Obama: US to boost military presence in Europe

[Blueman]

https://news.yahoo.com/obama-us-boost-military-presence-143134755.html

So are we pivoting to the Pacific and then back to Europe? I'm confused...

[Fuzz]

Don't forget the 69th pivot to jobs and the economy. Don't try to keep up with all the pivots you'll be dizzy for a year.

[ElLoco]

Plus the continual OEF pivot until 2050

[addict]

$1B. Small scale cost, big returns.

[M2]

Panthers back to Spang?

[HeyEng]

And I thought they were going to close Ramstein after KMCC sinks into the sand that it was built on!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[SocialD]

Under this effort, and with the support of Congress, the United States will preposition more equipment in Europe."

If approved, the funding will be used to increase military exercises and training missions on the continent, as well as rotations of air and ground forces, the White House said.

I vote for Hungary! Budapest would be great but Kecskemet or Papa would be fine as well. Get in early, before the girls start hating Americans!

[Clayton Bigsby]

Finally, a place people actually want to go to.

[Winchester]

No love for the Clovis NM pivot?

FML.

Spang for AFSOC!

[Lawman]

Poland was already explored a decade ago for the Army basing Aviation assets out there.

I'd go for it just so my wife had a shorter drive and didn't burn my ration up to get her damn pottery.

[FallingOsh]

Panthers back to Spang?

Attack!

It took us a year and a half to close that squadron after sequestration and now he's boosting our European presence. It's just one insane situation after another. What the fuck is happening?

[Blue]

Alright, lets get Cold War II started!

[Day Man]

Alright, lets get Cold War II started!

Good call...

[SurelySerious]

But they started it!

Good call...

Interesting Opinion

Putin Did Americans a Favor: Ukraine is a wake-up call for what a post-American world would look like

By Walter Russell Mead

President Obama last week outlined his foreign-policy vision for the graduating students at the U.S. Military Academy, but a more instructive lesson in foreign affairs has been offered in recent months by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The U.S. may ultimately owe Mr. Putin a debt of gratitude for the reality check. His attack on Ukraine and his continuing efforts to destabilize its government are invaluable reminders of both the intractable nature of America's foreign-policy challenges and the potentially terrible consequences for the world if the U.S. fails the test.

As in their daily lives, Americans like both convenience and comfort in foreign policy. We want a foreign policy that is easy to operate and makes us feel good about ourselves and the state of the world. Analysts who say we can have the kind of world we want without doing any heavy lifting are guaranteed a warm reception; woe betide those who say we can't have it all.

American elites are as susceptible to this national—and bipartisan—predilection as anyone else. Liberal and conservative policy makers have consistently underestimated the complexities involved in building the liberal world order sought by every president in the post-Cold War era.

For the liberal wing of the foreign-policy establishment, the most consequential piece of wishful thinking may be the idea that the core elements of the American world order (a liberal economic system, great-power peace and the global primacy of liberal and humanitarian values) can flourish even as U.S. power declines. Our liberal political and economic values are so luminously true and so universally popular, the thinking goes, that emerging powers like the Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—the Brics—and established powers like the European Union will take up the slack.

For liberal internationalists and conservative neo-isolationists, this is an attractive idea. Many analysts deem it self-evident that America's relative power in the international system is fated to decline in the 21st century. As countries like India and China continue to develop, we're told, the U.S. cannot hang on forever at the top of the global pecking order. As other countries build their military power and global presence, the U.S. would have to work much harder and spend much more to keep up. Not many Democratic policy wonks want to take that message to their political base.

But if we assume, as these liberals do, that America can rely on the kindness of strangers, the future doesn't look so grim. We can cut defense spending, trim commitments abroad and still feel good about ourselves. We can gradually decline without feeling that we are shirking our duties or endangering our security. The Pax Americana will survive American might; the rule of law will flourish as our power wanes.

Yet Mr. Putin has now thrown a big stink bomb into the middle of the "peaceful and safe decline" celebration. His move on Ukraine sends a strong message: American values and interests are unlikely to thrive if American power is in eclipse. The Pax Americana and the hope of a liberal and humane global system still rest on the weary shoulders of Uncle Sam.

For those willing to see, the signs of what a post-American world would look like are easy to discern. We can look at Bashar Assad's murderous campaign in Syria to see how Iran thinks power should be used. To see what Saudi Arabia thinks about human rights and liberal values, follow events in Egypt and Pakistan. China would become more aggressive in a post-American world, and the chances of Sino-Japanese conflict would increase. South Africa's coldly pragmatic approach to the Mugabe dictatorship in neighboring Zimbabwe speaks eloquently about the prospects of democracy if America diminishes as a presence in Africa. In Europe, only power keeps or can keep Russia from rebuilding its old empire and pushing forward into the former Warsaw Pact states.

Those who think American decline is inevitable must face a tragic truth: The eclipse of American power will be a disaster for our economic interests, for the values we cherish, and in the end for our security at home. What stability, peace and legality now exist in the international system are there because the U.S., with important help from allies and partners, made great sacrifices to build and secure them. The imposing edifice of the liberal world system would soon fall into ruin without that foundation.

The current bout of American weakness, a wobble that has destabilized Europe, the Middle East and Asia, is less about long-term historical decline than about a specific political moment. After two disappointing presidencies, the public is weary of foreign entanglements and deeply skeptical about the ability of either liberal or conservative experts to manage complicated overseas interventions. A foreign-policy establishment that has not exactly covered itself in glory over three presidential terms has lost much of the credibility needed to lead the American people into a new and constructive era.

But thanks to Vladimir Putin and others, Americans are beginning to discover how ugly the world can get when the U.S. takes a breather. In the run-up to elections this fall and in 2016, voters may want to pay close attention to what aspiring candidates have to say about America's role in the world. Freedom and peace world-wide still depend on American energy and engagement.

Mr. Mead is a professor of foreign affairs and humanities at Bard College and editor at large of the American Interest.