The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Let’s also grant that it is good to deploy approximately 120,000 members of the United States Navy – they are forward-deployed to Asia, or cruising the Mediterranean, or hanging out in the Arctic Ocean making jokes about how global warming will irreversibly change submariner hazing rituals. That’s fine. That’s what they’re for.

But what about the 120,000 soldiers and airmen in Europe? What are they doing in the War on Terror that requires them to be in Europe? I grant that we do have a mission that is served by these men and women, but that mission does not require 120,000 deployed. And the Department of Defense agrees:

Changes in the global strategic picture, in addition to revolutions in military technology, transportation and logistics, mean that U.S. forces no longer need to maintain the numerous large bases and supply hubs across Western Europe and northeast Asia.

It is now possible for U.S. forces to do more with less, the officials said, by maintaining fewer, smaller military bases overseas, minimally staffed "forward operating sites," and "cooperative security locations," sites operated by allied countries that could be activated for use by deployed American forces should the need arise.

It is arguable that the mission in Europe does not require any American troops – both Americans and Europeans tell pollsters that Europeans should have a greater voice and role in resolving world conflicts. As a good start, the mission in Europe should be carried out to a larger extent by European NATO forces. But for now, these 120,000 are not all coming back to the US – some really are being redeployed in the overall restructuring of the military to a rapid-response force. The redeployment drawdown will begin in earnest next year, and as the Army Times notes, it's not just the troops:

Most of the soldier positions will be transferred to the U.S., along with more than 100,000 family members.

Nearly two thirds of American troops in Europe are stationed in Germany. In the wake of this restructuring of U.S. forces, Alec at Prose Before Hos is making the case for letting Germany expand its own military and stand their own NATO posts now that we are 20 years past reunification and more than half a century past WWII.

Currently, the German economy is the fifth richest in the world per capita and third largest in the world by nominal GDP. Conversely, Germany is the 36th biggest provider of military and police contributions to UN efforts (in-between Rwanda at 35 and Slovakia at 37). Combined with NATO figures, Germany contributes approximately 6700 troops worldwide, including two thousand in Afghanistan. The invasion of Afghanistan, a multilateral operation agreed upon by NATO, serves as an excellent example. German assistance is done at considerable smaller percentages than other NATO nations, with 20 thousand originating from the United States, 2500 from Canada, and 1000 from Spain. Further, Romania, a country with an average income of $3000, contributed over 800 troops.

(I first found Alec’s article cross-posted at Publius Pundit)

Should we go so far as to advocate bringing home the 80,000 troops in South Korea and Japan? Like Germany, these are two nations who we trust, and who are economically capable of funding sizable militaries of their own. But that’s not currently part of the plan – it would be borderline isolationist to advocate that.

For now, a pullout drawdown redeployment from Iraq also appears to be a different story. But the situation in Iraq and the developing situation in Iran are looking more and more like conventual international disputes, and less like our original vision for the War on Terror. It's past time to think of them that way - and that's a different topic entirely.

By the way, visit the BRAC website for a full rundown on base realignments and closures, both domestic and overseas.