U.S. to Withdraw 5k Troops from Germany, Pentagon Says
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-troops-germany-withdraw-nat...
The US currently has 2 BCTs "fully" in Germany. The 2nd Cav Regiment (a Stryker unit.. so infantry mounted on 8x8 APCs) and an Armoured BCT on 9 month rotation (so tanks and IFVs).
There have been a bunch of studies indicating that the rotational ABCT costs more than even a truly forward deployed ABCT. My bet is that it's the ABCT that is going to get withdrawn. It's both the flashier unit, and likely has the highest impact on freeing up money. This also lines up with the withdrawal timelines... since the unit is rotational, they just need to wait for the end of rotation, and just... not send another. Much less disruption.
While the timing was obviously conjunction with current events, this draw down was likely to happen at some point in this term, even in absence of Iran things. Trump literally tried to do this at the end of his last term.
Overall it meets the primary directive of this administration, which is to weaken the United States as a superpower and make way for Russia.
Unless Germany denies the US Ramstein airbase and spying operations, you can safely bet they'll stay. Even if they withdraw everything that isn't required to just keep operating the airbase and listening posts, they'll at least keep those around for as long as they are able to actually use them.
Trump honestly have been great for EU sovereignty. It's a shame that his decisions caused that much suffering, which prevents me to truly be happy that he controls the US, but I do believe he is a net positive for the EU.
This is not reducing to pre-WWII levels, this is reducing down to 2022 levels (pre-Russia discovering their military can't win a war against Ukraine). It's mostly symbolic because Trump is a thin-skinned idiot and his staff wanted an easy way to appease him and make it look like something important was happening.
It is not 1945 anymore, indeed. But that's not why the US has bases in Germany. It has bases in Germany to serve as 'stationary aircraft carriers' on friendly foreign soil, which is a privilege and as part of NATO a mutual benefit and which were there on account of Russia and the Middle-East, not because Germany was still perceived as a threat or a country that needed occupation, that particular need ended well before the Unification and the withdrawal of Russians from Eastern Europe.
Tossing all of that into the grinder isn't 'making America great' it is making America smaller, much smaller. The EU has spent an absolute fortune on US military hardware in return in the past. That will end now, and this is being said out loud. EU military spending has been on the rise, but the US fraction of that spending is diminishing, and is expected to diminish further.
This will hurt the US much more than that it will help. So these are - like most MAGA inspired actions - at best own goals, at worse active aid to Putin.
You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense outside of the context of being ostensibly as pay-back for Merz stating that the US has been humiliated by Iran - which they have, there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so. But instead, the use of one particular word that your king is a bit sensitive to because it hits home is what set this off.
If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Not to mention Somalia, Kosovo, and Libya, and countless minor skirmishes. We’ve been throwing kids into the meat grinder for 75 years, and lighting dollars on fire, for no good reason. There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us.
I’d also point out that “MAGA” is not united on this. A third of Republicans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the Iran war: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/05/01/americans.... Traditional republicans have long wanted to attack Iran so they’re pleased. But the America First people have been vocal in their opposition: https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/04/28/iran-war-trump-coalitio...
YGBFShM.
(As to most of the others you do have a point, but hindsight is always 20-20 — and the Dem decisionmakers about Vietnam had to contend with a revanchist, Red-baiting GOP that had attacked the Dems for having "lost" China.)
Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks.
And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were not shared equally is not the fault of the clients, but an internal affair. A diminished United States has a non-zero risk of collapsing much like the former USSR.
Meanwhile, you're lighting money on fire in Iran right now, and lots of it (though, according to Mike you are not at war and if you were it is over, a 'special military operation' of sorts). If only there was some kind of lesson to be learned from starting wars. Meanwhile, the oil people are making out like bandits, Israel is happy, what's not to like? And who cares about the price of eggs, gas, the Epstein files or immigrants. That's so yesterday.
The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it.
Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II. If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities. America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.
We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.
If you change “America” to “the American Military Industrial Complex”, then the claim is self-evident. There are some that equate those two.
So, if I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'.
It also seems as though you fail to see how the rest of the developed world perceived the USA roughly up to 2002, whereas of course some other countries had a markedly different view.
You're a lawyer, that means you should have at least basic evidentiary research skills, especially for something so well documented. I suggest you use those skills and try to steelman the argument that Pax Americana was a massive net benefit for the United States in terms of world wide power (both soft and hard), income, prestige and less directly visible benefits, and helped to make it the most wealthy nation in the world (but not on a per-capita basis, however, that's an internal affair).
But I'm not going to do your work for you, it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make a request that can only stem from something close to willful ignorance.
> America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II.
So?
> If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities.
You do know when the US joined WWII don't you?
And you do know what the Germans were up to at the time?
And you do know that it wasn't exactly the US doing this by its lonesome?
> America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.
America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause (and what led directly to the cold war). And it didn't take long for the Russians to get theirs which caused Europe to live under the threat of nuclear war and total annihilation once again.
> We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.
You don't really have a point. The USA is not larger than the rest of the world, not in the number of people and not in the economic, military or industrial power that it has. Yes, it - for now - is a superpower. But that power is rapidly diminishing and other countries - most notably China - are ascendant. Just like Ukraine has shown Russia to not deserve its super power status any more Iran just showed that beyond all doubt about the United States. All that is happening right now is that one empire is dying and another will take its place.
WWII ended 80 years ago, America came out of it with absolutely massive credit and goodwill all over the developed world. That credit and that goodwill is now spent and/or destroyed on purpose and you are presenting this as a 'good thing'?
> America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause
But the goal isn’t to be a superpower. The goal is to be rich. America was already the richest country by far before it used that wealth to become a military superpower. In fact the GDP per capita ratio of the U.S. to France was about the same before World War II as it is today. Heck, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about how much richer Americans were than Europeans back in the 1830s.
And they are right, but for the wrong reasons: yes, the MIC enriches defense contractors. That's obvious. But that's because that is how it is all set up and it need not be set up that way, that's a conscious choice by a lot of the actors. From outside of the USA that's an internal discussion, not one that we have influence on or that we directly experience the impact of. You could of course decide to raise the minimum wage, offer free health care and start treating drug abuse like a disease or a mental issue rather than as a criminal affair. But oh gollies, that sounds like socialism, and we can't have that, better if the poor stay poor and don't have any bargaining power.
> But the goal isn’t to be a superpower. The goal is to be rich.
You can't be rich as a country without having the power to stay rich unless you are a little mountain region country or riding on the coat tails of a country that is. You will need to protect your supply lines if you are an actor in a globalized world. So you have to become that country if you want to stay independent, and want to be supplied with the goods that you depend on. Alternatively you could sign a mutual defense pact but then you're right back where you started...
Some Americans are richer, just like my friend just outside of LA who drives a Ferrari. He only drives it on his own grounds (which he has plenty of) because the road that his estate borders on is so bad that he would wreck his car if he drove it and while he's wealthy he is not so wealthy that he can afford to maintain a large chunk of the local infrastructure.
Personally, I'd rather have a more modest car and a better road outside of my own grounds (or even a bike path...), and a more modest gap between the rich and the poor as well as between the rich and the middle class and the poor and the middle class.
America has had the option to spread its riches to the people but instead had the people rack up ever larger debt whilst pampering the lucky few. That works - for a while - but in the end it sets the stage for a confrontation between the haves and the have nots. The MAGA movement is ultimately a mis-direction effort to do a smash and grab to make the rich a lot richer still because the clock is running out. It's a bit like the sheep voting for the wolves, they talk so convincing, we should at least give them a chance.
What's for dinner you said?
Countries become rich because of stable, competent institutions, not because they can maintain a military empire.
Ireland, Singapore are both examples of this.
> You will need to protect your supply lines if you are an actor in a globalized world. So you have to become that country if you want to stay independent, and want to be supplied with the goods that you depend on.
Protect supply lines from whom? how are military bases in Turkey, Germany, Poland, etc protecting "supply lines"?
one of the most important supply lines for europe (hydrocarbons from russia) has been stifled for the past 4 years - why havent our bases or military been able to keep it open?
similarly, why are our numerous bases in Middle East failing to protect supply lines?
i would argue that in both those cases, our aggressive military expansion (nato, israel expansion + gulf bases) caused the closure of those critical supply lines.
Sure, if you ignore all of their history...
> Protect supply lines from whom? how are military bases in Turkey, Germany, Poland, etc protecting "supply lines"?
Because they are on friendly territory that remains friendly on account of that. Mutual defense again, coupled with some more history. Why do you think the USA wants to use its bases in Europe for the war against Iran?
> i would argue that in both those cases, our aggressive military expansion (nato, israel expansion + gulf bases) caused the closure of those critical supply lines.
NATO is not 'aggressive military expansion' even though Trump seems to think it should be. As for Israel, that really is a US problem, Israel in part became the belligerent that it is today because it has been shielded and supported militarily well beyond defense. This is going to cause trouble for at least another century, maybe more.
I don't agree with him a lot of the time but I think his request is reasonable and I share his skepticism about the idea that US military presence and interventions are somehow beneficial to the American's wellbeing, both the median American and the polity as a whole.
why should i not be skeptical? the first order effects of military are inherently destructive - why should i assume that having more military makes anyones lives better? its not obvious at all and requires a better explanation IMO.
But that has nothing to do with ill advised adventures of conquest, it has everything to do with mutual defense. Not to put too fine a point on it: it has nothing to do with invading Iraq or Iran because you feel like you have been given an excuse to do that which you've been hungry for. Gulf war I was somewhat justified (it really was defense), episode II was bonkers, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and lots of others were not a good use of the military from the start, and we can debate over the effectiveness of the outcome for many reasons.
More military does not make anyone's lives better if you use them to invade. But mutual defense is a very useful thing in a multi polar world. If you can trust your partners to not suddenly go 'might makes right'.
Oh, the number is zero?
Germany? Well guess what, the US has a very prominent airbase and listening station in Ramstein and a bunch of other military installations there. Also: History.
Germany would want them in Poland or such, near to Russia which is an actual threat.
Second, more to the point they have rather large military hospital there. It is also used as a safe place to transfer troops through or have them ready for outside of eu operations.
Commitment to European security would be to not support Russia. Or soldiers in Poland and Latvia. As of now, European countries paid for missiles and US is refusing to deliver.
America complained and pressured whenever Europeans bought arms from non american manufacturers. Thr first time it started to matter for real, it stopped delivering.
Some Africans started capturing American citizens and ships, maybe enslaving some, etc. Really quite unpleasant. The US eventually decided that its best option was invading Morocco.
It didn't have a commitment to defend anyone nearby, except the many Americans who traded all over the world.
The US has worldwide trade and interests now too, more so than in 1805.
It is still much cheaper and more effective than a large conventional army, yet sufficiently large and complex to not be doable overnight, so a political situation is required which would allow to, still very quickly, do it.
To get back to the point, I actually do not understand why there are any US soldiers here to begin with. Is it just posturing?
1. Because the Europeans wanted them there. NATO was a big security blanket, and certainly since the end of the cold war, up to say... 2014, America -wanted- a compliant Europe.
2. Because Europe is an amazing springboard into the middle east, and America just can't help but get itself involved in dropping bombs on the middle east.
1 ties into 2. A compliant Europe is less likely to raise objections to being used as a forward base for bombing Iraqis and Iranians. It's only in the last 10-15 years that the US realized that perhaps it was/had squandered it's lead to China, and dropped the ball (Europe at fault too) on properly containing (or addressing) Russia, and it would sure be nice if it could focus on the Pacific.
To ensure that Germany and Russia never team up to be a world super power that would rival the USA.
That's the main reason they are there.