Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Politics And Modern Events
  5. / Political Schools Of Thought

by Tondoteottotote on December 27th, 2005

Tondoteottotote

Question

Help answer this question below.

The U.S. originally had troops stationed in Germany to ward off the looming Communist threat, but with communist countries nowhere near Germany now, why do we still keep troops there?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 9 helpful answers below.

  • by Sina Mohajer on December 28th, 2005

    Sina Mohajer

    Tactically it is important for America to have troops and military bases in Germany due to its close proximity towards Russia (which is still posing a challenge to U.S.A.)

    There also other reasons such as having forces nearby other unstable countries most of which are Eastern Europians. The Kosovo conflict proved a need for U.S. troops near-by.

    All in all, U.S.A. desires domination globally and can only achieve that by keeping, and funding military bases, and troops in places which may not even seem militiraly vital.

    I hope this answered your question.

    • Like
    • Report

    5 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Diego Perez on December 31st, 2005

    Diego Perez

    The United States has bases all over the world because it uses them as tactical lily pads to launch troops whenever need be to anywhere need be.

    Germany is the perfect spot in Europe to launch troops quickly to any part of that continent. Now it serves as the area where troops from usa stop before heading into Iraq.

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by Moongrim on June 22nd, 2009

    Moongrim

    On the off chance that the Germans decide to conquer the world again.

    • Like
    • Report

    2 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Frederik on June 22nd, 2009

    Frederik

    I think the Americans could take their troops home.
    In Germany no troops at all are needed.
    It is a waste of money and ressources.
    Even Germany has reduced its troops from 600.000 to 200.000 and I think the Germans could do better without any troops.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Frederik on October 9th, 2009

    Frederik

    Perhaps they have their troops in Germany because they like the landscape so much.
    But there are not more many of them in Germany and if they stay or go, I don't mind.
    One day they will leave anyway when it gets too expensive for the US government.
    At the moment they need their troops more in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Frederik on June 22nd, 2009

    Frederik

    But you know that Germany does not need any troops.
    There is a wide public opinion that would get rid off any military in Germany.
    Even the last 50 years Germany did never really need troops.
    So it was more than stupid after WW II to build a new army.
    In case of war it would have been the job of the western allies to defend Germany if they think they should have done.
    And I would have preferred like most Germans an invasion by the Red army much more than beeing defended by the Americans because an invasion most of us would have survived.
    In the plans of the western allies Germany was nothing but a battlefield.
    And a series of atomic strikes directly on Germany for defending the country would have wiped out complete Germany with all its citizens.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by iwnit on June 22nd, 2009

    iwnit

    You can always find new wars to fight.


    1) "The end of the Cold War saw large reductions of American forces in Germany. However, before these reductions could be implemented, the Persian Gulf War intervened. The Seventh Army itself did not take part, but VII Corps, one of its two constituent corps, was deployed, delivering the armored attack that smashed Iraqi forces. VII Corps units generally did not return to Germany after that war; but rather they moved directly back to the United States for deactivation. However, much of its heavy armaments, such as tanks and artillery was left in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

    The V Corps was thus left as the major combat component of Seventh Army. This remained the situation throughout the 1990s, with deployments of forces to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo punctuating the usual peacetime activities. A reorganisation in 1996 saw the reactivation of the 173d Airborne Brigade, based in Italy, the only major change after the departure of VII Corps."

    "The September 11, 2001 attacks did not directly affect the Seventh Army. However, the campaign in Iraq in 2003 did. The headquarters of V Corps was deployed to Iraq, as did 173rd Airborne Brigade, and after the campaign, 1st Armored Division followed for occupation duties. With parts of 1st Infantry Division also deployed in Iraq, and others on peacekeeping duties in the Balkans, Seventh Army was virtually stripped of combat formations. The return of 173rd Brigade, V Corps and 1st Armored Division in early 2004 was followed by the deployment of the rest of 1st Infantry Division for occupation duties.

    Currently, U.S. Army's modularization transformation plan calls for the formation's major subordinate units — 1st Armored Division and 1st Infantry Division — to be relocated to the continental United States — Fort Bliss, Texas, and Fort Riley, Kansas, respectively. Replacing them will be the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, converted to a Stryker Brigade, and the 12th Aviation Brigade. V Corps will be deactivated, transferring most of its units and personnel to I Corps, III Corps, and XVIII Corps. Seventh Army, having been merged with US Army Europe since 1967, will remain merged, as was confirmed with the release of unit designations for the modular force in mid 1996. Actually HQ USAREUR and V Corps will merge to produce 'Seventh Army', which will have a deployable component.

    Thus when the expected changes are finished the force in Europe will consist of Seventh Army HQ, aviation and combat service support, and three manoeuvre brigades: the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, Vilseck, the 173rd Airborne Brigade, which will eventually expand to three airborne battalions, in Italy, and the Joint Task Force East, a brigade rotating from CONUS though two bases at Constanţa, Romania, apparently with the main facility at Mihail Kogălniceanu Airfield. Initially however, the JTF E will be provided by a rotational Stryker cavalry squadron from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment. JTF E was originally planned to be called the Eastern Europe Task Force.

    From 2008 to 2012-13, the two to three brigades listed above will be augmented by the 170th Infantry Brigade (United States) and the 172nd Infantry Brigade, 'reflagged' former V Corps/1st Armoured Division formations. Thus from 2008 to 2013, the force will consist of two heavy brigades, the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, equipped with Stryker, and the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team."
    Source and further information:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_United_States_Army


    2) "The 2006 NATO summit was held in Riga, Latvia, which had joined the Atlantic Alliance two years earlier. It is the first NATO summit to be held in a country that was part of the Soviet Union, and the second one in a former COMECON country (after the 2002 Prague Summit). Energy Security was one of the main themes of the Riga Summit. At the April 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO agreed to the accession of Croatia and Albania and invited them to join. Both countries joined NATO in April 2009. Ukraine and Georgia were also told that they will eventually become members."

    "Many NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan have 'national caveats' that restrict how their troops may be used. While the Riga summit relaxed some of these caveats to allow assistance to allies in dire circumstances, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S. are doing most of the fighting in southern Afghanistan, while French, German, and Italian troops are deployed in the quieter north.
    It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless it is willing to commit more troops and give commanders more flexibility."
    Source and further information:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nato#After_the_September_11_attacks

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Frederik on September 3rd, 2009

    Frederik

    For the Americans the most important reason is to avoid a neutrality of Germany and to keep the country under their control they have still occupation forces in Germany.
    A military sense I can not as the Americans could station their troops as well in Britain or Poland.
    After my oponion the Americans just want to keep Germany under their control.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by alexandrac on July 1st, 2010

    alexandrac

    I say it is very important to be present in Germany military bases and troops of America
    Alexandra, Constanta

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading The U.S. originally had troops stationed in Germany to ward off the looming Communist threat, but with communist countries nowhere near Germany now, why do we still keep troops there?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Troops stationed in germany
Why are us troops still in germany
How many us troops are stationed in germany
Soldiers stationed in germany
Us troops in germany

Answerbag

a Demand Media company