President Donald Trump wants US allies to pay all costs associated with hosting US troops and a bit more

Aug 30, 2014
6,691
1,705
385
#1
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-wants-to-charge-allies-more-than-ever-to-host-us-troops-2019-3

"The Trump administration plans to demand that US allies pay the full cost for hosting American troops, plus 50% more for the privilege of hosting them, Bloomberg News reported Friday, citing a dozen administration officials and people it said had been briefed on the situation.

The plan targets allies such as Germany and Japan but is expected to extend to any country that hosts US military personnel. With the "Cost Plus 50" plan, some countries could wind up paying as much as six times what they pay now to host US troops"

Absolutely fantastic in my opinion. The Marshall plan made sense in the aftermath of the second world war, but this is 2019 and their is no reason we should still be shouldering the risk and cost.

Win/win, imo, either they pay up or our guys come home. Most will likely pay up, and trump can use it as a bargaining chip if other issues are in the table.


.
 

llien

Gold Member
Feb 1, 2017
4,106
1,437
475
#5
I mean, given there is a choice to host or not host the troops to begin with, I don't have problem with the approach.

What it goes against, somewhat, is the organization called NATO.
All members of it are support to consider attack on any member as an attack on themselves.

Then, there is a little bit of "if Putler invades Baltic states, we won't really start a nuclear war" so "let us put some troops in there".
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
Feb 5, 2008
8,425
294
1,025
#7
This is all well and good, but ignores the fact that it is also in the USA's interests to have bases located throughout the world.

It seems particularly short sighted for the USA to pick a fight with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia when those bases serve to curtail Chinese power.

I can't really see this happening.
 
Likes: 嫩翼

Trey

Member
Mar 3, 2010
27,446
233
690
#18
He's peddling isolationist rhetoric that misunderstands what position American is in on the world stage, so this comes as no surprise. The number is of course arbitrary, with no real recourse for allies to engage with, and probably violates several treaties in the process.

It's a clumsy, blunt, naive way to handle military based geopolitics, and any savings made from this move would be incidental at best unless folks are for a permanent troop drawdown.
 
May 4, 2005
12,741
1,426
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
#19
Exactly why we should. It’s a huge cost to Americans and it’s not as if the host countries appreciate it. I’m almost certain you are German by saying that, you would have loved it at the height of the Cold War lol.
You could even verify I'm German by my profile. Anyway, Germany did not have much choice during cold war, as the US and USSR were using Germany as a remote place to flex their muscles against each other. We have the EU and Nato now. There is no immedaite danger from any of Germany's neighbours, because all of them are either in the EU or close associates of the EU.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
I see no threat in this. And I see no value in paying for US troops in Germany either.
That's fine and all, but I hope Bundeswehr would be strengthened as that happens, because I don't want this to happen:

I do not speak russian, I guess you mean Russian invasion of Germany? The US troops in Germany are certainly not the main reason this is not happening.
 
Aug 30, 2014
6,691
1,705
385
#21
This is all well and good, but ignores the fact that it is also in the USA's interests to have bases located throughout the world.

It seems particularly short sighted for the USA to pick a fight with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia when those bases serve to curtail Chinese power.

I can't really see this happening.
Of course it's in US interests to have certain bases... that's why you negotiate each deal. But I'd hardly call asking countries to pay for their own defense 'picking a fight'.
 

嫩翼

so it's not nice
Apr 2, 2013
2,058
1,604
600
香港
#22
This is all well and good, but ignores the fact that it is also in the USA's interests to have bases located throughout the world.

It seems particularly short sighted for the USA to pick a fight with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia when those bases serve to curtail Chinese power.

I can't really see this happening.
I mean I see it happening, but you make a very good point with the Asian Pacific.

I believe it's important to consider America is becoming more and more complacent in ceding advantage to China anyway, on a military level. These Pacific nations will slowly realize it too, I think. Might as well be on China's good side than deal with the crummy ol' U.S., "since instead of charging us money they fill our pockets."
 
Last edited:
Apr 15, 2018
2,483
2,861
230
#25
He's peddling isolationist rhetoric that misunderstands what position American is in on the world stage, so this comes as no surprise. The number is of course arbitrary, with no real recourse for allies to engage with, and probably violates several treaties in the process.

It's a clumsy, blunt, naive way to handle military based geopolitics, and any savings made from this move would be incidental at best unless folks are for a permanent troop drawdown.
Our position is that we give to much away for little to zero benefit for ourselves. If you want us, pay us.
 
Likes: autoduelist
Oct 24, 2017
6,434
5,520
335
#26
I mean, given there is a choice to host or not host the troops to begin with, I don't have problem with the approach.

What it goes against, somewhat, is the organization called NATO.
All members of it are support to consider attack on any member as an attack on themselves.

Then, there is a little bit of "if Putler invades Baltic states, we won't really start a nuclear war" so "let us put some troops in there".
The problem here is hat the NATO actually sates that each member need to invest a certain percentage in military. And almost every country except the US is not doing this at all. I think Germany is doing like half of it what. I can totally understand the notion here and I support this as long the other countries do not fulfill their contracts
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,434
5,520
335
#27
You could even verify I'm German by my profile. Anyway, Germany did not have much choice during cold war, as the US and USSR were using Germany as a remote place to flex their muscles against each other. We have the EU and Nato now. There is no immedaite danger from any of Germany's neighbours, because all of them are either in the EU or close associates of the EU.
THe US troops stationed in Germany still preventing Russia and Turkey to get more aggressive. Especially with Erdogan we need to be very careful here. If a 3rd world war ever breaks out it will be because of him.
 
Likes: highrider
Dec 18, 2010
8,233
955
660
51
washington d.c.
#28
You could even verify I'm German by my profile. Anyway, Germany did not have much choice during cold war, as the US and USSR were using Germany as a remote place to flex their muscles against each other. We have the EU and Nato now.
The EU and NATO without American military are incapable of defending themselves. As someone who has been on many joint exercises with German, French and British soldiers, they will be the first to tell you that.
 
Likes: DeepEnigma
Jul 7, 2018
1,261
1,181
220
#32
One good way to find out is leaving yourself defenseless. Personally I spent a good portion of my life in Germany and have family in the UK, so I would rather see a strong Europe, but America has done more than enough on our dime.
I don't dispute that, but I think Trump should call those troops from both Middle East and Europe back home, like now.
They and the USA has not business being there.
 
Likes: highrider
Aug 30, 2014
6,691
1,705
385
#33
One good way to find out is leaving yourself defenseless. Personally I spent a good portion of my life in Germany and have family in the UK, so I would rather see a strong Europe, but America has done more than enough on our dime.
As long as it's not an EU army. I would hate to what would happen if so something like the yellow jacket protests were policed by foreign nationals rather than French police.

Personally, I think smaller countries using [and paying ] US for defense for makes sense. Larger ones should use and pay for US training and infrastructure and technology where necessary to fill the holes in their own infrastructure.

I'm perfectly fine with a strong Europe, but I think that's also a very dangerous game depending on how you define it. Unifying a largely and deeply diverse populace under a single flag comes with a heavy price and significant authoritarian risks.
 
Dec 18, 2010
8,233
955
660
51
washington d.c.
#34
As long as it's not an EU army. I would hate to what would happen if so something like the yellow jacket protests were policed by foreign nationals rather than French police.

Personally, I think smaller countries using [and paying ] US for defense for makes sense. Larger ones should use and pay for US training and infrastructure and technology where necessary to fill the holes in their own infrastructure.

I'm perfectly fine with a strong Europe, but I think that's also a very dangerous game depending on how you define it. Unifying a largely and deeply diverse populace under a single flag comes with a heavy price and significant authoritarian risks.
Absolutely agree. Will be interesting to watch unfold.
 
May 10, 2009
2,803
351
665
#35
Defending themselves from whom is the real question.
Have we finally evolved from conflict as a people.. loollll. Good luck with that, countries of Europe I recommend you get yourself a military though.

Germany is rich and can afford a modern army and they are Germany they can fight.
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2009
2,803
351
665
#39
I mean you quoted me in your comment, what did you wish to mean with that?
I took your comment ‘defending themselves from whom’ to mean that those who would defend themselves don’t actually have anyone that would attack them. Which I consider very naive but I’m not shocked it’s an idea someone would believe so I commented on it.

I suppose I should ask you what you meant by your comment to clear up any misunderstanding.
 
Feb 27, 2018
606
702
235
Texas
#40
This is all well and good, but ignores the fact that it is also in the USA's interests to have bases located throughout the world.

It seems particularly short sighted for the USA to pick a fight with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia when those bases serve to curtail Chinese power.

I can't really see this happening.

Those places you speak of are in China's neighborhood and we're not. It's not even debatable Asia benefits more from US military presence than we do in having them at our expense in the grand scheme. And since Liberals want LESS military budget I don't see how they could in all common sense oppose the plan unless it's just to RESIST bcs its Trump. Which wouldn't be shocking......
 
Last edited:
Jul 7, 2018
1,261
1,181
220
#41
I took your comment ‘defending themselves from whom’ to mean that those who would defend themselves don’t actually have anyone that would attack them. Which I consider very naive but I’m not shocked it’s an idea someone would believe so I commented on it.

I suppose I should ask you what you meant by your comment to clear up any misunderstanding.
What I meant from my comment was dual since I am European (Greek to be exact).

First that the USA has no reason to be there to protect Europe because, truly, there is no USSR or 3rd Reich that needs to shield us anymore, and most of EU is on NATO anyhow and second it was a kind snide remark on my part.

See, like I said, I am Greek, my country of 10 million has 2 millions illegal immigrants inside of it as of now and it is projected to have more than 3,5 million in 10-20 years from now.
So, if the US army is said to be protecting the EU's nations, at least in Greece's case, it has done a very, very, very, very, very poor job at it!
 
Feb 27, 2018
606
702
235
Texas
#42
You could even verify I'm German by my profile. Anyway, Germany did not have much choice during cold war, as the US and USSR were using Germany as a remote place to flex their muscles against each other. We have the EU and Nato now. There is no immedaite danger from any of Germany's neighbours, because all of them are either in the EU or close associates of the EU.
I see no threat in this. And I see no value in paying for US troops in Germany either.

I do not speak russian, I guess you mean Russian invasion of Germany? The US troops in Germany are certainly not the main reason this is not happening.
You're right. Germany has a history of starting shit with their neighbors and conflict. Truth is Germany has proven to not be trusted with a military of their own.
 
Last edited:
May 10, 2009
2,803
351
665
#43
What I meant from my comment was dual since I am European (Greek to be exact).

First that the USA has no reason to be there to protect Europe because, truly, there is no USSR or 3rd Reich that needs to shield us anymore, and most of EU is on NATO anyhow and second it was a kind snide remark on my part.

See, like I said, I am Greek, my country of 10 million has 2 millions illegal immigrants inside of it as of now and it is projected to have more than 3,5 million in 10-20 years from now.
So, if the US army is said to be protecting the EU's nations, at least in Greece's case, it has done a very, very, very, very, very poor job at it!
If you’re expecting US to give you tips on illegal immigration we aren’t good in that area either.

Whether Russia is a threat or not I have no idea but you are right the nations of Europe are strong and rich and have been killing themselves and others for centuries they will do just fine without the US.
 
Jul 7, 2018
1,261
1,181
220
#44
If you’re expecting US to give you tips on illegal immigration we aren’t good in that area either.

Whether Russia is a threat or not I have no idea but you are right the nations of Europe are strong and rich and have been killing themselves and others for centuries they will do just fine without the US.
We got our own things to consider, you got your own things to consider is simple as that.
Also that is why you need to split from Middle East as well, those guys have their own problems to solve, you guys have your own problems to solve, simple as that.
 
May 10, 2009
2,803
351
665
#45
We got our own things to consider, you got your own things to consider is simple as that.
Also that is why you need to split from Middle East as well, those guys have their own problems to solve, you guys have your own problems to solve, simple as that.
Yep, I don’t disagree with the trend of energy technology and our own oil resources combined with being allied with the strongest forces in the region we should stop investing our money there and I think Trump agrees, I hope.
 

eot

Member
Apr 13, 2012
9,743
193
440
#46
The problem here is hat the NATO actually sates that each member need to invest a certain percentage in military. And almost every country except the US is not doing this at all. I think Germany is doing like half of it what. I can totally understand the notion here and I support this as long the other countries do not fulfill their contracts
NATO states no such thing, it's an agreed upon goal, it's not a mandate.
Also, considering that the US has military forced stationed all over the world it's a given that they spend more than other NATO members, but it's not a one to one comparison. Carrier groups in the south China sea don't contribute to the defense of NATO countries.
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,434
5,520
335
#47
NATO states no such thing, it's an agreed upon goal, it's not a mandate.
Also, considering that the US has military forced stationed all over the world it's a given that they spend more than other NATO members, but it's not a one to one comparison. Carrier groups in the south China sea don't contribute to the defense of NATO countries.
There is a reasons why Germany for example now does invest more into military. It was agreed upon all members of the Nato
 
Oct 24, 2017
6,434
5,520
335
#50
I literally said it's an agreed upon goal
No the goal always existed. But almost no one archived this

Nato’s guide for its members to spend an amount equivalent to more than 2 per cent of their annual gross domestic product on defence is now met by only four of its 28 states. The figures, in some cases, mask deeper problems. “For a number of allies, a disproportionate amount is spent on personnel within their forces,” says a senior Nato strategist. “In one case, 85 per cent of their spend goes on wages and pensions. For many allies there is not a great deal left for new equipment.” Nato allies are supposed to spend 20 per cent of their military budgets on materiel, but only 11 achieved that last year. “Those sorts of decreases, combined with the enlargement of the alliance, has led to its fragmentation,” says the Nato strategist. “What has happened in the past few weeks shows we are at an inflection point.”
https://www.ft.com/content/0fe3b316-bef4-11e3-a4af-00144feabdc0