On the recordMay 17, 2012
Well, I must say that we certainly have to be concerned about troop reductions in light of the possible secret deal between the Russians and the President. I stand in opposition to this amendment because, first off, here you have Congress looking to withdraw troops that of course strategically our Department of Defense says that we need, and that intuitively we understand why they are there. We don't have troops there standing guard and defending Europe. We have troops there that are part of the alliance that are working in concert for the defense of the United States and our allies in issues of the war on terror, issues of training, issues of jointness, issues of logistics. I mean, Europe is not just a place where our troops are standing to oppose invasions of Europe; they're not there for that anymore. They're there for logistics of things such as the pirates that we have off of Africa, that people are abusing our resources to try to make certain that commerce can continue; the issues in Afghanistan, to make certain that we have the logistics for our troops and what they need; ensuring that our allies have jointness in training, working together and being present so that we can ensure that NATO works together in concert. This provision would also lead to an incredibly negative perception among our NATO allies and partners that the U.S. is not committed to its NATO Article V responsibilities.…





