Closing more U.S. military bases in Europe, as Tom Rogan suggested on April 4, is exactly the wrong thing to do at precisely the wrong time.
Since the 1991 end of the Cold War that followed World War II, the U.S. has eliminated almost 60 European installations and the number of American troops has dropped from 300,000 to about 62,000, half of them U.S. Army soldiers.
European bases took a big hit over the past 15 years as the Army withdrew a corps headquarters, two division headquarters, as well as every tank and mechanized unit from Europe. We wrongly predicted a “peace dividend” and a reset with Russia during a U.S. drawdown that included efforts to protect military communities in the continental United States from the financial impact of a smaller Army.
Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti was blunt last year when he told Congress, “The ground force permanently assigned to EUCOM is inadequate to meet the combatant command’s directed mission to deter Russia from further aggression.” Rotational deployments were making up the gap. And while there is great benefit to the rotation of U.S.-based units to Europe, there is similarly great value in having some units based in Europe.
Europe is important to the U.S. for security and economic reasons, and the threats to U.S. interests are real and varied. Russia is equipping and training proxy forces in Eastern European and Eurasia, there are changing regional dynamics in the Middle East, and violent extremists remain a threat.
Having U.S. forces, including heavy combat units, stationed in Europe is a vital element in American and NATO deterrence. It is good to have more pre-positioned equipment across the theater that brigades from the U.S. can fall in on, and our experience of having a rotational presence of U.S. forces in Europe has been successful in demonstrating both our resolve and our rapid mobilization capability. That doesn’t replace the wisdom of having enough forces on the ground in the theater to have an immediate, lethal response to any provocations.
European bases for U.S. Army troops project stability. Rather than shuttering more overseas posts, we need to recapitalize by restoring aging infrastructure and modernizing facilities to improve communications, security and efficiency. The idea of extending U.S. basing into more NATO nations is attractive and reflects a changed operating environment, but that will take time and money. Until then, retaining the small footprint the U.S. Army maintains in Europe is the wisest decision, for our security and for the strength of the NATO alliance.
Deterring adversaries requires both having and demonstrating a decisive edge in capability, rapid response, and determination. Our presence is a constant reminder of the cost of war. Having a combat-credible force in Europe, both permanently stationed and rotational forces, is critical to maintain the peace.
Gen. Carter F. Ham. U.S. Army retired, is president and CEO of the Association of the U.S. Army.
