Last week, George Bush unveiled a plan to withdraw 70,000 troops from Europe and Asia in the largest military reshuffling in 15 years. They’ll be moved to the Middle East and away from Cold War strategic positions.

It looks like someone in the Department of Defense finally read a history book.

America’s global military posture hasn’t changed since the height of the Red Scare. Thousands of troops are stationed in Germany, Japan and South Korea, which sit at the edge of the defunct Soviet Union. Basically, we’re spending billions of dollars and wasting troops to contain a threat that no longer exists.

None of those countries need our help anymore (South Korea excluded). Germany is threatened by absolutely no one except pockets of Muslim extremists that don’t warrant thousands of troops. Japan, which technically has no offensive military, spends $43 billion a year on defense, making it the fourth-largest military in the world.

South Korea might be threatened by its northern aggressor but is stronger than North Korea thanks to decades of a strong capitalistic engine (count the number of Hyundais and Kias on the road).

Redeploying the troops to potential flashpoints will create a more flexible and mobilized military. This is a necessary step in a world where terrorists attack more sporadically than an aggressive nation.

America should have redeployed the troops ten years ago. Had Clinton done the deed, many current reservists — including ISU students — wouldn’t be overseas right now. Most of these civilian troops don’t want to be on the front lines; they are cash-strapped students who want to pay tuition by giving the military one weekend a month, two weeks a year.

Gen. Wesley Clark said that moving these troops would hurt America’s already-strained relationship with NATO. However, having unnecessary levels of troops in these three countries doesn’t exactly make locals wave American flags. America’s base in Seoul sits in the middle of the city and is the equivalent of a foreign military base built over Central Park.

Bush isn’t doing this out of principle — he needs to convince voters that Iraq can be stabilized, and this can’t happen without more soldiers. That doesn’t mean it’s a bad decision. This plan is the first good news in the presidential election for deficit hawks and those afraid America’s footprint on the world is too large.

Next time, the Bush administration shouldn’t leave its troops lingering overseas for decades because of poor history knowledge, nor should it keep them there to pay lip service to NATO.

We send troops overseas because we need to, not as a symbolic gesture to a bygone era.