At long last, the troops are coming home. No, not the troops in Iraq -- the job there isn't yet finished. America has more than 200,000 military personnel stationed all over the world, almost half of them in Germany. In most cases those soldiers are there for reasons that no longer exist, protecting old allies against enemies long gone. It's about time the Pentagon has taken a serious look at our overseas deployments and began the process of reconfiguring them to meet our current needs. While speaking before a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, President Bush announced his plan to remove some troops from foreign bases altogether, and to move others to where they can be more effective. Over the next ten years, more than 70,000 soldiers -- including two divisions in Germany -- will be based in the United States instead of places like Germany and North Korea. Not only will having them home benefit them and their families psychologically, but with today's faster transportation methods, they can get to the action just about as quickly.

Naturally, Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry attacked Bush's plans, as he is bound to do no matter what the President says or does. If Bush buys a puppy, Kerry is sure to hold a press conference lambasting the President for buying yet another dog instead of a cat, choosing the wrong breed of dog, and for feeding another mouth on a salary paid by the taxpayers. Kerry would also complain about the dog's name, sex, and the brand of dog food Bush bought. It's an election year, after all. Even one's dog food choices aren't safe from criticism.

In this case, however, Kerry raised some questions about the redistribution plan that simply aren't valid. Kerry called it a "hastily announced plan" and asked, "[W]hy are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea — a country that really has nuclear weapons?" It was an interesting remark from a man who stated on the Senate floor in 2002, "The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat." Perhaps someone ought to let the Senator know that no amount of American soldiers -- no matter how well-trained and well-equipped -- can stand up against nuclear weapons. Those 37,000 soldiers became more like hostages than protectors the minute North Korea developed the Bomb.

The redeployment plan is neither hasty nor unilateral -- although why the United States would need another country's permission to bring our own troops home is another question for Senator Kerry. What would he do if, as President, he decided to move troops out of Germany and the German government refused to agree to it? The fact is that these moves have been planned meticulously, and have been discussed with the leadership of the countries involved. A December 2003 UPI article called it "a long-studied repositioning of U.S. forces and bases" as the US was negotiating with Poland for the use of several bases there. "Informal talks have been under way for weeks with old allies such as Japan, South Korea and Germany about a possible reduction of U.S. troops in their countries, and there have been negotiations, too, about establishing new bases in the former Eastern Bloc countries of Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria." In February 2004, Germany and America agreed to a schedule of US troop reductions. It was during talks in June 2004 that the government of South Korea may have suggested that the troop withdrawal take place over ten years, as the Associate Press reported at the time. The only person surprised by President Bush's announcement, it seems, was Senator Kerry.

Why are Democrats so opposed to a better, more efficient use of American troops? What is wrong with repositioning US forces to meet the needs of the war we're currently fighting, instead of a Cold War that ended more than a decade ago? Does John Kerry expect Soviet tank divisions to smash through France the minute we walk out of Wiesbaden? Germans and South Koreans have held massive demonstrations against the presence of American military personnel. According to the New York Times, the German people say we can't leave fast enough to suit them. "Once viewed as a potent symbol of Cold War vigilance - eagles standing against the Soviet bear - the American soldiers in Germany are now seen by some people here as something approaching a nuisance." Should we not be responsive to the feelings of our allies? Frankly, the only purpose served by the American servicemen in Germany is spending their salaries -- American tax dollars -- to shore up the European economy. If the Democrats were as concerned for the American economy as they pretend to be, they would welcome the idea of bringing that tax money home, to be spent here.

The US has been making pacts and agreements with allies around the Middle East to base more troops in the area for years. For instance, the Bush administration has been expanding the Abu Dhabi air base in the United Arab Emirates since the spring of 2003. The Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar has been upgraded and expanded to house as many as 10,000 troops. The US presence in Qatar is neither new nor unwanted. In 1999, according to GlobalSecurity.org, "Qatar's emir, Sheikh Hamad, reportedly told US officials that he would like to see as many as 10,000 US servicemen permanently stationed at Al Udeid." Since our main enemies today are from the Middle East rather than Moscow, the move makes logical sense... except to those who would politicise our national security. 

The punchline is that just two weeks before President Bush made his announcement, Senator Kerry himself was advocating the very same thing. Once again, John Kerry has shown that he can take either side of any issue, as long as he believes it will get him votes. "I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops," Kerry said on 1 August 2004, on ABC's "This Week", declaring his intention to remove troops from Iraq. "If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in the world; in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in Europe, perhaps." The problem with his Iraq hopes is that no country that doesn't already have troops in Iraq will send troops, no matter who is President. The French and German governments have made it clear that sending troops is out of the question. If "help is on the way," it's not speaking French or German.

Kerry's insistence that other countries will suddenly, mysteriously reverse their positions -- flip-flop, if you will -- is solely based on wishful thinking, like his belief that creating a more business-hostile environment will create jobs in America. Unless he starts coming across with specific, credible plans to explain exactly how he intends to accomplish his aims, Senator Kerry is campaigning on smoke and mirrors.