The howls from Congress have not ceased since July.
The House Armed Services Committee has again registered its displeasure with what many members decry as an ill-conceived plan to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Germany as the threat of Russian aggression lingers.
“These moves have really made a lot of our long-standing allies question whether we are really going to be there should the balloon go up,” said Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego at a recent committee hearing on European force posture.
Gallego authored an amendment to the still-pending National Defense Authorization Act that would restrict America’s ability to draw down troops and get rid of infrastructure in Europe.
Alabama Republican Bradley Byrne, during one particularly contentious exchange with Pentagon officials, added: “From a lay person’s point of view, it looks like we’ve reduced our troop presence in Europe at a time that Russia is actually becoming more of a threat.”
Defense Secretary Mark Esper’s July 29 announcement followed a Trump order to cap troops in Germany to 25,000 as punishment for Germany not contributing 2% of its gross domestic product to NATO.
Some 5,600 troops would be restationed in undisclosed NATO countries, and about 6,400 would return to the United States.
Byrne reminded Pentagon officials testifying that Russia invaded Ukraine without warning in 2014 precisely when it saw a moment of weakness in the NATO alliance.
“I worry and I think some of our allies are worrying that they’re looking at this move as a weakening of American presence, a weakening of American resolve, a weakening of American capability operating with our NATO allies,” he added.
Baltic allies who recently spoke to the Washington Examiner agreed that the July 29 announcement to withdraw some 12,000 U.S. troops from bases in Germany still worries them.
“We are not enthusiastic about the withdrawal from Germany of troops,” Lithuanian Minister of Defense Raimundas Karoblis told the Washington Examiner during a recent interview in Vilnius.
“The size really matters. The manpower in the region and Europe is really necessary,” he said of the estimated 37,000 U.S. troops in Europe.
“For us, it [is] worrying [if] this reduction from Germany takes place, but on the other hand, of course we are all raising the issue that more troops are needed in the eastern flank,” he said.
Trading permanent for rotational presence
Congressmen argued that the notion of replacing a permanent American troop presence in Europe with a smaller number of rotational forces on the eastern flank will not provide the same level of deterrence to Russia.
“Just to be clear, we made a decision based on this president’s decision to move a certain amount of troops out of Germany without any actual context of how this brings deterrence for national security,” said Gallego. “Why hasn’t the department sent the committee a cost estimate aside from actively harming our national security, in my opinion?”
Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy James Anderson testified that once the months of planning and years of execution are complete to the tune of unknown billions of dollars, Russia will be put off.
“I do believe it’s going to enhance deterrence,” he said. “NATO allies, especially on the eastern flank, directly support our [National Defense Strategy] principles by improving operational flexibility and enhancing deterrence.”
Byrne suggested the timing required for a European reshuffling gives Russia an advantage.
“Russia basically invaded the Ukraine, and nobody had any notice,” said Byrne. “We didn’t have five months to plan. They just did it.”
Lt. Gen. David Allvin, director for strategy, plans, and policy on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that rotational forces in particular help NATO’s newest members in the Baltic states.
“New allies are joining NATO, but these gains must be reinforced,” he said. “Nations along the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, for instance, are under direct and persistent military pressure from Russia.”
But Karoblis, who calls for a permanent U.S. troop presence in his country instead of a nine-month rotation, warned that the troop withdraw as planned is causing strife among NATO allies.
The defense minister pointed to NATO allies Germany and Poland in particular.
“The increase of the U.S. troops in the region, in Poland and Lithuania, is not because of the withdrawal from Germany,” he said. “Our allies understand that we don’t need really any additional tensions between the NATO allies.”
Armed Services Chairman Rep. Adam Smith, a Democrat, said such dissension plays right into Vladimir Putin’s hands.
“Russia is becoming more aggressive, not less,” he said. “They want to see us divided. They want to see NATO weakened. They want to see the NATO partners disagreeing and at each other’s throats.”
