Interesting. Thanks, Joe

"EUCOM will become just another unified command with an AOR (Area of Responsibility) for Central Europe."

This still sounds like a lot.

Why have a EUCOM at all, if the US is so disappointed by its allies?

Germany, Britain, France do not have a "USCOM" to defend the US. So why should the US have an EUCOM? My guess: To pursue US interests on the European continent and the nearby regions. Fine, fair enough. The only thing that annoys me from time to time is the suggestion that US forces are deployed in Europe for the sole benefit of us Europeans, i.e US altruism to promote freedom and democracy etc.

US and West German interests were aligned during the Cold War.

I am sure we can agree that US national security rather than charity work was the main motivation for the trillions of dollars spent and the many lives risked during the Cold War.

Question for you: Do you think the US could have enhanced national security, promoted its superpower and leader of the free world status and defeated the Soviet Union WITHOUT protecting West-Germany during the Cold War?

"Even Charles DeGaulle admitted that it was better to have the Americans in Europe than at bases in California and Texas"

But he was opposed to any US bases in France...

1.) You are supporting my point with your reference to ice-free ports, right?

2.) Of course, (West) Germany and other European countries benefited tremendously from the United States for nearly a century. I am not forgetting this for instance:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/65-The-forgotten-US-relief-operations-in-Europe-during-and-after-World-War-I.html

3.) I think we agree on the basics. You write: "I suppose you're argument is that the US benefitted from this arrangement which I would agree"

US and German interests were aligned during the Cold War: What was good for America, was usually good for Germany as well.

Of course, there were differences: I don't know, but I assume that Reagan and many Americans thought that they were extremely altruistic by stationing Pershings etc in Germany, while many Germans disagreed.

4.) I cannot follow your logic here: "I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that, especially considering Europe exports more to the US then vice versa, that somehow current US policy is at the service of American business interests."

What's your point? The US is promoting European business interests?

No, of course, US policy is at the service of American business interests. The fact that EU exports to the US are bigger than vice versa, just means that the EU companies are currently more successful (and/or it means that European consumers are too poor to buy US products).
If student A gets better grades than student B, it does not necessarily mean that student A has been studying more hours.


5.) The only reason I brought up US motivations is that I got the impression that many Americans (especially the media) insinuate that US foreign policy is charity work: Promoting freedom and democracy and human rights around the world.

Yes, the US is often trying all this, but only when this serves US interests. And not always successfully.
This not evil. This is what states do. And it does not require rocket science to come to that conclusion.

US patriotism (some would say "propaganda"), however, is so strong, that quite a few Americans (not you) insinuate or claim that the main purpose of US foreign policy is to help the world all the time. That's why Americans exaggerate for instance the amount of foreign aid the US spends. And that's why many Americans applauded George Bush when he said during his second inauguration:

"Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Is America "standing with" the monks in Burma, the dissidents in Saudi Arabia, China, Belarus, Pakistan etc? Or is America just pursuing Realpolitik like all other countries?