>IMO, (but correct me if I'm wrong), the US presence in the cold war served two main purposes
>1. To have presence in europe, so to be at the source of information.
>2. To give a political signal to russia to prevent them from doing stupid things or else they would be in war with the US as well.
>
>Not sure how many troops were there, but the force of the american on esspecially the ground troops were insignificant compared to the military power of the forces already present. It served a geo political purpose.

If you are referring to the cold-war days (after WWII up to the drawdown of US troops), I agree that it served a geo political purpose, but not that it was insignificant. It was US troops on what was considered the 'front-line' of defense, so even though small in number, we were the sacrificial lambs.

Back in 2004, the US had more than 100,000 troops in Europe, and another 100,000 all throughout Asia and the Pacific. Before that, the US maintained a force of troops to sustain a security commitment to Europe and NATO (it was required by agreements and it was thought that the most likely battleground for WWIII would be Germany), and because if future conflicts in the Middle East occurred, troops stationed in Europe could move quickly. American troops were stationed in Asia to deter a NKorean invasion of SKorea and to 'promote stability in East Asia.' Japan pays the U.S. 2 billion a year to defend it.

I was stationed in Germany in the mid 80s and was located near Fulda (in Fulda for a time, then Wurzburg and Schweinfurt). We were briefed on our mission and frankly, it was simply to holdout 3 days - the amount of time it was hoped US troops could provide security until reinforcements arrived. During my time there, it was not unusual to see Soviet agents. There was a real scare in 1983 while I was there and all troops were on alert. The general public was not aware of it:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/a-cold-war-conundrum/source.htm