I propose a game...

A rather simple one, really. It's called Count the Unsupported Assumptions in the New York Times Editorial:

I'm not saying whether they're right or wrong. But let's just look at the state of play, shall we?

The Bush administration justifies these movements by pointing to fundamental changes in the geography of threats since the end of the cold war. In Asia, however, that geography has not changed all that much.

The most dangerous threat still comes from North Korea, which is now thought to be building nuclear weapons. At a time when negotiating a halt to that buildup is imperative, Washington has inexplicably granted Pyongyang something it has long coveted - a reduction in American troop levels - instead of building those reductions into a bargaining proposal requiring constructive North Korean moves in return. The Korean pullback also sends a dangerous signal to the North that America is devaluing its alliance with South Korea. [Left unstated, for example, is recent, presumably discreet, negotiations with North Korea, might equally likely suggest that the withdrawal reflects the concession of a negotiating chip, quite possibly in exchange for something else - Geoff]

In Europe, the withdrawals are less immediately dangerous, but they will be expensive because Germany pays a hefty share of the costs for the American military bases located there.

While sending military personnel back to Kansas or Colorado may avert some base closings and make local politicians happy, it will cost the taxpayers money. [In the short term, sure. But seriously, you're not arguing that the savings on shipping costs to Denver vs. Berlin wouldn't likely save the Pentagon money in the long run, are you? If so, why? - Geoff] Furthermore, the military will also lose the advantage that comes with giving large numbers of its men and women the experience of living in other cultures.[Now, I can't claim to be an expert in this kind of thing, and this is purely anecdotal... But I've known my share of Army brats (not to mention residents from Berlin and Seoul), and I must say the idea that military service is a deep engagement with another culture seems silly. The Army is famously its own culture and from all reports, it matains that cultural distinctiveness abroad. Again, I'm not saying they're wrong. But I can't accept they're right without some kind of proof. -Geoff]

The administration seems to be planning to establish new installations in Eastern Europe, but they are more likely to be used for occasional exercises than as permanent bases. [And why is this true? And why aren't several small bases, ready for expansion as needed a better posture than fixed permanent bases? Don't recent issues negotiating transit rights (say, with Turkey) at least suggest a diplomatic vulnerability to popular opinion in foreign allies?- Geoff] An increased presence in Eastern Europe is fine, but it need not come at the expense of our German bases. Although it is certainly true that American troops no longer have to sit in Germany to protect Western Europe from the Red Army, many of today's battlefields, like Iraq and Afghanistan, are in fact closer to Germany than they are to the United States.[And closer still to Eastern Europe? Might there in fact a more useful staging point among other current or potential allies? And might there not still be a reason to scale back the German base considering it's located in the middle of a friendly country in a passive region? - Geoff]

The Pentagon is right to stress lighter, more mobile Army brigades. It is also good to aim to reduce the number of job and location changes in a typical Army career. [Doesn't this directly contradict the earlier assertion about the importance of exposing soldiers to foreign cultures? - Geoff] With the huge personnel demands of Iraqi operations forcing repeated tours, extended tours and involuntary callbacks, such sensible steps aimed at raising morale and encouraging re-enlistments are welcome.[Are we now implying that "exposure to foreign culture"... i.e. being stationed abroad, saps morale and drives down re-enlistment? But we treasure this because...? - Geoff] But over all, this plan marches in the wrong direction. Instead of reflecting and reinforcing America's core alliances, the new plan dilutes them.[Armchair warring here, but since when does the spreading of one's alliance (and it's ensuing patronage) more broadly and winning more support abroad become a diplomatically strategic error? Ordinarily, "diluted alliances" are what we call "multilateralism." The making of alliances with many where once there were few. Now, whether the alliance will be "diluted" or not, I can't say. But the way they've framed it, you'd think they were discussing a self-evidently BAD thing - Geoff]

Despite the Pentagon's denials, it seems deliberate that the two largest withdrawals have been proposed for countries that the Bush administration has had serious differences with in recent years, over Iraq in the German case, and over negotiating strategy with North Korea in the case of Seoul. [This is just the grand summation, and so it sweeps all the great debatables of the previous given into one over-arching condemnation. Since we can see no rationale behind these announcements beyond punishment of recalcitrant allies, this must be the rationale. At least Rumsfeld's persuaded them that the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. - Geoff] Both countries have been working hard to patch up relations - South Korea is one of the few American allies with troops in Iraq [It is also a democracy in which American troop levels are a raging domestic controversy... since much of the population demands their withdrawal - Geoff] - but the Pentagon does not seem interested in reciprocating.