Allen Forkum links this tidbit: "I regret this very much," German Defense Minister Peter Struck told reporters during a visit to troops in northern Germany.
Yeah I bet you do. However, it takes a commie unionist to make a proper whine when the US teat is pulled from his grasp.
Condi Rice's comment that Soviet troops were no longer poised to sweep across the German plain provided a chuckle or two around the Feste breakfast table.
Kerry told the veterans Bush's plan "sends the wrong signal to withdraw from Europe and the Far East now when we need to cultivate those allies" to help fight the war on terror.
Au contraire mon ami Kerry, this sends precisely the right signal to our Allies and our enemies.
Kerry's mock shock & awe is such transparent twaddle, it took seconds to Google up links to recent news stories and this interesting nugget from November 17, 2003 :
Secretary Rumsfeld Korean Joint Press ConferenceSECRETARY RUMSFELD: [formal intro edited]...I’ve assured the Minister that any changes to U.S. military posture in North-East Asia will be the product of the closest consultation with our key allies; most importantly, they will result in increased U.S. capabilities in the region.
Whatever adjustments we may make will reflect the new technologies that are available, the new capabilities, and they will strengthen our ability to deter and if necessary, defeat any aggressions against allies such as South Korea. And above all, nothing we do will diminish our commitment to Korea’s security or our ability to fulfill our obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty.
[..]
MND SPOKESPERSON: And now we will take questions from a foreign journalist.
QUESTION: Mr. Minister, I’d like to ask you. There is much that has been reported about and perhaps much controversy over the realignment of U.S. forces within Korea, and perhaps even the future withdrawal of some of those forces from South Korea. Sir, are you confident of South Korea’s military ability to hold the line at the DMZ as American troops uphold southward and why?
MINISTER CHO: We are moving forward with plans to bring about Yongsan relocation and redeployment of the Second Infantry Division. However, during today’s meeting, we didn’t have any discussions regarding any possible reduction of U.S. forces, and I believe that we have not yet reached that stage to bring about that discussion.
QUESTION: Sir, are you confident of South Korea’s military ability to hold the line if American forces are not there?
MINISTER CHO: We are moving forward to transfer ten missions currently assumed by USFK and transfer those responsibilities to Korean forces. Among the ten, eight of them would pose no problems, even if they were to be transferred at an early stage to Korean forces. However I would like to note that, with regard to the JSA security mission and the counter-fire headquarters mission, we must also take into account the political situation and trends on the Korean peninsula as well as ROK force capabilities. So, I would also state that it would be somewhat quick or premature to implement this transfer immediately, but nonetheless, we will continue to engage in checking our future progress on this matter.
[...]
QUESTION: The question is whether you respect the Korean government’s decision to send additional troops primarily to provide humanitarian support in Iraq and with the number of about 3,000 troops, rather than conducting stabilization operations in Iraq. And my second part of the question is in reference to paragraph four of the Joint Communiqué. I see there is emphasis on the strategic flexibility on the part of the U.S. Forces in Korea and I understand this would not undermine the deterrent that is on the Korean peninsula. But, whether this would affect the current situation here in Korea, and I understand there would be rapid mobility requirements on the part of the United States Armed Forces in the future. But, nevertheless, people still constantly talk about the possibility of troop reduction and I’d like to have your firm word on the prospect of troop reduction.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: My goodness gracious! First, I think I answered your first question earlier when I said that each country needs to decide for itself, each sovereign nation how it can best contribute to the global war on terror whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, and obviously we would respect whatever decision this government makes.
With respect to the second part of your question on flexibility of forces, we understand that weakness can be provocative. That weakness can invite people into doing things that they otherwise might not even consider. This alliance has been successful for 50 years. It is an enormously successful record. And it’s been successful because we have had the ability to deter and defend and, if necessary, prevail and that has been well understood. I can assure you it will be well understood in the years ahead, and needless to say, neither of our governments would do anything that would in anyway weaken the deterrent and the capability to defend. I think the way to think about it is that what deters and what gives you the capability to defend are military capabilities. It is not numbers of things; it is capability to impose lethal power when needed, where needed, with the greatest flexibility and with the greatest agility. Whatever adjustments are made, A) will be made in the closest consultation with the government of Korea and second, they will leave the alliance stronger, with a healthier deterrent and a healthier capability of defending. Let there be no doubt.
That a senator on the Foreign Relations Committe who claims to be prepared to assume leadership of the free world had no inkling of long-studied troop realignments prior to August 17th 2004 is simply not credible.
Perhaps Senator Kerry should report for duty at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee a little more often.
(hat tip to Glenn for the Davids Medienkritik link)
Posted by feste at August 19, 2004 10:44 AM | TrackBack