Replies

That would be abandoning our allies. I don't think that's going to happen and it would not be a good thing.

That seems to be the President's goal. He was very clear this morning on his ultimate goal of bringing troops back from overseas. He noted it won't take place overnight but if he has any say in it then it will take place. And I take that to mean Japan as well as Korea. He's complained about the cost time and again.

Our southeast asian allies are a lot different than our western European allies.

If the President is that adamant about bringing troops home from Korea then I would say that all the troops in Europe should be expecting to be packing up and coming home as well.

"He's complained about the cost time and again."

Speaking as a military man who spent the large majority of my adult life in it and am now retired from it, how do you measure the costs of national security? I am more libertarian than conservative so I'm all about cutting government waste, not allowing the concentration of power in any branch of government and devolving power down to the most local levels, in short republicanism.

However, the preamble of the constitution clearly gives the power of national security to the federal government (provide for the common defense). Our founders were against a large standing army as clearly seen in the debates at the constitutional convention and the Federalist papers. It was shown they were wrong about having a standing army as James Madison (one of the authors of the Federalist papers) learned as President in the war of 1812. The militia was just not going to cut it.

We need to keep a powerful military and have it forward deployed in key strategic areas to ensure peace, tranquility and the free flow of trade across the globe. If we don't the costs will be catastrophic. To quote another founder Ben Franklin, that would be penny wise and pound foolish.