Author: United States. General Accounting OfficePublisher:
ISBN:
Category : United States
Languages : en
Pages : 44
Book Description
Additional Costs of Stationing U.S. Forces in Europe, Departments of State and Defense
Author: United States. General Accounting OfficePublisher:
ISBN:
Category : United States
Languages : en
Pages : 44
Book Description
Additional Costs of Stationing U.S. Forces in Europe, Departments of State and Defense
Author: United States. General Accounting OfficePublisher:
ISBN:
Category : United States
Languages : en
Pages : 37
Book Description
National Defense
Author: U S Government Accountability Office (GPublisher: BiblioGov
ISBN: 9781289240264
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 44
Book Description
The costs incurred by the United States in stationing NATO- committed forces in Europe instead of at home are reviewed. The Jackson-Nunn amendment to the 1974 Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act required the executive branch to reduce proportionately U.S. Forces deployed in Europe to the extent that the fiscal year (FY) 1974 balance-of-payments deficit was not fully offset. The amendment also provided that substantial reductions in the U.S. cost burden would be sought through appropriate arrangements with NATO and its individual members. In a report to Congress on July 1, 1975, GAO stated that the balance-of-payments deficit had been fully offset. However, during GAO's subsequent review, it was found that efforts to increase allied burden sharing as required by the amendment have resulted in only small reductions in the additional costs of stationing U.S. Forces in Europe. Further, the Defense Department largely understated these additional costs for FY 1974 at $440 million, while GAO estimated them to be as much as $l.3 billion.
Additional Costs of Stationing U.S. Forces in Europe, Departments of State and Defense
Author: United States. General Accounting OfficePublisher:
ISBN:
Category : United States
Languages : en
Pages : 42
Book Description
Additional Costs of Stationing U. S. Forces in Europe
Author: United States Accounting Office (GAO)Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781721277995
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 40
Book Description
Additional Costs of Stationing U.S. Forces in Europe
Reductions in U.S. Costs to Station Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom Are Unlikely
Author: GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WASHINGTON DC RESOURCES COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIV.Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 46
Book Description
Congress has expressed a strong and continuing interest in reducing the costs of stationing U.S. Forces in Europe through increased cost sharing by the European allies. The Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom provide substantial support to U.S. Forces stationed there, and are major contributors to the common defense of NATO. Unless the U.S. commitment to NATO is reduced, it is unlikely that U.S. costs to station forces in those two countries will decline. Even the withdrawal of our troops would not necessarily reduce, and might increase, overall defense spending. Therefore, when considering the reduction of U.S. security objectives in Europe and the forces required to meet these objectives must also be addressed.
Additional Costs Of Stationing U.s. Forces In Europe
Author: Costs of NATO Enlargement
Author: Richard L. KuglerPublisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 4
Book Description
NATO must pursue a sound defense program as it enlarges-not to prepare for a threat, but to meet its peacetime preparedness standard. DOD's cost estimate of $27-35 billion for all NATO enlargement measures through 2009 causes sticker shock to some, but it is moderate: only about 1% of NATO's total defense spending. This estimate is not low-sided or prone to major inflation. It is similar to the RAND estimate, and lower than the CBO estimate because CBO embraced a higher threat and theory of requirements. The United States will not be carrying unfair burdens. Its expense may be no more than $2 billion through 2009. The cost of stationing U.S. forces in Europe will not rise appreciably.
Costs of Withdrawing Army Troops from Europe
Author: Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
In response to the Defense Subcommittee's request for assistance during their review of U.S. defense commitments, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the costs of withdrawing U.S. troops stationed in Europe. This memo summarizes CBO's findings and transmits a final version of its estimates. This memo also discusses the effects of having current overseas forces on U.S. trade balances. CBO has confined its estimates to the costs of withdrawing some of the 205,000 U.S. Army troops now stationed in Europe. They estimated the costs of withdrawing from 5,000 to 70,000 personnel. Results show that there are one-time costs and savings associated with these withdrawals, along with recurring savings. The net effect on costs depends mostly on whether the troops that are withdrawn from Europe also are eliminated from the Army's strength. If they are eliminated, the savings could be substantial. If the troops stay in the Army, the one-time costs for basing them in the United States, and possibly for prepositioning additional equipment in Europe, could be many times the size of annual recurring savings.
Defense Planning
Author: John H. PendletonPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Military bases, American
Languages : en
Pages : 18
Book Description
Since the early 1990s, the Army has reduced its force presence in Europe by bringing troops and their families back to the United States and consolidating remaining forces and infrastructure at fewer locations. In 2004, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced an overseas basing strategy that called for further decreases of U.S. forces in Europe. As a result, the Army initiated actions to reduce personnel stationed in Europe by 30,000 personnel by fiscal year 2013 and reduce the number of Army brigade combat teams in Europe from four to two. Since 2004, the Army has consolidated operational forces close to the European training facility at Grafenwoehr, Germany and at Vicenza, Italy. The consolidation included significant investments to construct new or renovate facilities at remaining bases to improve the quality of life for soldiers and their families. To help offset the costs of these investments, the Army closed some bases in Germany and has planned additional closures. Amid the implementation of the Army's draw down in Europe, DOD announced in the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review that it would retain the four Army brigade combat teams in Europe, rather than return two to the United States as originally planned, pending the outcome of a review of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization strategic concept and ongoing U.S. defense posture reviews. The DOD announcement cast considerable uncertainty on the Army's future force structure in Europe. For instance, the Army will now retain installations to house the brigades for an indefinite period of time while decisions are made. Regardless of these decisions, the Army is planning future investments of almost $200 million in Europe to construct a new theater-level Army headquarters facility at Wiesbaden Germany and the TRICARE Management Agency is planning a future investment of approximately $1.2 billion to replace aging medical facilities at Ramstein and Landstuhl, Germany with a new consolidated medical center adjacent to Ramstein Air Base in Kaiserslautern, Germany. In light of these significant investments and the uncertainty about the Army's future force structure in Europe, you asked us to assess (1) the cost implications of potentially keeping more Army forces in Europe than originally planned, and the extent to which the Army's plans align with an evolving European strategic concept and U.S. posture plans, and (2) whether the process used by the Army to determine facility requirements provides an adequate basis for its infrastructure plans.