Most of us have hailed as long-overdue good news the announcement of large troop reductions in Germany and South Korea. It's clear to most that new global realities no longer necessitate large standing ground forces in either nation. The New Mobility calls for widely flung bases ready to accept rapid redeployment as the trouble, or potential trouble presents. The Great Threat of Soviet invasion from the east cast off this mortal coil some years ago, and makes American soldiers sitting in bases in Central Europe look a bit dated. A few thousand American soldiers along the DMZ in Korea have served as little more than human shields for an increasingly ungrateful South Korean public and would be far better used redeployed for a counter-attack should the invasion ever come. And let's not be silly - an American first-strike invasion of the North isn't in the cards.

So it's with some incredulity I read this Op-Ed in today's Washington Post by Ronald D. Asmus which strikes me as a tad overwrought and just downright wrong-headed. Asmus couldn't be more put-out by the announced realignments, and parrots all the old lines about unilateralism and abandoning our allies - in their time of need?

Bear in mind that Mr. Asmus is identified as a senior transatlantic fellow at something called "the German Marshall Fund of the United States." According to their web site:

Something to keep in mind as the author's perspective while reading what otherwise may seem like a bit of an odd article. Let's have a look at a few of the key points.

Bush's Withdrawal From the World

In Harry Truman's day, the troops in Europe and Asia were the expression of a muscular, recently bloody, foreign policy intended to enforce and inflict our will on unwilling populations. Truman certainly wouldn't have been keeping the boys in Europe as a glorified form of welfare for largely ungrateful populations. Not one second after the necessity was gone.

Unless one fantasizes that our current alliances are enforced through the emplacement of boots on the ground, this is by no means obvious. One could imagine that our bases and the effect that our troops have on the local economies buy us some clout in the places they are located, and indeed, that has been a long time argument in their favor. The fact is that events have shown that our presence in these places has bought us little friendship in the places they exist - in fact, it can be quite convincingly argued that the exact opposite has occurred. These troops, and the friction they cause among the local populations has caused more diplomatic trouble than they are worth. Further, they encourage local governments to show that they are not influenced by the American troop presence and so it could be argued that they strain alliances by influencing the locals to pursue what appears as an "independent course" so as to please the home audience.

That's because in Europe we beat that adversary, so the need for the troops is somewhat obviated. In Asia, other factors - mere realignment and repositioning as well as the reality of new types of weapons systems - make the move an obvious one.

Imagine that. An elected official who owes his job and his duty to The People doing something popular. Will the outrages never cease. Of course, this decision has the benefit of being both popular and correct. The best of both worlds.

A decision that makes absolute sense. The troops in Iraq are engaged in real fighting that serves a purpose. All the more reason to take notice of and do something about the troops that are, by comparison only, sitting on their hands.

Now we get to the meat of it, and why the criticism of the plan falls apart as we watch. Read the substance of why the author thinks the redeployment is a bad idea. Let's go through it piece by piece:

Check. Mission Accomplished. Does anyone seriously believe that full-time boots on the ground serve any purpose in keeping the Europeans off each other's throats?

Check. Mission Accomplished. Again, what possible use do full-time boots on the ground in Germany serve to facilitate the eastward march of democracy? That hasn't been the case for some years.

Well, now that's been a bit problematic, hasn't it? They really haven't been much willing to do that, have they? Try selling that to the American public - "Our troops will protect German soil to free up German troops to do work abroad." Not only is that questionable on multiple levels as a strategy in the abstract, but it clearly hasn't occurred in reality. Instead, Germany has aligned itself in opposition to American foreign policy having nothing to do with its need for troops at home. If anything, the American troop presence has allowed countries like Germany an unrealistic "Peace Dividend" that they have simply pocketed. Enough is enough. Off the teat.

Not.

I would argue that getting those troops realigned will be one of the best things to happen to "the alliance" in many a year.

I would agree with all of that, but how a few thousand human shields on the DMZ help any of that the author is silent on. Here's a hint: They don't.

"Hara-kiri." Strong rhetoric that makes the piece difficult to take seriously.

[snip redundant paragraph that recycles all the old unilateral/multilateral puff that caricatures the Bush diplomatic efforts.]

An odd paragraph from a person who's base of argument come straight out of a time as old as Harry S. Truman. And need I state that it's not up to The President to justify himself, it's up to an ungrateful Europe to show that they are deserving of American largess - something American troops should never be representative of, but apparently some think they should be used to distribute.

It wouldn't surprise me to find out that a Massachusetts Liberal like John Kerry would be willing to use our military as a pork-barrel plan for unmeritorious Europeans - particularly after repeatedly crowing in his campaign about never risking American lives on unnecessary missions.

Speaking of which, look at this story at CNN. What a coincidence that it and this op-ed which makes many of the same points should appear on the same day!

Kerry to challenge Bush troop plan