What would moving U.S. soldiers out of Germany mean?
BERLIN — After more than a year of thinly veiled threats to start pulling U.S. troops out of Germany unless Berlin increases its defense spending, President Donald Trump appears to be proceeding with a hardball approach, planning to cut the U.S. military contingent by more than 25 percent.
About 34,500 American troops are stationed in Germany — 50,000 including civilian Department of Defense employees — and the plan Trump reportedly signed off on last week envisions reducing active-duty personnel to 25,000 by September, with further cuts possible.
But as details of the stillunannounced plan trickle out, there’s growing concerns it will do more to harm the U.S.’ own global military readiness and the NATO alliance than punish Germany.
The decision was not discussed with Germany or other NATO members, and Congress was not officially informed — prompting a letter from 22 Republican members of the House Armed Services Committee urging a rethink.
“The threats posed by Russia have not lessened, and we believe that signs of a weakened U.S. commitment to NATO will encourage further Russian aggression and opportunism,” Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas wrote in a letter to Trump with his colleagues. Sen. Jack Reed, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, slammed Trump’s move as “another favor” to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But Richard Grenell, who resigned as U.S. ambassador to Germany two weeks ago, told Germany’s Bild newspaper that “nobody should be surprised that Donald Trump is withdrawing troops.”
Grenell, who declined to comment for this article, said he and others had been pushing for Germany to increase its defense spending and had talked about troop withdrawals since last summer.
“Donald Trump was very clear we want to bring troops home,” he said, adding: “there’s still going to be 25,000 American troops in Germany.”
The suggestion that removing troops will punish Germany, however, overlooks the fact that American troops are no longer primarily there for the country’s defense, said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, who commanded U.S. Army Europe from 2014-17.
American facilities include Ramstein Air Base, a critical hub for operations in the Mideast and Africa and headquarters to the U.S. Air Forces in Europe and Africa; the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, which has saved the lives of countless Americans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan; and the Stuttgart headquarters of both the U.S. European Command
and the U.S. Africa Command. There’s also the Wiesbaden headquarters of U.S. Army Europe, the Spangdahlem F-16 fighter base and the Grafenwoehr Training Area, NATO’s largest training facility in Europe.
Hodges said the facilities are a critical part of America’s global military footprint.
“What’s lost in all this is the benefit to the United States of having forward deployed capabilities that we can use not only for deterrence … but for employment elsewhere,” he said. “The base in Ramstein is not there for the U.S. to defend Europe. It’s there as a forward base for us to be able to fly into Africa, the Middle East.”
Trump indicated last summer that he was thinking of moving some troops from Germany to Poland, telling Poland’s President Andrzej Duda during an Oval Office meeting: “Germany is not living up to what they’re supposed to be doing with respect to
NATO, and Poland is.”
Duda has been trying to woo more American forces, even suggesting Poland would contribute over $2 billion to create a permanent U.S. base — which he said could be named “Fort Trump.” In the current plan, at least some Germany-based troops are expected to be shifted to Poland.
NATO figures put Germany’s estimated defense spending for 2019 at 1.4 percent, and Poland’s at 2 percent. In dollar terms, however, Germany committed nearly $54 billion last year — NATO’s third-largest budget after the U.S. and Britain — while Poland spent slightly less than $12 billion.
Germany does need to spend more, Hodges said, but U.S. and NATO interests would be better served if Washington pushed Berlin to spend on broader military needs, like transportation infrastructure, cyber protection and air defense. That would be easier for Angela Merkel’s government to justify to a largely pacifist population.