Before delving into the discussion of the capabilities required of a U.S. military presence in Europe after 1994, it must be understood that forward presence does not lend itself to simple, linear analysis. Rather, forward presence is linked to a complex set of factors, each of which consists of a number of dependent variables, all of which must remain in balance. In analyzing and assessing potential elements of future U.S. forward presence in Europe, it is essential to keep these many linkages in mind and assess the various options in light of possible combinations and potential outcomes. The ability to determine the capabilities required of a future U.S. forward presence in Europe is complicated further by the perceived absence of a significant threat. In the past, U.S. forward presence was easily defined against a distinct and measurable threat. That no longer exists, and, while "instability" in a generic sense may pose risks, it does not lend itself to detailed threat-based force planning. The basis for the future U.S. forward presence cannot, therefore, be focused solely on potential threats. Instead, analysis must look beyond the search for the "right" number of U.S. personnel and concentrate on the capabilities needed to ensure the ability to execute effective military operations, if required. In determining required capabilities, the U.S. residual presence in Europe must, first and foremost, retain the ability to contribute to the defense of our allies in accordance with U.S. obligations to NATO.' Second, residual forces must manifest Washington's continued political commitment to Europe and assure our NATO allies that Washington remains militarily committed to their future security. [8] While the second capability is clearly a political, as opposed to strictly military, requirement, the two issues are closely intertwined and, therefore, the political necessity must be translated into military structures. On the one hand, the magnitude of the future force in Europe could be defined solely as a function of budget allocations: the current numbers oriented debate. On the other hand, such an approach may not suffice because it could fail to satisfy either our allies' perceptions of what constitutes a credible presence, or pass the test of military sufficiency. Combat Capabilities To be credible, either to our allies or our own military commanders, the future U.S. military presence in Europe must have a certain level of combat capabilities. In other words, planning should be based on the assumption that these forces will be capable of performing military operations, as opposed to fulfilling strictly custodial functions. Said military operations have yet to be defined in any detail, but the new U.S. national and military strategies and NATO's new strategic concept do provide a broad range of missions for U.S. military forces in Europe that can be used to deduce requisite capabilities. For example, under the new NATO and U.S. national strategies, crisis management and response across the breadth of the Alliance will take on greater importance. U.S. forces remaining in Europe after 1995 must, therefore, be capable of contributing to NATO's Immediate and Rapid Reaction Forces, as well as possible operations in support of U.S. national commitments, either individually or as part of an ad hoc coalition. In the first case, the United States remains committed to its long-standing contribution to the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force (AMF) to NATO's Immediate Reaction Forces and has indicated (but not yet committed) a division sized contribution to the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps. [9] The extent of the U.S. contribution in the latter two cases would, of course, be dictated by the circumstances of the individual case, but could require commitment of a large share of the U.S. military presence in Europe. [10] The United States also has acknowledged the requirement to contribute to the main defense forces of the Alliance. At the moment, the U.S. presence is concentrated in the Central Region of Allied Command Europe and is likely to remain there for the foreseeable future. [11] Moreover, the United States committed itself to participate in main defense multinational corps within the Central Region. Based on current U.S. assurances, the U.S. Army must maintain, at the very least, one corps headquarters with one U.S. division to participate with a German division within a U.S.-led multinational corps. An appropriate level of corps troops to support this formation is also required. The United States must also provide one division to a German-led multinational corps. When considered with the intention of the United States to contribute a division to the ACE Rapid Reaction Corps, this equates to a total commitment of three divisions. However, indications are that only two divisions will be stationed in Europe. [12] Force Structures The eventual force structure of the future U.S. Army forward military presence in Central Europe needed to fulfill these capabilities will depend on the interaction of a number of issues: the nature of perceived risks, forces required by commitments to support rapid reaction forces, the amount of time available for reinforcement, and strategic lift capabilities. Obviously, if the United States faces a low risk environment, needs few rapid reaction forces, has adequate warning time, and has access to sufficient strategic lift assets, then a smaller forward presence in Europe would be acceptable. Whether these circumstances will occur remains to be seen. [13] The calculus of these interactive requirements becomes much more complicated outside the Central Region and its highly modern force structures, developed infrastructure, and long- standing host nation agreements, all of which have been extensively exercised. And, because of the low likelihood of being ableto establish a significant level of U.S. military ground force presence on the flanks of NATO, [14] units stationed in Central Europe must possess the capability to deploy to either Allied Forces Northwestern Europe (e.g., North Norway) or the Southern Region (AFSOUTH) to reinforce those vital areas in a time of crisis. Deployability Units remaining in the Central Region, therefore, must be configured to be capable of rapid transfer to the flanks (which have less developed infrastructure and will require introduction of considerably greater levels of combat support and combat service support capabilities). Additionally, these forces must be prepared to meet a broad range of potential risks and operate on terrain decidedly different from that in Central Europe. Such conditions will require a more robust and, therefore, larger presence than might be required if forces were focused only on the Central European Plain. The residual U.S. military presence in Europe must also be prepared for operations outside the NATO area, either in support of NATO or as part of an ad hoc coalition. Moreover, in a future of constrained resources and reduced force structures, these forces may be called upon to support U.S. national interests outside of Europe more frequently. [15] Such operations may place considerable demands on European-based forces. Although analogous to reinforcement of the flanks, out-of-area operations are not identical. For example, under the envisaged National Security Strategy, the United States will engage in ad hoc coalitions, which by definition, may lack the long-term, peacetime, day-to-day coordination and cooperation that exists within NATO. Under certain circumstances, U.S. forces could rely on substantial allied logistical support, extensive NATO infrastructure, and alliance experience in large-scale strategic movements that could, in turn, require a lesser U.S. commitment of personnel and resources. In-Theater Infrastructure In other cases, where the United States might operate outside of NATO's aegis or in areas where extensive infrastructure support might not be available, U.S. military forces in Europe must possess sufficient combat support and combat service support capabilities to sustain themselves during extended operations. Such possibilities would require U.S. forces in Europe to maintain higher levels of combat support and combat service support personnel, units, and equipment than might be required solely to support operations in the Central Region where the United States could rely on a highly developed infrastructure and considerable host nation support. [16] Should numbers of personnel fall below certain levels, the United States may find itself in the difficult position of deciding which national obligations will be met, i.e., combat versus reinforcement capabilities. The U.S. military presence in Europe must also be capable of receiving, integrating, and supporting augmentation forces from North America, i.e., "contingency forces" from CONUS. [17] This requirement will mean that a continued U.S. military presence in Europe must support the long-standing U.S. reinforcement commitment to the Central Region, as well as improved capabilities to perform similar operations on the periphery of NATO. Moreover, the U.S. military presence must be prepared to receive and forward reinforcements to theaters of operation outside the NATO area either in support of NATO or as part of an ad hoc coalition. [18] But, contrary to past planning for reinforcing the Central Region with its extensive infrastructure and host nation support arrangements, reinforcement of the flanks will be decidedly more difficult because of the absence of such in- place support. The ability to receive and integrate reinforcements along the far flung edges of the Atlantic Alliance may require a commitment of personnel and resources in peacetime to coordinate and support the potential introduction of augmentation forces. Although the numbers of personnel in individual headquarters and organizations may be relatively small, total numbers may not be inconsequential. In sum, many of the reinforcement responsibilities of the U.S. European Command (USEUCOM), U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR) and 7th Army, and 21st Theater Army Area Command (21st TAACOM), for example, will remain. Thus, while fewer residual forces in Europe and reduced reinforcement requirements will make acceptable a smaller, leaner support structure in Europe, the requirement to maintain such capabilities will remain for the foreseeable future. The eventual size of that support structure will depend upon the ultimate mix of the U.S. forward presence and reinforcements envisaged from CONUS. Headquarters Staffs Related to the retention of forward based U.S. forces in Europe is the sensitive and important issue of the residual U.S. Army command structure and rank of individuals filling command billets in Europe. For many European policy makers, the ranks of these individuals represent a manifestation of the U.S. commitment to Europe. Consequently, a reduced presence of U.S. general officers in key, highly visible billets may be perceived as an indication of reduced U.S. interest. Granted, in view of the reductions anticipated in U.S. Army forces in Europe, a comparable contraction in general officer positions will occur. But, the administration and the U.S. Army should carefully examine which posts should be eliminated or downgraded and which should retained as highly visible expressions of U.S commitment. For example, for policy reasons, the United States may wish to retain an Army four-star general officer billet because of the requirement to interact with international officers of that rank. On the other hand, because of the scale of reductions contemplated, some might argue that the responsibilities of the remaining corps commander could be extended to all U.S. Army forces in Europe. Such an option is not considered desirable. The corps commander will be fully committed to commanding his peacetime U.S., and wartime multinational, corps. Similarly, the reinforcement responsibilities, and requirements to support the U.S. corps and divisions, as well as units at corps and echelons above corps, will fully occupy the Commander, 21st Theater Army Area Command (TAACOM, or whatever its successor organization may be designated). Moreover, logistics and administrative support (in both time of peace or conflict) at the theater army level will still be required. Anticipated conditions argue, therefore, for retention of Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR). Certainly, the size and structure of Headquarters, USAREUR will be modified to conform to changed conditions. Although some headquarters in Europe will be eliminated and manning levels reduced in remaining staffs, the requirement will still exist for the U.S. Army to provide personnel for these activities. This will include U.S. national, as well as international staffs. At the same time, new headquarters are being established in NATO, e.g., ACE Rapid Reaction Corps, main defense multinational corps headquarters, that will require U.S. participation. Indeed, one should not depreciate the number of personnel required for these assignments. In view of the force levels anticipated, one can expect tension between the competing requirements to man these staffs and, at the same time, man the requisite U.S. combat, combat support and combat service support forces forward deployed in Europe. New Missions to the East In addition to its responsibilities to its NATO allies, the United States may desire to extend military contacts with the newly democratic states of Central and Eastern Europe. The end of the cold war and the emergence of democratic governments in Eastern and Central Europe present the opportunity for the United States to encourage the creation of democratically-responsive civil-military relations in these former Communist states. Indeed, ongoing, but heretofore limited, military-to-military contacts have indicated a number of areas where Western military experts can contribute to the creation of new military forces responsive to democratic governments. [19] A requirement may emerge, therefore, to establish and sustain more substantial cooperative military-to-military relationships with the newly democratic Central and Eastern European states. Depending upon the level of U.S. Government commitment to such activities, the numbers of U.S. personnel involved could vary considerably. At the very least, if we are to be successful, increased liaison teams, attaches, offices of defense cooperation, etc., may have to be created or expanded. A larger commitment, for example the establishment of organizations along the lines of Joint U.S. Military Assistance Groups (JUSMAGs) throughout Eastern and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union, could entail a considerable number of personnel. Finally, while the numbers in each country may not be consequential, the total effort, especially when combined with the many other functions in Europe, e.g., U.S. and allied headquarters and TAACOM activities, could reduce the personnel available for combat forces. Back to Table of Contents Defining US Forward Presence in Europe Back to SSI List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1992 by US Army War College. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com