Many conservatives realize that our current national debt cannot be sustained indefinitely. We demand that federal social spending be cut and rightfully so. Defense should not be immune to the knife. We all know there is plenty of wasteful spending in the department of defense. We have all heard of the $600 toilet seats, the $400 hammers, etc. No doubt this needs attention. But as for our global presence where could we start? Many would say Iraq. But I think some of our long term military deployments should be looked at as well.

Many of our long term deployments have been based on a post WWII/Cold War strategy. Preventing the re-militarization of Japan & Germany and the opposing of the Soviet Union. Its now been 65yrs since the conclusion of WWII. We have been subsidizing the defense of these nations in order to prevent their rearmament. We cannot afford to do so indefinitely.

At some point we must trust them with the sole responsibility of their own defense of their homeland. They can still depend on us to assist in their defense in time of need, but is our continued presence on their soil in a major way necessary? What would be the ramifications of the US leaving their soil? They would still allow us to use their bases as needed. They may have to increase their own defense budgets and take another look at their social spending. Many forget that the reasons these nations are able to sustain their social spending is because the US subsidizes their defense.

Lets start with Japan. Their people don't want us on their soil. Their government knows if we leave they will have to increase defense spending especially with Chinese and North Korean threats directly to the west. Their constitution denies them offensive military capabilty. I say we leave and force them to man up. I don't fear the Japs anymore. I fear them no more than the British or the French. The Japanese people have learned the value of democratic government and capitalism. Lets trust them to protect those values and help provide a balance of power in the Pacific.

http://www.startribune.com/world/83146542.html

Actually SECDEF Gates has been mentioning this problem and wants ot move in that direction. He wants to move from a largely conventional force to a highly adaptive, fast moving force. This explains the cutting of the F-22 (a Cold War bird).

But, the problem is largely with the service brass, who are always resistant to radical change in doctrine that would result in losses or large changes in their command structure. History is filled with examples of military brass slowing up new programs or not cutting others. (Aircraft carriers, Trident subs, Strykers, Land Warrior, F35)

Close 'em all down.

Yeah I think we are in like 130 countries right now, currently costing $1 trillion (with a T) per year. Start by closing the ones in Japan, Germany, Vietnam, Korea. Eventually, the total should be around 5 for right now, but I would like to see them all closed. End this pointless war on an enemy that we will never eradicate.

bigmanbt wrote: Yeah I think we are in like 130 countries right now, currently costing $1 trillion (with a T) per year. Start by closing the ones in Japan, Germany, Vietnam, Korea. Eventually, the total should be around 5 for right now, but I would like to see them all closed. End this pointless war on an enemy that we will never eradicate.

Where is the trillion coming from? Also, we have a base in Vietnam?
The bases in Korea are dependent on the situation in North Korea, so we will not pull out there unless that situation actually produces a viable peace treaty.

We should be out of almost everywhere.

fish82 wrote: Close 'em all down.

This.

The problem is you cant close them down just to close them down. Japan and Germany both have purposes in supporting activity in that part of the world. Japan gives us reach across the pacific and Germany allows us to support the middle east. Korea obviously is there to defend Korea, they cant be bothered with doing the role of the bases in Japan.

I dont see anything wrong with having bases in ally countries, helps build relationships that hopefully can keep us from going to war with each other. haha plus many US civilians work on those bases, do you want unemployment to continue to go up right now?

How would you feel glory, if China had a military base right down the street from you, and Germany had 1 a couple blocks away from you right here in the US? I imagine you wouldn't like it, just like the citizens of most of the countries we have bases in don't like it (this was the main reason for the 9/11 attacks, occupation of holy-land in Saudi Arabia).

We should be in Korea and Afghanistan and begin withdrawing from Iraq. Everywhere else we should gtfo.

bigmanbt wrote: How would you feel glory, if China had a military base right down the street from you, and Germany had 1 a couple blocks away from you right here in the US? I imagine you wouldn't like it, just like the citizens of most of the countries we have bases in don't like it (this was the main reason for the 9/11 attacks, occupation of holy-land in Saudi Arabia).

Germany, i wouldnt care. China, probably but thats because we arent exactly allies. we may not have foreign bases in our country, but many countries(including middle eastern countries) send soldiers here to train on our bases.

also, i know not everyone is big on giving aid to countries when natural disasters strike, but because of our bases around the world, we are able to provide that aid faster than any other country out there. but hey, who gives a shit about anyone but ourselves right?

Glory Days wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: How would you feel glory, if China had a military base right down the street from you, and Germany had 1 a couple blocks away from you right here in the US? I imagine you wouldn't like it, just like the citizens of most of the countries we have bases in don't like it (this was the main reason for the 9/11 attacks, occupation of holy-land in Saudi Arabia).

Germany, i wouldnt care. China, probably but thats because we arent exactly allies. we may not have foreign bases in our country, but many countries(including middle eastern countries) send soldiers here to train on our bases.

also, i know not everyone is big on giving aid to countries when natural disasters strike, but because of our bases around the world, we are able to provide that aid faster than any other country out there. but hey, who gives a shit about anyone but ourselves right?

we're gonna need aid soon when China calls in their debt

We have over 700 military posts around the world. I think we can pull out of a few of them. We should keep a few strategic bases and pull the rest home.

1. Germany
2. South Korea
3. Qatar/Kuwait

All the rest aren't needed and are simply money wasters.

Glory Days wrote:

bigmanbt wrote: How would you feel glory, if China had a military base right down the street from you, and Germany had 1 a couple blocks away from you right here in the US? I imagine you wouldn't like it, just like the citizens of most of the countries we have bases in don't like it (this was the main reason for the 9/11 attacks, occupation of holy-land in Saudi Arabia).

Germany, i wouldnt care. China, probably but thats because we arent exactly allies. we may not have foreign bases in our country, but many countries(including middle eastern countries) send soldiers here to train on our bases.

also, i know not everyone is big on giving aid to countries when natural disasters strike, but because of our bases around the world, we are able to provide that aid faster than any other country out there. but hey, who gives a shit about anyone but ourselves right?

Those middle eastern countries that we have bases in don't want us there. We have been booted from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

eersandbeers wrote: We have over 700 military posts around the world. I think we can pull out of a few of them. We should keep a few strategic bases and pull the rest home.

1. Germany
2. South Korea
3. Qatar/Kuwait

All the rest aren't needed and are simply money wasters.

Pretty much spot on. With our quick strike and long range capabilities, posts in other countries are not really needed.

Glory Days wrote: The problem is you cant close them down just to close them down. Japan and Germany both have purposes in supporting activity in that part of the world. Japan gives us reach across the pacific and Germany allows us to support the middle east. Korea obviously is there to defend Korea, they cant be bothered with doing the role of the bases in Japan.

I dont see anything wrong with having bases in ally countries, helps build relationships that hopefully can keep us from going to war with each other. haha plus many US civilians work on those bases, do you want unemployment to continue to go up right now?

We have reportedly 20 thousand military personnel in Germany and over 40 thousand in Japan.

Where's the money coming from for this? Hitler and Hirohito are dead.

Many on the so-called right want to cut deeply into social programs but when the military is brought up, they quickly label anyone un-patriotic or un-American if they want to cut a dime. There is going to have to be a balance to get our financial house back in order or we won't be able to have much of either if we are bankrupt.

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: The problem is you cant close them down just to close them down. Japan and Germany both have purposes in supporting activity in that part of the world. Japan gives us reach across the pacific and Germany allows us to support the middle east. Korea obviously is there to defend Korea, they cant be bothered with doing the role of the bases in Japan.

I dont see anything wrong with having bases in ally countries, helps build relationships that hopefully can keep us from going to war with each other. haha plus many US civilians work on those bases, do you want unemployment to continue to go up right now?

We have reportedly 20 thousand military personnel in Germany and over 40 thousand in Japan.

Where's the money coming from for this? Hitler and Hirohito are dead.

OK, bring those troops back home, where are you going to put 60,000 more troops? most of the bases here in the states are overcrowded as it is. plus for the past several years bases have been closing here in the states forcing those military personnel elsewhere. its going to take millions or billions or whatever made up number of dollars you come up with to support them wherever they are.

Footwedge wrote: We have reportedly 20 thousand military personnel in Germany and over 40 thousand in Japan.

Where's the money coming from for this? Hitler and Hirohito are dead.

Germany also has one of the best hospitals for our wounded soldiers. Get rid of that and you lose a valuable life saving tool for many soldiers in the field.

Japan is a tougher nut, but is essential given the closeness of the alliance. Plus, the Japanese do not have a defense force and rely on the U.S. for security. Case in point, the debate of the nuclear tomahawk and extended deterrence.

I can see bases in a few countries like South Korea, Qatar and Germany but that should be about it. Frankly, Japan is probably going to have to defend itself eventually. Our country is in a deep financial mess that is going to take decent cuts in everything and better economic policies to start to climb out of.

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: The problem is you cant close them down just to close them down. Japan and Germany both have purposes in supporting activity in that part of the world. Japan gives us reach across the pacific and Germany allows us to support the middle east. Korea obviously is there to defend Korea, they cant be bothered with doing the role of the bases in Japan.

I dont see anything wrong with having bases in ally countries, helps build relationships that hopefully can keep us from going to war with each other. haha plus many US civilians work on those bases, do you want unemployment to continue to go up right now?

We have reportedly 20 thousand military personnel in Germany and over 40 thousand in Japan.

Where's the money coming from for this? Hitler and Hirohito are dead.

OK, bring those troops back home, where are you going to put 60,000 more troops? most of the bases here in the states are overcrowded as it is. plus for the past several years bases have been closing here in the states forcing those military personnel elsewhere. its going to take millions or billions or whatever made up number of dollars you come up with to support them wherever they are.

*gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

I Wear Pants wrote: *gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

no. as long as China, Russia, and North Korea have larger militaries than ours, i dont think we should get smaller. and whether you agree or not, our military is pretty busy right now and could use those 60,000. when looking up the numbers on sizes of other armies, its pretty interesting to see that in relation to our population, our military is pretty small.

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: *gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

no. as long as China, Russia, and North Korea have larger militaries than ours, i dont think we should get smaller. and whether you agree or not, our military is pretty busy right now and could use those 60,000. when looking up the numbers on sizes of other armies, its pretty interesting to see that in relation to our population, our military is pretty small.

I'm pretty sure that we have a larger military than Russia and North Korea, but can't find any numbers to back that up. Or, at least active duty troops.

Glory Days wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: *gasp* Did you ever think that we might not need those 60,000 troops?

no. as long as China, Russia, and North Korea have larger militaries than ours, i dont think we should get smaller. and whether you agree or not, our military is pretty busy right now and could use those 60,000. when looking up the numbers on sizes of other armies, its pretty interesting to see that in relation to our population, our military is pretty small.

Glory days...you need to post the numbers you speak of. None of that is true.

Glory Days wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Glory Days wrote: The problem is you cant close them down just to close them down. Japan and Germany both have purposes in supporting activity in that part of the world. Japan gives us reach across the pacific and Germany allows us to support the middle east. Korea obviously is there to defend Korea, they cant be bothered with doing the role of the bases in Japan.

I dont see anything wrong with having bases in ally countries, helps build relationships that hopefully can keep us from going to war with each other. haha plus many US civilians work on those bases, do you want unemployment to continue to go up right now?

We have reportedly 20 thousand military personnel in Germany and over 40 thousand in Japan.

Where's the money coming from for this? Hitler and Hirohito are dead.

OK, bring those troops back home, where are you going to put 60,000 more troops? most of the bases here in the states are overcrowded as it is. plus for the past several years bases have been closing here in the states forcing those military personnel elsewhere. its going to take millions or billions or whatever made up number of dollars you come up with to support them wherever they are.

So you are for employing people that are non productive in regards to the GDP? Just so you know, that is a page directly out of the liberal playbook.

But let me add in my opinion....this is the exact reason why the military is in fact expanding...when there is no reason to expand. It's just another tool in keeping the masses employed, while the provate sector migrates overseas.

Eventually, this type of macro economic thinking will destroy our way of life.

Perhaps 60,000 troops severance checks, thank them for their service...use the money that would have been paid out for the remainder of their contract to help them find training or schooling to find a job in the private sector and let them serve as ready reserves? But, of course, somehow we're going to have to find jobs for them here I guess and that's the problem as others have suggested. Perhaps the feds can pony up their would be salary to state and local governments so they can hire them as more police and fire?