Replies

Why can't we bring them home?

The logistics of deploying would be a nightmare if we didn't have footholds around the globe. Plus, our presence acts as a deterrent and can also be used as a sign of goodwill. I like the fact that we are looking to let the malcontents fend for themselves and lose the economic benefits of our presence...

If by footholds around the globe you're referring to air and naval bases, I'd agree they're needed. If you're referring to large, permanent stationing of ground forces, I'd strongly disagree. By spreading our forces around the globe we create a logistics nightmare when it comes time to send them where they're needed. This is particularly true with the current small (10 division) Army. As an example, we've had 2/3rds of 2 divisions in Germany for the last few years. When it came time to move our tanks to Kosovo the Army found (after fifty years in Germany) that we couldn't ship our tanks to Kosovo through Switzerland because the tunnels were too small. It turned out the fastest way to get tanks to Kosovo was via Savannah, GA and not Germany.

We have 70,000 or so GIs (and their dependents) in Germany. They're maintained at huge cost and have no mission. Almost all of our ground forces should be permanently stationed here in the US. My guess is it'd be cheaper to rebuild our Navy and increase our startegic airlift capability to ensure we could get wherever we need to go than to continue to keep large ground forces overseas.

Beyond the financial and operational advantages we'd enjoy from concentrating our forces here we'd also reduce the inclination on the part of some to commit our forces just because they're there - as in Bosnia, for example.