of American values and culture to the nations in which they have been stationed. Military personnel and their families come from every part of America; and they live, work, worship, and learn among citizens of the nations where they are stationed. Some live on base in military housing, while others live off base in whatever kinds of homes and neighborhoods the locals inhabit. But all spend time in the communities where they are stationed. Mandatory briefings, military public service announcements, and admonishments from commanders and teachers constantly remind them--even the children--that they are ambassadors of all things American. Locals and their American guests develop relationships and get to know each other as friends, neighbors, customers, tenants, and even congregants.

And the diplomacy works both ways. When those same military families return to the United States, they become, in effect, ambassadors to their fellow Americans of the countries in which they have lived. When international issues arise in classrooms or boardrooms or around the kitchen table, military personnel who have lived overseas have the benefit of firsthand experience with many of the nations and cultures involved. I was born and raised on U.S. bases overseas, and I spent much of this time in England. A commander's daughter was surprised to hear from me that English schools require students to recite the Lord's Prayer; and I, in turn, was surprised to hear from her that being a young woman in Turkey wasn't the oppressive experience I assumed it would be. The cultural understanding developed by military personnel who live overseas gets added to the mix of American life in ways that enrich us all--and military personnel in turn advertise the best of American life to those with whom they live. The cumulative effect has been a kind of two-way public diplomacy that sustains important international relationships despite foreign policy differences.

To be sure, sometimes things happen at U.S. military bases that damage, rather than help, America's world image. Our military personnel in Okinawa, where U.S. soldiers have assaulted Japanese civilians, are not well loved by their neighbors. (There are other, less dramatic examples: The base in England where I spent some of my childhood had a permanent camp of anti-nuclear protesters just outside the perimeter--despite otherwise warm relations with the surrounding population.) The incidents in Japan, of course, are much better known to the U.S. public than the overwhelmingly positive interactions between Americans and foreigners that occur every day at almost every base around the world. Even allowing for the black eyes that America has occasionally suffered in Japan and elsewhere, there can be little doubt that, on balance, the presence of U.S. personnel and their families overseas has been a good thing for our country's international image.

In addition, there is a further problem with Bush's plan. The announcement comes at a time when military families are growing increasingly anxious about the demands placed on them by repeated long-term deployments and an overstretched force. So Bush is justifying his move as being to the benefit of military families. "Our service members will have more time on the home front, and more predictability and fewer moves over a career," he said. "Our military spouses will have fewer job changes, greater stability, more time for their kids and to spend with their families at home." Maybe. But following through on these promises to military families will require significant changes at the Pentagon, which is not known for its rapid institutional dexterity. It's far more likely that military families will find themselves living at bases in the United States and spending even less time with their loved ones, who will spend more time deployed to new, family-free forward bases. What's more, it's far from clear that military families want to be relocated to the United States. Bush was famously untraveled before he became president, so maybe he assumes that military families don't like being overseas. But in fact many clamor for overseas assignments, and fight to extend them once they're there.

Finally, even on the grounds of military strategy--where Bush's move is most easily defensible--the plan is not without drawbacks. Al Qaeda and its affiliates remain active throughout Europe. Plus, Europe is closer than Kentucky to strategically critical locations in the Middle East and Central Asia, and therefore an easier base from which to deploy troops. So the strategic pros and cons of the move can be legitimately debated. But the damage that Bush's proposal could do to America's relations with its allies is beyond dispute. There is no easy public-relations substitute for 100,000 Americans living in the heart of Europe and serving as ambassadors to and from their host countries. If you think Americans and Europeans have trouble getting along now, just wait.