ACCESSION NUMBER:243004
FILE ID:EUR209
DATE:09/15/92
TITLE:U.S. FORCES IN EUROPE SHOULD NOT DROP BELOW 70,000 (09/15/92)
1EXT:*92091509.EUR
*EUR209   09/15/92 *

U.S. FORCES IN EUROPE SHOULD NOT DROP BELOW 70,000
(Article on RAND report on U.S. troops in Europe)  (720)
By Jane A. Morse
USIA Staff Writer
Washington -- Reducing U.S. forces in Europe to anything less than 70,000
troops would hamstring the American capability to meet any potential crisis
there, according to Richard L. Kugler, author of a RAND study released
September 15.

The report, entitled "The Future U.S. Military Presence in Europe:  Forces
and Requirements for the Post-Cold War Era," notes that the "much-heralded
post-Cold War era" has gotten off to "a shaky start toward an uncertain
future."

Civil war in Yugoslavia, fighting in Georgia and Azerbaijan, mounting
tensions between Russia and Ukraine, and signs of fissures in both NATO and
the European Community have severely eroded the optimism that originally
accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War,
Kugler said at a September 15 press briefing.

Some 300,000 U.S. troops were stationed in Western Europe during the Cold
War, he said.  The Department of Defense envisions halving those numbers to
about 150,000, which would allow for the maintenance of one Army corps and
3.5 tactical air wings.

Labeling this a "forward presence" force, Kugler analyzes its probable
performance in meeting current U.S. government security goals, handling
threats, fulfilling military missions and pursuing NATO's military
strategy.

He also scrutinizes three other options:  a "dual-based presence," featuring
100,000 U.S. troops in Europe; a "limited presence" of 70,000; and a
"symbolic presence" of 40,000.

Kugler concludes that only a "forward presence" of 150,000 U.S. troops
"meets the requirement flowing from all U.S. goals while maintaining
flexibility for the future."  Beneath that level, "degree matters greatly.
A force of 100,000 falls into a gray area between adequacy and inadequacy.
Going below 70,000 is clearly inadequate."

As for cutting costs, Kugler noted at the press briefing that removing
American troops from Europe does not save the United States any money
unless those troops are removed from the U.S. force structure entirely.

While the United States must take into account reduced threats in Europe, it
must maintain an active, not reactive, military presence on the continent,
Kugler said at the press briefing.

U.S. security goals in the years ahead, according to Kugler, are:  to
preserve its own influence; maintain NATO's unity; foster a cooperative
European security architecture anchored on a stable balance of power;
preserve a sound NATO military strategy and defense posture; and, provide a
military capability to react to threatening situations in the Middle East
and Persian Gulf.

In determining future U.S. force needs in Europe, "what is to be avoided,
above all, is the tendency to arbitrarily set U.S. military manpower
levels...on the basis of political temperature-reading there," Kugler
writes in the report.  "The proper approach is to assess future force
requirements as a function of U.S. goals, the evolving situation in Europe,
NATO's defense strategy, and appropriate military missions in peace,
crisis, and war."

1he Department of Defense plan for a forward presence of 150,000 troops in
Europe is "militarily coherent and supportive of U.S. policy goals there,"
he writes.  Of this number, he said at the press briefing, about 100,000
would be maintained in Germany.  "The presence of an Army corps and several
air wings, primarily based in Germany, will help underwrite security in
Europe's still important Central Region, while providing a ready capability
to move elsewhere if required," he writes.  "Among its other attractions,
this sizable posture provides considerable flexibility not only militarily
but politically as well."

This unclassified study was prepared for the U.S. European Command to help
identify future missions and requirements for U.S. forces in Europe and to
evaluate force posture alternatives.  Funding assistance was provided by
the Defense Department's Office of Net Assessments.

RAND is a private, non-profit institution engaged in research and analysis
of matters affecting national security and the public welfare.  It conducts
its work with support from federal, state, and local governments; from
foundations and other private philanthropic sources; and from its own funds
drawn from fees earned and endowment income.

NNNN

.