The general nominated to lead U.S. European Command said Thursday the Army should move another combat brigade to Europe to counter Russian aggression and also consider a range of military options that "keep everything on the table."
U.S. Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti told lawmakers that he supports proposals to boost the U.S. Army's permanent presence in Europe beyond the current force of two brigades despite the strain that might put on the Army and the Pentagon's global forces.
"I understand the services' challenges in terms of ... resources to provide a permanently stationed brigade at this time. But I personally believe a permanently stationed armored brigade in Europe would be best," Scaparrotti said told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Scaparrotti, who is currently head of U.S. forces in Korea, was testifying at a confirmation hearing to become the next EUCOM chief, a post that would also make him the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, or the top commander of the North Atlantic Alliance. If confirmed, he would replace Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove.
Scaparrotti's comments come as high-level Pentagon officials have begun discussing plans to permanently move one or more Army brigade combat teams back to Europe to shore up allied defenses against the Russians.
Such a move could involve thousands of troops — an average BCT is composed of between 3,000 and 5,000 personnel — and mark the first time in decades that U.S. European Command has increased its footprint on the continent.
For now, EUCOM has only two brigades garrisoned in Europe, both light infantry brigades — the 173rd Airborne out of Vicenza, Italy, and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Vilseck, Germany.
Military planners worry that U.S. and NATO forces would be quickly overwhelmed in an unexpected fight against the far larger Russian force aligned along NATO's eastern border.
Scaparrotti was referring to an increase in addition to the new brigade-size force that would rotate through Eastern Europe as part of the $3.4 billion "European Reassurance Initiative" included in the Pentagon's latest budget request. Those rotational forces would increase the overall force in Europe with temporary deployments of brigades that are based in the United States.
Tension with Russia flared last week when a Russian warplane mounted a "simulated attack" a U.S. Navy destroyer in the Baltic Sea near the coast of Poland and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. The Russian Su-34 came within 30 feet of the ship in a maneuver American officials called "unsafe and unprofessional."
On Thursday one senator asked Scaparrotti whether the U.S. military should take a more aggressive stance toward Russia, for example "dabble in showing up on the border of Ukraine and Russia.
In response, Scaparrotti said: "I would just say ... we should keep everything on the table.
"I believe that from a military perspective, we should sail and fly wherever we are allowed to by international law, and we should be strong, clear and consistent in our message in that regard," Scaparrotti said.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked the general whether the U.S. should threaten the Russians with more aggressive responses to the provocations.
"This may sound a little tough, but should we make an announcement to the Russians that, if they place the lives of our men and women on board Navy ships in danger, that we will take appropriate action?" McCain asked.
"Sir, I will. That should be known, yes," Scaparrotti said.
The Pentagon severed it's official military-to-military relationship with Russia in 2014 after Russia invaded and seized Ukraine's Crimea Peninsula.
Yet last year the two militaries forged a "memorandum of understanding" outlining rules and safety measures for sharing the skies over Syria, where both air forces are conducting daily air strikes in support of different factions in the civil war there. After the April 12 incident in the Baltic Sea, U.S. military officials lodged an official complaint with the Russians.
"We have open mil-to-mil channels and our displeasure with their conduct has been relayed to them," Navy Captain Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Thursday.
"We're not at war with Russia. We have no reason to believe they are going to be attacking our ships," Davis said.
"But that [ship's] commanding officer, with his inherent right of self-defense, has to make a split second decision. We don't want him to miscalculate based on their inappropriate behavior.
The Russian warplane was unarmed, but that was only evident after is flew over the ship's deck, Davis said.
"Sure, it would be very clear after a single pass of the airplane, when they look at it and say 'OK wings are clean – that it's not an attack.' But a commander wouldn't necessary know that when its first starting."
"You don't want to have miscalculations …that could lead to larger conflict," Davis said.
Andrew Tilghman is the executive editor for Military Times. He is a former Military Times Pentagon reporter and served as a Middle East correspondent for the Stars and Stripes. Before covering the military, he worked as a reporter for the Houston Chronicle in Texas, the Albany Times Union in New York and The Associated Press in Milwaukee.
