The Bush administration has a good idea:

President Bush on Monday announced plans to shift as many as 70,000 U.S. troops who are now stationed in Western Europe and Asia in one of the largest realignments since the end of the Cold War.

Some of the troops would be moved to posts in Eastern Europe while others would be based in the United States, available for deployment overseas, White House officials said. It remained unclear if the overall number of U.S. troops stationed overseas would drop.

The action follows years of debate over how to position U.S. troops to respond to modern-day threats such as terrorism and continued unrest in the Middle East.

So it's not an exit strategy, but it's a strategy to put troops in better, more strategic places. It's a new century. We're fighting new enemies. We need new positions. I can agree with that.

There was one bit, however, that piqued my interest:

The United States has also said it plans to reduce troop numbers in South Korea, where they have held static positions for 50 years.

Uh...

So what are we doing? Are we leaving the area to fend for themselves against Kim Jong Il? Are we bowing down to the requests of North Korea? If we're realigning troops to have easier access to where the action is, isn't North Korea a potential action spot? Or are we, ahem, surrendering, placating North Korea? I'm not trying to fabricate reasons for this, but considering how little North Korea is discussed these days, this is probably a good question to ask.

So, Mr. President, why are we reducing the number of troops in South Korea, an area threatened by a country you placed in the Axis of Evil and has theatened new-cue-lar attacks?

I know he reads this blog, so I'll be sure to post his answer.