SBS뉴스

펜타곤은, 反美를 소리높이던 독일에 주둔하고 있는 미군 중에서 제1기갑사단과 제1보병사단을 미국으로 철군시켜 향후 분쟁지역에 신속 배치하는 태세를 갖출 것이라고 한다.



한국은 그동안 反美 운동을 「국책사업」인 것처럼 어용방송들과 어용시민단체들이 주도적으로 수행하였으며 거기에 더하여 6월4일 한국 국회의원 20명이 이라크 파명 전면 재검토를 주장하면서 파병반대를 소리높이고 있는데, 한국에도 "주한 美 제2보병사단을 철군하고 1개 스트라이커 여단(Stryker Brigade)을 순환 배치" 라고 통보가 올지도 모르겠다.









美, 독일 주둔군 대폭 감축 추진 < NYT >



연합뉴스 2004/06/04 14:23 송고



(서울=연합뉴스) 조채희 기자 = 미국이 전세계 미군 재배치의 일환으로 독일 주둔 미군 가운데 2개 사단을 철수시키는 방안을 추진 중이라고 뉴욕타임스 인터넷판이 4일 보도했다.



뉴욕타임스가 냉전시대 이후 가장 주목할 만한 미군 재배치안이라고 평가한 철수 안에 따르면 독일의 제1기갑사단과 제1보병사단은 미국으로 철수하는 대신 경무장 스트라이커 여단 1개가 독일에 배치된다.



통상적으로 사단은 3개 여단으로 구성돼 약 2만명 규모이지만 이번에 철수하는 독일의 2개 사단은 모두 독일 내에는 2개 여단씩만 있고 나머지 1개 여단은 미국 내에 두고 있다.



미국 국방부는 이와 함께 독일 스팡다헬름 기지의 F-16 비행단을 분쟁지역인 중동과 가까운 터키 인서리크 기지로 옮기기로 했다. 1개 비행단은 보통 비행기 72대를 보유하고 있다.



또 유럽의 미 해군본부는 영국에서 이탈리아로 옮기고 영국과 아이슬란드에 배치된 F-15 전투기들을 철수시키는 방안도 논의되고 있으나 최종결정은 내려지지 않았다.



미 행정부 관리들은 더글러스 페이스 미 국방부 차관이 최근 독일 정부관리들에게 이같은 감축 계획을 전달하면서 조지 부시 대통령의 공식 승인은 아직 받지 못했으며 독일측의 우려 사항을 경청하겠다고 말했다고 전했다.



관리들은 앞으로 1-2개월 내에 재배치에 대한 주요 결정이 내려질 것으로 보이나 큰 줄기는 결정된 것으로 보인다고 밝혔다.



뉴욕타임스는 국방부의 정책입안자들은 럼즈펠드 장관이 만든 이번 계획안은 중동과 중앙아시아를 비롯한 다른 분쟁위험지역에 병력을 파견할 수 있는 탄력성을 확보하기 위한 것이라고 말했다고 전했다.



그러나 일부 전문가들과 동맹국 관계자들은 전세계적으로 반미감정이 퍼지고 있는 시점에 나온 이번 조치로 나토(북대서양조약기구)에 대한 미국의 영향력이 축소되고 동맹국과의 외교적 고리가 약해질 것으로 우려하고 있다고 신문은 지적했다.









A Pentagon Plan Would Cut Back G.I.'s in Germany



By MICHAEL R. GORDON



Published: June 4, 2004



WASHINGTON, June 3 - The Pentagon has proposed a plan to

withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany and undertake

an array of other changes in its European-based forces, in

the most significant rearrangement of the American military

around the world since the beginning of the cold war,

according to American and allied officials.



Pentagon policy makers said the aim is to afford maximum

flexibility in sending forces to the Middle East, Central

Asia and other potential battlegrounds. But some experts and

allied officials are concerned that the shift will reduce

Washington's influence in NATO and weaken its diplomatic

links with its allies, all at a time of rising anti-American

sentiment around the world.



The proposal to withdraw the divisions comes at a time when

the Army is stretched thin by deployments in Iraq and

Afghanistan. But Pentagon officials said the move, which has

been under consideration for some time and involves forces

in Asia as well as in Europe, is unrelated to the current

fighting.



Under the Pentagon plan, the Germany-based First Armored

Division and First Infantry Division would be returned to

the United States. A brigade equipped with Stryker light

armored vehicles would be deployed in Germany. A typical

division consists of three brigades and can number 20,000

troops if logistical units are included, though these two

divisions have only two brigades each in Germany, with the

other brigade in the United States.



In addition, a wing of F-16 fighters may be shifted from

their base in Spangdahlem, Germany, to the Incirlik base in

Turkey, which would move the aircraft closer to the volatile

Middle East; a wing generally consists of 72 aircraft. Under

the Pentagon plan, the shift would be carried out only if

the Turks gave the United States broad latitude for using

them, something that some officials see as unlikely.



The Navy's headquarters in Europe would be transferred from

Britain to Italy. Administration officials are also

discussing plans to remove some F-15 fighters from Britain

and to withdraw the handful of F-15 fighters that are

normally deployed in Iceland, though final decisions have

not been made.



Administration officials said Douglas Feith, the under

secretary of defense for policy, recently briefed German

officials on the plan. The Germans were told that the

withdrawal plan had yet to be formally approved by President

Bush and that the United States would listen to their

concerns, an American official said.



Officials said they expected the major decisions on the

rearrangement to be made in a month or two. But the main

direction of the Pentagon plan appears to be set.



"Everything is going to move everywhere," Mr. Feith said a

year ago, as the Bush administration was beginning to

develop the details of its plan. "There is not going to be a

place in the world where it's going to be the same as it

used to be."



For Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the reasons for

the reshuffling seem clear and compelling: that the purpose

of military units is to fight and win the nation's wars, and

they should be stationed in locations that enable the United

States to use them most efficiently and with minimal

political restrictions.



"It's time to adjust those locations from static defense to

a more agile and a more capable and a more 21st-century

posture," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters on Thursday on a

flight to Singapore.



Proponents of Mr. Rumsfeld's plan see little merit in

keeping a large number of forces in Germany now that the

cold war is over. They argue that the United States would be

better off withdrawing most of them and establishing new

bases in Southeastern Europe, from which forces could be

rushed if there was a crisis in the Caucasus or the Middle

East.



"From a strategic point of view, there is more sense in

moving things out of Germany and having something in

Bulgaria and Romania," said Joseph Ralston, a retired

general and a former NATO commander.



But some experts and allied officials are concerned that a

substantial reduction in the United States military presence

in Europe would reduce American influence there, reinforce

the notion that the Bush administration prefers to act

unilaterally and inadvertently lend support to the French

contention that Europe must rely on itself for its security.



Montgomery Meigs, a retired general and the former head of

Army forces in Europe, said substantial reductions in

American troops in Europe could limit the opportunities to

train with NATO's new East European members and other

allies. While American forces can still be sent for

exercises from the United States, he said, it will be more

difficult and costly to do so.



"You will never sustain the level of engagement from the

United States that you can from Europe," he said. "We will

not go to as many NATO exercises or have as many training

events."



Other specialists have warned that the greatest risk is the

possible damage to allied relations.



"The most serious potential consequences of the contemplated

shifts would not be military but political and diplomatic,"

Kurt Campbell and Celeste Johnson Ward of the Washington-

based Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote

in an article published last year in the journal Foreign

Affairs, well before the extent of the changes now planned

became known."Unless the changes are paired with a sustained

and effective diplomatic campaign, therefore, they could

well increase foreign anxiety about and distrust of the

United States."



Gen. James Jones, the American commander of NATO, has

supported the withdrawal of the two divisions from Europe on

the understanding that American ground units would rotate

regularly through Europe, allied officials say. But some

allied officials believe it is less clear that the Pentagon

will finance and organize the regular rotation of forces

that are central to General Jones's vision, especially since

so much of the United States' energy and effort is focused

on Iraq.



Already, administration officials have said a brigade of

troops is to be shifted from Korea to Iraq. That reflects

both the demand for additional forces in Iraq and the new

thinking about positioning forces in Asia.



Pentagon officials insist they are effectively managing

relations with key allies. "What we have been hearing from

the allies privately and publicly is that they understand

the U.S. is changing and want to stay connected," said Andy

Hoehn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for

strategy. "The real message is that we have been consulting

with the allies and the result has been pretty positive."



The Pentagon plan was discussed at a May 20 meeting of top

United States officials. Administration officials declined

to comment on the record about the session. A State

Department official said that the meeting was a "snapshot at

a given time," and that some ideas have continued to be

refined since then.



In the meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who was

once the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he

thought it was unlikely that the Turks would agree to allow

the United States to operate freely from Turkish bases. Gen.

Richard B. Myers, the current chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff, also said securing Turkey's agreement was a long

shot and indicated that he favored keeping the F-16's in

Germany, according to an account of the session that was

provided.



No United States forces are to be removed from Italy. The

Navy's European headquarters, however, is scheduled to move

from London to Naples.



Earlier plans to move that headquarters to Spain have been

dropped. While skeptics have wondered if the switch from

Spain to Italy is related to the decision by Spain's new

Socialist government to withdraw its troops from Iraq,

Defense Department officials insist that it is being made on

cost grounds.



Regarding Britain, administration officials are discussing a

plan to remove some F-15 fighters. Some Defense Department

officials have suggested moving an air command center to

Britain from Germany as compensation if F-15's are removed.

But General Myers indicated that he thought the F-15's

should remain in Britain, according to an account of the

meeting.



Iceland has long been a sensitive matter, with civilian

officials at the Pentagon pushing to remove the small number

of F-15's that are regularly rotated through Iceland under a

bilateral agreement reached during the cold war. That could

upset a government that has been generally supportive of

American policy and which relies on the F-15's for its air

defense.



Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, said at the

May 20 meeting that Mr. Bush would not support the

withdrawal of the aircraft until a way was found to mollify

the Icelanders. One possibility is to make Iceland

a "cooperative security location," Defense Department jargon

for a base to which forces could rapidly deploy in a crisis.



The Caucasus has also figured into the Pentagon's

calculations. Here the issue is not about moving out, but

whether to move in. At the May 20 meeting, senior officials

agreed that stationing troops in Georgia could be

destabilizing, especially since Russia still has not

withdrawn all its forces from that country, a former

republic of the Soviet Union. The idea was dropped.



Civilian officials at the Defense Department have pressed

for a presidential speech or announcement in mid-June about

the new military posture. But State Department officials

have argued that this would not leave sufficient time for

consultations with the allies and would make the new policy

appear to be a fait accompli.



Some officials have noted that the stationing of forces in

past decades has entailed more flexibility on all sides than

many people realize.



During the May 20 meeting, Mr. Powell is reported to have

observed that Army troops like being stationed in Europe and

noted that the Germans had never stood in the way when the

United States wanted to send its German-based forces on

other missions. The United States sent Army units in Germany

to fight in the Persian Gulf conflict in 1991 and in the

Iraq war in 2003.



http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/04/politics/04MILI.html?hp