U.S. Likely to Keep Troops Based in Afghanistan Permanently

More than seventy years after the end of the war with Japan the United States still has 39,000 troops stationed there. In Germany, 3rd Reichland, the United States still has 35,000. In Afghanistan, seventeen years after 9-11, the United States has fewer than 10,000- and it is still a hotbed of terror activity and coordination. The United States cannot afford to once again dump Afghanistan to the care of militant lunatic warlords.

Actually Afghanistan is centrally located and a good position for a rapid response force to Asian troubles that could arise. So long as the government of Afghanistan wants a U.S. troop presence some should remain.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-11/three-reasons-for-trump-to-end-the-afghanistan-forever-war

It would be good to cut down on global troop deployments obviously in order to save money. There are just 200,000 U.S. military forces based abroad presently and that number isn't too high if it helps keep the peace.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/

What about saving money in Europe with increased N.A.T.O. national spending beside American? The President was right about that.

Germany and Poland worry about Russia. Demagoguery about Vladimir Putin and his 'aggression' for retaking parts of Russia lost to Bill Clinton by Boris Yeltsin is common. Russia isn't going to roll troops into Baltic nation as if it were Czechoslovakia in 1968 or even launch a Blitzkrieg. Basically its bullwhip. With the slightest effort the United States could be on very good terms with Russia and even consider a free trade deal along with free expression and travel reciprocally. Reagan might have spoke about constructive engagement with Russia and helped Russians learn to become more liberal and drink vodka that's iced. The likeliest prospect for war with Russia would be if a NATO nation repeated Hitler's excuse for invading Poland with a BS premise, with Russia being the target instead of Poland.

By Graham Robson-Parker - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50055652

Germany rarely sends troops to fight overseas with N.A.T.O. because of the NAZI heritage and it is convenient to get NATO protection. Germany does have maybe the best troops carrier with automatic weapons, yet it costs 12 million dollars and Russia's are almost as good as though of Turkey that cost just a couple million. In any case Germany won't use their armor anyplace unless Russia attacks... it must be a joke to envision Germany sending some of those 12 million dollar armored personnel carriers to Afghanistan.

Poland worries to much about Russia- wasn't it the Germans that invaded Poland, while the Soviets liberated it? Poles do contribute to NATO missions well enough. Even so NATO HQ should be moved to England with a dual HQ in Poland and the Tusk of NATO should be replaced by some Polish fellow so they will feel better. Maybe Poland would like Germany to send some of the 12 million dollar Boxer troops carriers to patrol their frontier to race Russian troops carriers on Saturdays?