Posted on 01/21/2012 2:00:14 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Two large elements dominate the debate over Barack Obamas decision to re-deploy the U.S. overseas military forces: the political views of preternatural isolationists and the paucity of perspective by news presenters. The isolationists demand that all troops be brought home now.
The national media are ignorant of why we have a military presence outside our borders to start with. No news outlet I know of has presented the background that explains why the U.S. has a military presence in key areas around the world. This fuels the isolationist cause, leaving Americans to decide between re-deployment or no deployment. The issue is exacerbated in the back of the collective mind in the context of the terrific budget deficit. And our efforts abroad appear to be failures and to add to America's bad image.
Since no one else will, let's review the situation.
Before World War I, America was allegedly isolationist, heeding George Washington's warning not to become involved in European wars. And having established our unique representative democracy against the British empire, there has always been a strong anti-imperialist attitude in these United States. Seems simple enough, except for the reality that the U.S., well before entering the European conflict in 1917, had been quietly building an empire of its own.
This is best exemplified by the spoils from the Spanish-American War of 1898 that included Cuba ,the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, which added to our previous possession of parts of Mexico that stood in our way on the road to building a transcontinental nation. We purchased Alaska from Russia -- and took over various islands, including Hawaii. And we enforced the Monroe Doctrine, an obvious big-power policy that smacked of imperialism, which threatened war against European interlopers who ventured into Central and Latin America.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Because the US Military has become the largest provider of welfare on the planet. That’s why.
You bet, and the fact there are thousands who've become extremely wealthy from it, while tens of millions of Americans watch their own borders, standard of living and economy become undermined and compromised.
There’s that, too.
Probably because most US bases are in places where no one really wants to live. If families didn’t have a chance to travel around the world, there would be way less re-enlistments.
I think a reasonable approach would be between blindly following the status quo, and Ron Paul isolationism. We should do with our military commitments what Rick Perry suggested for foriegn aid. That is, review everywhere we have forces stationed with the assumption that each one must justify the cost and necessity. For example, I see no reason for us to be in Korea anymore. South Korea is a rich, modern country. If Israel can defend themselves without our troops, so can South Korea. Like Israel they should develop their own nuclear deterent. I can’t see any reason not to considering NK has them. I also think we should reconsider our strategy in Afghanistan. Nation building will never work there, because they are not a nation, and the majority of Afghanis will resist any attempt to impose a national government. We should keep a force of Marines there to hunt down terrorists, pay off tribal leaders, and otherwise leave them alone. Just MHO.
Yet there is a cult still following that lying isolationist nutcase Paul.
Yes...we cannot afford this any longer. Western Europe, Korea and other places are going to have to take care of themselves.
Quite a deal for Europe all things considered. The US saves their socialist butts not once but twice from Germany, foots the bill to rebuild the continent after the second time, then provides all of their security while they give away all the money they don’t have to spend on security to people who want stuff for free.
They establish a role model of entitlement that certain segments of our society dream passionately for on a daily basis. The dreamers never once think that they can’t have those freebies because we gave everything away already to their role models and we have to keep spending money on defense for the entire world because nobbdy else will, even if they could afford it.
Europe: Made possible by the US taxpayer and the US military.
Now we could bring all those troops home and stop being everyone’s protector. But once home and the military was dramatically downsized, exactly where would all those former military personnel work? We have no jobs now without throwing all of them out of the military. Without jobs and military housing, what would their families do? We owe them for their sacrifice and service but in reality what would we do with them?
Guard the borders? OK, but ALL of them? A problem without and easy solution, for sure.
That's the ticket. Equate isolation with Paul and with nutcase. Nevermind the globalists and internationalists are bleeding us into poverty toward the dustbin of history.
That's the ticket. Equate isolation with Paul and with nutcase. Nevermind the globalists and internationalists are bleeding us into poverty toward the dustbin of history.
Exactly which part of “we’re broke” is giving you the most trouble, Skippy?
There are several reasons for our current military configuration.
First of these are the “Unified Combatant Commands”, which have essentially subdivided the entire world into regions of US interest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Combatant_Command
This is a holdover from the Cold War, in which almost any place not watched by the US would experience attempts by the Soviet Union to bring it into their sphere of influence. They basically subdivided the world the same way as we did, but with the idea of creating communist regimes.
With the end of the Cold War, the US took upon itself the role of “world policeman”, basically asserting that its national interests were so widespread that it should be able to horn in to any dispute it wanted to.
However, added to that was the more Democrat party idea that military forces could be deployed hither and yon for *diplomatic* and intelligence purposes. Today this means that though realistically speaking, the US has only a dozen areas around the world that are militarily critical, it has forces deployed to over 100 countries, many unable to *do* anything other than to “maintain a presence” there.
Alternatively, the Republican party idea was to try and position our forces where *in the future* it was anticipated there was going to be animosity, civil war and war.
Probably the *least* interesting place, where nobody in particular wanted US forces, is the majority of Africa. But about everywhere else is fair game.
However, taking all of this into account, the leaders of the United States need to make some major, cost saving reevaluations.
First of all, figure out where all our critical deployments need to be today and in the near future. Second, what deployments are outdated or fruitless, accomplish nothing and waste resources.
[This gets very serious with “disputes the US has no interest in” (and just “peace” is not enough). The bottom line: unless nuclear war is a possibility, or a war will likely spread to become a much larger conflict, it is *not* our problem.]
Third, we must recalculate “force projection”. While we pride ourselves in our navy, we also need simpler, more practical ships *not* designed for modern naval warfare, but just routine functions.
A good analogy is how are now ancient B-52 bombers, low cost, easy maintenance, close to expendable, are so useful compared to our modern bombers that B-52s are used all the time. The same rationale applies to ships.
Certainly we need *some* high tech, cutting edge technologies, but for the most part we just need school buses and dump trucks, figuratively speaking.
When is the Right ever going to learn?
When someone on the Left proposes an idea that is out of the park, waaay past the foul line, the Left uses that proposal to make an intermediary step between the status quo and that far goalpost seem "reasonable". Then they push for it as if it is.
On the Right, however, whenever someone breaks ranks, we have the pitchforks and flamethrowers out before even the Left can respond, and incinerate our own 'extremists' before the Left does.
How tidy.
It also means we are stuck negotiating with their extremists with no counterbalancing viewpoint on our side.
And we wonder why conservatives can't effect any change back from the damage the left has done.
Stuck on stupid, the cycle repeats...
I guess the moon bat isolationists and those here are all inclusive
There may be some valid reasons to reconsider certain military commitments, but our alleged inability to afford it isn't one of them. We currently spend around 4% of GDP on the entire defense budget. That includes the cost of the wars, troops overseas, everything. Contrary to Ron Paul's claims, it isn't defense that is bankrupting us.
Four percent of GDP is significantly less than we were spending during the Reagan years, is less than we were spending when Clinton took office, and is even less than Jimmy Carter spent when he was dismantling our forces. That's just a fact, so for the Paulbots to claim otherwise just makes them look silly(er).
The only reason we were able to save the world time after time was a population that DID NOT WANT TO FIGHT. We sat out, watched the world go to shi’ite...this time literally... then stepped in with serious misgivings. The people were not tired of fighting, they were full of righteous indignation, and full of the will to set things right. Now, we are broke, sick of fighting, and mad that we have expended so much, with no real end in sight. Next time we really need to go all out, we will find that people will not believe the jingoism of “saving civilization” whether true or not. The nation is tired, tired of endless war, and unwilling to defend others. The nation leading the next war, will be us. We will lead others to a likely victory, but will be like Britain after WW II. A nation with a proud tradition, and no money or will. We will find ourselves on the ash heap of history, looking at others fall prey to the “need” to police the world. A tired, and self serving people, with selfishness and lethargy all around. THAT is why we must pull back, give our treasury and citizens a chance to regroup, to recoup our legacy of honor and “Republicanism.” When needed, we will again be ready.
Runninglips, please see my post above yours. You may or may not have some other valid points to make but you simply cannot claim that the treasury needs a break due to military spending. It is SOCIAL SPENDING that is bankrupting us.
Spending on our military is fully 48% of the discretionary Federal budget. Comparing it to GDP is meaningless. It's like comparing it to the number of Twinkies produced by Hostess.
The Defense Department is only 20% of the US budget. The number one objective of the United States Constitution, as clearly spelled out right up front in the Premble is to “provide for the common defense”. Yet that nutcase anti-defense, Truther, let terrorist have nukes, praise traitors isolationist Ron Paul wants to close ALL US bases and gut the military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.