U.S. Commander: Troops' Move from Germany a Question of Time

The presence of American soldiers in Southern Germany has been as integral a part of Germany's postwar history as the deutsche mark or Helmut Kohl.

Of the 106,000 active armed forces' personnel in the United States European Command, 70,000 soldiers (and 90,000 family members) are stationed in Germany. For decades, cities like Heidelberg in Baden Württemberg, Wiesbaden in Hesse or Grafenwöhr in Bavaria have closely identified with the American soldiers patrolling nearby bases. GI's in return have pumped tens of millions of dollars into their local economies and employed thousands of civilians.

With threats to the United States shifting from the former Soviet Union to the Middle East, Central Asia and Northern Africa, military planners have begun making plans to reduce the size of U.S. bases in Germany. European countries with a lower cost of living and doing business -- like Poland and Hungary, where the U.S. trained Kurdish Iraqi opposition fighters before the Gulf War -- have been mentioned as possible new locations for bases and the economic windfalls they bring.

DW-WORLD spoke with the Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, Gen. Charles Wald, about the political and economic consequences of the military's imminent eastward move.

There has been a lot of speculation in the European media about bases opening here and closing there. What sort of movement is going to take place and why is the discussion taking place now?

Around 84 percent of our U.S. forces are mostly in Germany and Central Europe and that is not necessarily where the security problem is anymore. The security problem is generating itself further to the east and further to the south. The turbulence to the Middle East culminating now in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Caspian Sea, are becoming more strategically important from a standpoint of terrorism and the same thing applies to countries in the Horn of Africa as well as Sub-Saharan Africa.

We start looking around and think what are the United States' geopolitical interests, where are they, what are the strategic interests? Are we in the right places, do we have too many people stationed overseas, is there a different way to have a presence in Europe? What you'll see in the next six months or so will be a decision for some of those forces to be shifted, some within the European command and maybe some to go back home and it could be a fairly large number. There aren't any specific numbers because final review hasn't been completed, but the numbers that have been discussed have been fairly large, 30 to 40 percent, that could be changed, shifted or sent back home.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has had this plan in mind since assuming his post in 2000. Why is the discussion taking place now, at a time when U.S. and German relations aren't exactly good?

The underlying question a lot of people have is: Is this being done because of the perceived public political rift between the United States and Germany ... (there has been) much to do about that in the news, is this being precipitated as part of a rift between the United States and Germany or other NATO countries? And the answer is: No, it's not. This would need to be done regardless of any of those political decisions. One of the areas that is critical to the United States military is training. When you're looking at Germany, particularly, one of their fortes as a country is the attention they pay to their environment. The U.S. Army trains at Grafenwöhr (in Bavaria) and over the years because of the attention the U.S. Army has paid to making sure they're good stewards of the environment, the environmental status of Grafenwöhr has now changed to that point that it's a protected area. It's one of those ironic catch 22s. As a result of the good stewardship of the U.S. military we've done such a good job of protecting the environment that you can't train there. There seems to be a little more latitude in the eastern European countries that are emerging now to allow better training opportunities -- so that's definitely a part of this, there's no doubt about it.

Looking at it from a strategic standpoint, what are the disadvantages of basing the military in Germany?

The biggest disadvantage is probably that our training is limited. There are many things that speak for Germany: One (is) it's a secure environment, two it's a place our families like to be. It's an ocean closer to the threat. Our presence here in Germany allows us probably up to two weeks faster deployment of forces towards the Middle East. On the other hand, we do want to have our forces close to various types of transportation, whether it be sea or air types of transportation. So wherever we are, we'll need to have that.

The response from the emerging NATO countries is very positive, as you can imagine. They're interested in the United States being in their countries. ... And there's something to be said about that as well. It is nice to be wanted.

The towns surrounding U.S. bases in Germany that have benefited economically from U.S. Armed Forces' presence for more than 50 years want you as well. What have you done to allay their concerns?

I think there will be some towns in Germany that will have less forces, where those are I can't tell you right now. It's good to see the German population, the mayors and others, interested now in the fact that things could change. The United States' presence in some of those areas brings in a significant income, there's no doubt about it. So as we go down this road I think it is good that people who would prefer that we stay voice that opinion. That might make some difference and it is important that we're in places that are accommodating enough that we can do our job.

You talk about a shift in basing strategy away from the 'Mini-Americas' where service personnel and their families can buy everything from blue jeans to Aunt Jemima's syrup with U.S. dollars. What are the bases of the future likely to look like?

They will be basic bases with fuel, water maybe some ramp space or some training areas that would (be) periodically used -- either for crisis or training or could be used as a temporary duty operation where we could train with local populations. Or they could be bases that can provide a stepping stone approach because of the great distances where we could land, rest, refuel aircraft en route.

There is hesitancy among the population of countries like the Czech Republic, where the president recently said Czechs would be uncomfortable with foreign troops after decades of Soviet occupation -- are you worried the welcome mat won't be rolled out?

We haven't seen any of that. The one good thing about the United States is that we've never occupied territory. Wherever we've been we've improved things either economically or even environmentally. When our welcome is up we will generally leave in good spirits. The beauty of this thing we're in now is there will be a discussion with all the players and then we're going to have to negotiate with the countries where potentially we desire to go to.

Is all this expected to take place soon?

I think there's a desire to do this fairly quickly. Within the next year from now, you'll see decisions made or some movement made already. By this fall, it will become pretty clear. There's a fiscal reality and a physical reality but I think the intention for it is to happen pretty quick.

Interview conducted by Andreas Tzortzis