Aohell

Where Are the GIs Now?

Hey! Wanna know where the US forces are deployed around the world? For regular military, it's no secret. A Google(TM) search, a click, and you're there! I found a listing of US troop deployments worldwide from 1950-2005. Here's the link, so you can go download your own copy of the file and then discuss.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-02.cfm

OK, so I don't care much for the way Heritage draws conclusions from the data. I know how to fudge numbers, and there's fudging going on there. Comparing current deployment to the average of 1950-2000 without qualifying that average by saying it includes massive Vietnam-era deployments is one such fudge. Be that as it may, for a piece that could have done a lot more cheerleading and flag-waving, the summary is well done and worth reading.

But even more worthwhile is the Excel(TM) spreadsheet I told you to download and look over. Rather than dealing with averages, I want to look at the numbers over time. The Heritage article touched on high points, but I want to ask about some of the spots that fly under Big Media's radar.

While I'm sure it would be fun to wonder aloud what the 7 or 8 guys in Iraq were doing in the mid-80's, I'll pass over that for now. Let's look first at changes from 1989 to 2005. Why 1989? Because it fits on my screen, that's why. If you're not running at the same settings I've got, you'll have to scroll around. Looking at the total worldwide deployment, one can see the decline in troop levels after the Cold War ended. From 2.13 million in 1989, it goes to 1.385 million in 1999, and holds there until 2001.

But the totals don't rocket upward with the latest round of police actions. There are only about 40,000 more troops worldwide today than in 1999. There are more troops than 40,000 in Iraq, so it's clear deployments are shifting worldwide, which really isn't a surprise to anyone who's heard announcements to that effect.

So where are the shifts? Where are the troops leaving and where are they going to? Iraq's not the only answer here.

We should take this in phases, first 1989-1999 to handle the peacetime shifts, then we're at a level more comparable to today's deployments. Any shift from 1989 to 2005 is going to be misleading, as there's an overall drop of 700,000 troops that must first be accounted for before comparisons can be made.

Moreover, we shouldn't look at just regional numbers. Those can hide shifts within the region. OK, time to crunch numbers. I'll round my numbers within reason, hopefully a fudge of no more than a few tens or hundreds.

From 1989-1999, East Asia lost 33,000 troops; Europe 205,000; Africa 5; Americas 16,000. The Mideast gained 8000. The rest of the Cold War demobilization came from troops stationed stateside and a small decrease in soldiers "alfoat", ie, on naval vessels. (Just in case anyone forgot the US has a navy. Still does, although it depends on Marines and SEALS for most of its press these days.)

Now for the goodies from 1989 to 1999... Antarctic deployment went from 57 to 0. There's a story, I'm sure. Not a big one, but still worth a search or two. Other island-like deployments went to 0, like on Midway and Johnston Island. Guam's troop levels dropped to less than half of their 1999 numbers, as did the US Virgin Islands. To be sure, Guam went from 8100 to 3600 while the Virgin Islands crew dropped from 9 to 4... what are they doing in the Virgin Islands? I have mental images of constant volleyball games on the beach to try and recruit Virgin Islanders for the Army, but I'm sure it's a lot more fun than that. OK, so these are obviously fluctuations due to the end of the Cold War. There are similar drops around the world, so let's look at places that increase in this time frame, or places that make one ask the question, "What in the hell are they doing <i>there?"</i>

Cambodia's one. Sure, there are only 5 guys there, but, what in the hell are they doing <i>there?</i> I don't know. Japan and Korea each lose about 9000 from their numbers... Laos actually gets a dozen troops in 1991. Huh? <i>Laos?</i> Philippines drops waaaaaay off. They closed the US bases and kicked most the soldiers outta there. US troops returned to Vietnam in 1992, and they're up to a baker's dozen today. I'm not too worried about that, but, still, what are they doing there?

And no speculation, please. I know people want to say, "Well, they're probably doing this or that...", but that's not good enough. It's news if they're not attached to the US Embassy as guards. The US didn't normalize relations with Vietnam until 1995, so why did it station military there before that?

Moving on to Europe. One can follow general declines in Cold War deployments and see a spike in 1996 for the US deployment to Bosnia and Croatia. It's gone down significantly since then. German deployment went from 248,000 to 65,000. Wow. BIG drop. Big drops in the UK and Spain, too, but not such a big drop in Italy. What's the story there? What does Italy have that Germany doesn't, besides better pizza and Tuscany?

Now I do know the story in the Former Soviet Union. Those guys are military advisers. In 1999, their numbers weren't too great, but they were still there in every republic except Latvia, regardless of how oppressive the local regime may have been. More on those later, I can assure you.

Bahrein went from 168 to 1511. That's a redeployment. Desert Storm and all that, yeah. But Egypt? OK, so it dropped from 1100 to 800, but what's up in Egypt we need troops there? There were 8 dudes in Iraq in 1989, 7 in 1990, and then none in 1991. What were they doing before Saddam invaded Kuwait? Speaking of Kuwait, 25 to 4000... another redeployment. Is Kuwait becoming the new UK in terms of troop deployment and US basing? Aside from the Desert Storm spike in 1991, Saudi Arabian deployment rose from 400 in 1989 to 5500 in 1999. That I think I can explain, but what about the Syrian deployment through all this time? Aren't they associates of the Axis of Evil? Why do we have troops there? Same question for Yemen.

Africa tends to be ignored as often as possible in the media. It's a wreck in between Cairo and Johannesburg for the most part. Loads of oppressive regimes that kill off their people, unless they have oil, in which case they buy off the opposition. Except in Nigeria. Too many people there to buy off. Through this time period, deployments of US forces remained constant in Africa, even though they shift from one place to another. There's a spike for Somalia and a few places drop off the list, but Uganda and Zimbabwe keep their troops. What is going on in those places that requires a US troop presence?

The Americas lost troops after 1991 for one big reason and a dozen little ones. The big reason was Panama and the little ones were Honduras, Cuba, Bermuda, and a bunch of other, smaller deployments getting cut. As of 1999, the two largest US presences in The Americas were Gitmo and Honduras. So why Honduras? What's up there?

Coming forward from 1999, some of my previous questions persist. Those troop levels didn't change. There are drops in Japan, Korea, and Bosnia and we all know about the huge rises for Afghanistan and Iraq. But now there are over 40,000 troops in Kuwait. That's a massive staging area for action in the Mideast. Only 66,000 remain in Germany. Why keep any there at all? Or in the UK? Or Italy? Or Belgium, Portugal, and Spain? What is the justification for maintaining permanent bases there? WW2 has been over for generations, and Russia seems bent on conquering Europe as a customer for its oil and natural gas. With over 98,000 troops remaining in Europe, couldn't they be cut back to contingents of 99 or less and get us down to maybe 2500? Or is bureaucratic inertia finally halting the erosion of forces in Europe?

In the Former Soviet Union, I'm worried most about the number of US advisers in Georgia going to 42. They're supposed to be there to help Georgia fight off any Chechens setting up al-Qaeda bases in the Panskii Gorge. There is no al-Qaeda in Georgia, but there are secessionist movements within that nation. Why does the US give a care? Oil. Watch out in Georgia. If things flare up there along the pipeline routes, US forces will arrive to secure the pipeline, just as they did in Afghanistan.

Speaking of the Afghan deployment, permanent bases are going up there, all along the pipeline route. Those 19,500 troops are an increase over the 2000 that assisted in driving out the Taliban from power in 2001. The permanent bases are going up in Iraq, too, so don't look for a drop in troop deployments there. Look instead for fudged numbers to make it look like there's a troop level drop there, or no mention at all of troop levels.

There are 600 more troops in Djibouti than in 1999. Why?

From 1999 to 2005, Europe and East Asia lost about 10,000 troops each, while the Mideast deployments went up by 200,000, and that's rounding down. Most of those boys headed for Baghdad are drawn from stateside bases.

Look over the chart. If you know exactly why troops are where they are in some of those places not in the news, do let me know. Thanks.