• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fort Trump: A Silly Name Masks a Good Idea

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,328
Reaction score
82,710
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Fort Trump: A Silly Name Masks a Good Idea

defense-large.jpg


9/21/18
For months, the Trump administration had no clear stance after leaked documents revealed in May that Poland was actively requesting a permanent U.S. base. Even Poland’s promise to invest $2 billion in the effort seems to have made little impact. This situation changed on Tuesday, when Polish President Andrzej Duda met with President Trump at the White House. At that meeting, Trump declared that his administration is seriously considering a permanent base in Poland. Jokingly or not, Duda offered to name the base Fort Trump. Whatever its ultimate name, a base there will deter Russian aggression and reassure our allies in Poland and the Baltic region. We say this having spent several weeks interviewing government officials and defense experts in the region last year. Our conversations persuaded us that there are four reasons why Trump should fulfill Poland’s request. First, a permanent military presence in Poland will enhance deterrence against Russia. Putting ground troops on Polish soil is a powerful signal that the United States is serious about defending Poland and, for that matter, Europe. Second, a permanent U.S. base in Poland would save American lives if a conflict broke out. Russia is investing heavily in anti-access capabilities. If it ever decides to attack Poland—or its Baltic neighbors—it will use its vast stockpiles of precision missiles, long-range artillery, and mines to interdict U.S. and NATO forces as they race into central and northeastern Europe. Every U.S. combat unit not already in position when the war breaks starts will have to fight its way into theater. The best way to conserve American combat power is to make sure it is already there.

Third, a permanent base in Poland will signal that Washington is willing to sustain its focus on NATO’s vulnerable northeastern flank. Finally, establishing a permanent base in Poland tells other allies that the United States helps allies that help themselves. Poland does not free-ride. It has promised to pay for the U.S. base. Nevertheless, if the Trump administration does fulfill Poland’s request, there are better and worse ways of doing so. The Cold War model of a massive military footprint is inappropriate to today’s threat. We offer two suggestions based on our conversations with regional defense experts. First, do not build one Fort Trump; build a dozen Trump-themed outposts. Big bases are too easy to hit and isolate with long-range weapons. Putting American troops in one place negates the advantages of having them in Poland in the first place. Additionally, the focus thus far has been on putting a permanent U.S. Army divisional headquarters command. We think that putting air and missile defense units in these “bases” makes more sense. A division headquarters unit will be a major target for Russian planners, whereas air and missile defense units will increase Poland’s ability to withstand a surprise attack. They can also help “keep the door open” for U.S. and NATO reinforcements to arrive. Regardless of whether U.S. forces will be garrisoned at a place called Fort Trump, such a military presence would be worthwhile. The name may not be what we need, but the base is.
Click to expand...

A precarious position. I also think having just one centralized base would be a mistake.
 
Putting them in the way isn’t nessisarily a singnal of seriousness. We had this stupid plan in the Philippines once that fell apart real quick due to budget cuts.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Fort Trump: A Silly Name Masks a Good Idea

defense-large.jpg


A precarious position. I also think having just one centralized base would be a mistake.
Click to expand...

That depends on what the goal actually is. Is it to try and protect as large of an area as possible, or to provide a strong central location as a central hub, while being easier to defend?

Compare it to saw Qatar. There we only have 2 locations (not including a small port facility that is only used for moving equipment in and out). Al Udeid Air Base, which is the main base. This is where 95% of the personnel are located, as well as all of the equipment (including pre-staged warfighting equipment like artillery and tanks). The former (main base) Camp As Sayliyah now is a shell of what it was before, primarily kept as a location to host the PATRIOT battery that protects the capital of Doha.

Keeping a single centralized base is much more practical in most cases, especially if it is located in a friendly country. Without the need to help "hold down" the country, it is better to consolidate when possible. US forces in Poland would not be like US forces in Afghanistan, where they are having to help pacify an entire country.

And it still accomplishes it's main purpose. Being a deterrent to any country that tries any hostilities against Poland (in other words, Russia). The strategic intent of such a force would not be to actually try and fight an enemy on the borders, but to act as a staging point for the counterattack. The only use of bases remote from this that I can see would be for installations of say AEGIS Ashore.

Remember, this is not Post-War Germany. Where bases were scattered all over with the idea that a military presence was required to help in the De-Nazification of the country. And then kept because of the threat of atomic then nuclear strikes eliminating the entire force. MAD no longer applies like it did during the Cold War, and the concept has shifted more and more away from the idea of a "winnable nuclear war" towards almost universal international condemnation against any nation that first uses such weapons.

The only possible worry I would have would be an enemy attempting to force their way into the base and overrun it. That could turn into a Dien Bien Phu II, or a Khe Sanh II. I am betting on the latter, since it would be very hard to keep any aircraft from reaching the base for quite a while. And with the largest transport air fleet in the world, the US could fly a lot of personnel and equipment into the base before anti-air would be close enough to be a serious threat.

As for defense against missiles, the US alone has a lot of capability in that. PATRIOT, THAAD, SHORAD, AEGIS Ashore, not to mention the capabilities of fighters in the air (until the 1990's the main way to intercept inbound missiles were fighter aircraft). I think taking out such a base would be much harder than many imagine - short of nukes.
 
And this is why the Russians see America as a threat. When they let Eastern Europe become independent is was on the agreement that they remain neutral. So first thing we did was recruit them into NATO.

Maybe the Russians will build a big base in Mexico...or Canada. We had a complete hissy fit when the Russians tried to put missiles in Cuba.
 
So naming it Ft. Trump clinched the deal? Flattery will get you everywhere with the orange sphincter.
 
Waddy said:
And this is why the Russians see America as a threat. When they let Eastern Europe become independent is was on the agreement that they remain neutral. So first thing we did was recruit them into NATO.
Click to expand...

Not true at all.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, most of the Eastern European nations had already broken away, having had their own revolutions. Between 1989 and 1990, most of the old Warsaw Pact (Bulgaria, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, etc) had already cast aside their allegiance to the Soviet Union and left the Warsaw pact. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed in the first place.

What replaced it was the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which basically was only a reformed Soviet Union. Without their Satellite States, and soon even lost a lot of their former members. Since the founding of the CIS, Georgia and Ukraine both left the CIS.

And as independent nations, they have every right to do so. To say otherwise is to say that a nation is not really independent, and has no choice but to remain in an agreement.

That would be akin to NATO trying to tell France under the Gaullo-Mitterrandism Policy. You know, it is amazing that most people today do not seem to realize that for over 40 years, France was not a part of NATO. General de Gaulle had France withdraw from NATO, and then pursued their own Nuclear Weapons program. It was not until 2007 that France finally rejoined NATO.

If NATO was to follow the Warsaw Pact model as you are implying, then they would have had every right to refuse France from leaving the organization, and force them to remain as partners.

No, there was no such agreement between the USSR, Warsaw Pact, and their former members. Each of them forcibly broke away, and the Soviets could not stop them because they were collapsing at home. Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, they all left under no agreement to continue to support the Soviets (now Russia). And most of them have joined NATO because they fear a new century+ of Occupation by a reborn Russia.

You really need to learn a bit more about history.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Not true at all.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, most of the Eastern European nations had already broken away, having had their own revolutions. Between 1989 and 1990, most of the old Warsaw Pact (Bulgaria, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, etc) had already cast aside their allegiance to the Soviet Union and left the Warsaw pact. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed in the first place.

What replaced it was the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which basically was only a reformed Soviet Union. Without their Satellite States, and soon even lost a lot of their former members. Since the founding of the CIS, Georgia and Ukraine both left the CIS.

And as independent nations, they have every right to do so. To say otherwise is to say that a nation is not really independent, and has no choice but to remain in an agreement.

That would be akin to NATO trying to tell France under the Gaullo-Mitterrandism Policy. You know, it is amazing that most people today do not seem to realize that for over 40 years, France was not a part of NATO. General de Gaulle had France withdraw from NATO, and then pursued their own Nuclear Weapons program. It was not until 2007 that France finally rejoined NATO.

If NATO was to follow the Warsaw Pact model as you are implying, then they would have had every right to refuse France from leaving the organization, and force them to remain as partners.

No, there was no such agreement between the USSR, Warsaw Pact, and their former members. Each of them forcibly broke away, and the Soviets could not stop them because they were collapsing at home. Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, they all left under no agreement to continue to support the Soviets (now Russia). And most of them have joined NATO because they fear a new century+ of Occupation by a reborn Russia.

You really need to learn a bit more about history.
Click to expand...

So I suppose you opposed the US actions against Cuba/Soviet Union in the 1960's ? Seeing as Cuba , being a " independent nation " , had every right to have missile bases with soviet missiles on them ?

Or US actions against numerous Latin and Central American " independent nations " for decisions made by the people of those sovereign states ?
 
oneworld2 said:
So I suppose you opposed the US actions against Cuba/Soviet Union in the 1960's ? Seeing as Cuba , being a " independent nation " , had every right to have missile bases with soviet missiles on them ?
Click to expand...

Cuba was a case where both countries made bad decisions. The US first in placing nuclear missiles in Turkey, which was the "go ahead" for the Soviets to do the same thing in Cuba. And the Soviets objected almost as much over the Turkish missiles as the US did over Cuba (although it was impossible for the Soviets to blockade Turkey).

And ultimately the compromise was reached, and the missiles from both countries removed. This is a false analogy, because it was between the 2 Superpowers ultimately, and not even over the other countries at all. Personally, I think the US was stupid to put nukes in Turkey (1961), because the obvious response was for the Soviets to do the same in Cuba (1962). However the US did not hide what it was doing in Turkey. And I think it was stupid for the Soviets to try and put the missiles in covertly, as it gave the US the excuse to set up a blockade in front of the world and almost lead us to Armadeggon.

Now, if Cuba had developed the weapons on their own that would have been a completely different matter. But we are not really talking about Cuban Nuclear Missiles, we are talking about Soviet Nuclear Missiles in Cuba. That does not directly involve Cuba itself, but the Soviets because they were their missiles. The same reason the Soviets would have reacted much different if the missiles in Turkey were Turkish missiles, and not US missiles.

You seem to be glossing over or completely ignoring these simple facts. And they are facts that must be taken into consideration when talking about this crisis.

And there is one thing that must be remembered. This crisis is the catalyst for the installation of the "Moscow-Washington Hotline" between the two nations. And it was used many times afterwards by both sides, to help keep problems or regional conflicts from "going hot" between the two powers. JFK Assassination, the Arab-Israeli Wars, Indo-Pakistan War, even the Lebanese Civil War and the Crisis in Poland saw use by both sides, to make each other aware of their concerns and involvements in a confidential manner, without them having to be raised openly as they had in 1961-1962.

oneworld2 said:
Or US actions against numerous Latin and Central American " independent nations " for decisions made by the people of those sovereign states ?
Click to expand...

Oh this is a lovely topic, and much more involved then you are making it out.

Supporting "freedom fighters" in various nations is a long-standing tradition internationally. In the US, it goes all the way back to France and Spain assisting the Colonists in their revolution. So long as that support is largely equipment and advisors, the other country generally ignores it. And that is something both the US and USSR did during the Cold War.

Most of what you are talking about is actually part of the Banana Wars, over a century ago. Not only the US, but the entire world was vastly different then. Remember, we are talking largely of the same century that France had installed an Austrian Emperor of Mexico.

In the case of the conflicts you seem to be implying before and after WWII, we were supporting one side or another in a civil war. A civil war which un-ironically had the Soviets supporting the other side. So you can not try to condemn the US supporting one side, if the Soviets were supporting the other.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Not true at all.

When the Soviet Union dissolved, most of the Eastern European nations had already broken away, having had their own revolutions. Between 1989 and 1990, most of the old Warsaw Pact (Bulgaria, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, etc) had already cast aside their allegiance to the Soviet Union and left the Warsaw pact. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed in the first place.

What replaced it was the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which basically was only a reformed Soviet Union. Without their Satellite States, and soon even lost a lot of their former members. Since the founding of the CIS, Georgia and Ukraine both left the CIS.

And as independent nations, they have every right to do so. To say otherwise is to say that a nation is not really independent, and has no choice but to remain in an agreement.

That would be akin to NATO trying to tell France under the Gaullo-Mitterrandism Policy. You know, it is amazing that most people today do not seem to realize that for over 40 years, France was not a part of NATO. General de Gaulle had France withdraw from NATO, and then pursued their own Nuclear Weapons program. It was not until 2007 that France finally rejoined NATO.

If NATO was to follow the Warsaw Pact model as you are implying, then they would have had every right to refuse France from leaving the organization, and force them to remain as partners.

No, there was no such agreement between the USSR, Warsaw Pact, and their former members. Each of them forcibly broke away, and the Soviets could not stop them because they were collapsing at home. Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, they all left under no agreement to continue to support the Soviets (now Russia). And most of them have joined NATO because they fear a new century+ of Occupation by a reborn Russia.

You really need to learn a bit more about history.
Click to expand...

The Soviets made no demand of the newly freed Eastern European states that they support Russia; only that they remain independent. Neutral. The Russians view the US recruitment of these nations into NATO as an aggressive and hostile act, which it is. Try to get your history straight.
 
Waddy said:
The Soviets made no demand of the newly freed Eastern European states that they support Russia; only that they remain independent. Neutral. The Russians view the US recruitment of these nations into NATO as an aggressive and hostile act, which it is. Try to get your history straight.
Click to expand...

They may have made this demand, but that is exactly what it sounds like, a demand. And they were under no obligation to follow this demand even if it was made.

Which is probably exactly why they joined NATO in the first place.

Now please, give us some kind of reference to this demand, and why any other country would have been obligated to follow it.

I demand that you give me $100. Don't like my demand? Well, to bad. I demand it anyways, and demand that you go to nobody to try and help you stop me from making additional demands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom