Charles Skelton: “The Skelton amendment would allow a legitimate and proportionate role in peacekeeping, 7,000 troops. Earlier the…”

“The Skelton amendment would allow a legitimate and proportionate role in peacekeeping, 7,000 troops. Earlier the gentleman from Indiana questioned whether that would stretch our forces too thin, whether they were overextended. I do not believe the short-term commitment of 7,000 peacekeepers is an overextension. But the thoughtless, nonstrategic, nontactical permanent garrison of 100,000 troops in Europe is expensive and does overtax our military resources. Ask a military strategist, why a permanent garrison of 100,000 troops in Europe? They say, well, to show commitment to Europe. I think we have shown commitment. Commitment to what, I might ask? To subsidizing and offsetting the legitimate defense obligations of our allies in Europe? For years we were poised to repel an attack through the Fulda Gap. The only invasion going on in Eastern Europe into the former Soviet bloc involving the Gap is an invasion by a U.S.-based clothing store into that area. There is no threat from the Soviet bloc any longer. We no longer need to permanently garrison 100,000 troops in Europe. Support the later vote on the Shays-Frank amendment to phase down our obligation to 25,000 troops, and help our military to husband its resources so they can serve their core obligations to defend our Nation against real threats.”