Should US Forces Go Home?

[onthebottom]

With 350,000 troops overseas http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/global-deployments.htm and 145k guard and reserve troops on active duty, is it time for the US to assume an isolationist stance? The US is bearing an enormous human and financial cost to protect Europeans from Europeans, Asians from Asians and now Middle Easterners from Middle Easterners. While US military activity in the Middle East and Central /South America is of debatable value I can see no reason for the US to keep forces in Europe or Asia.

I think many Americans would support pulling all our troops home from Europe (surely the powerful EU should be able to police it’s own region) and Asia and many Americans would also support our pulling troops out of Iraq and the entire Middle East after there is a credible security force in Iraq – made up of Iraqis. Americans are becoming weary of paying the price (3% of GDP) to defend much of the world from itself and getting nothing but distain for its efforts.

What do you think?

OTB

 

[red]

yes. Take them home and downsize your military. Its way too big a burden on the tax payer

 

[superquad1968]

Short Answer: Yes

Pros:
Cheaper financial cost
Cheaper human cost
Better international relations - ironic

Cons:
Less influence
Weaker economy due to less military spending - debatable
Bush would appear weaker in front of an election - or is that a pro?

SQ

 

[Drunken Master]

Americans are becoming weary of paying the price (3% of GDP) to defend much of the world from itself and getting nothing but distain for its efforts.

What do you think?

OTB

But OTB, I thought the American military only intervened in defense of American interests? Wasn't that why GWB invented whole "WMD" justification?



Tell you what, I won't pretend that US military power hasn't often been a force a good in the world, if you won't pretend that the US military/intelligence hasn't just as often "defended American interests" at the expense of local concerns - and lives.

Tell you what no.2: Why don't you guys withdraw your military from all fronts for a least a year, and if all of us barbarians start killing ourselves, we'll invite you back.

 

[onthebottom]

If the US adopted a more isolationist stance, it wouldn't be long before their electorate started questioning the size of the US military budget. If the armed forces and their expensive toys aren't perceived as being regularly called upon for justifiable military interventions, they will soon be seen as unnecessary and excessive. I think the public would want to see military spending reduced drastically. They might tolerate spending a few extra $billion on purely defensive weapon systems like star wars or on homeland security but I think spending overall would still have to drop sharply.

I would welcome this from a moral and political standpoint but I wonder how the US economy would react if that huge military component suddenly started shrinking. I'm no economist and I haven't bothered to searching for the relevant facts, but it seems to me that this disruption to the US economy could be serious.

On the other hand, If the US were to combine this new isolationist stance with a general cleanup of its foreign policy, including a ban on supporting corrupt/totalitarian regimes, it might only take about 30 years or so for the rest of the world to stop demonizing Americans.

I also think the money that is currently being spent on the US military could be diverted towards alternative energy research and development, humanitarian initiatives, health care, or any number of ecologically beneficial projects etc. These would serve humankind far better in the long run and would allow the US to show more leadership in these crucial areas. God knows we don't need more smart bombs or stupid SUV's but a reduction in cross border air and water pollution would be kinda nice.

With defense spending at 3.x% of GDP I don't think a smaller military would have a substantive effect on the US economy. We would need fewer troops but those that we housed/feed would be done at US bases supporting US businesses, I'm not enough of an economist to weigh the positive / negative effect of that. The NAVY could remain in tact, those Carrier Battle Groups have an effect when they park their power off shore.

We could use any spare funds to shore up our retirement mess (like all rich countries) or give it back to its owners in the form of tax relief.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Should US Forces Go Home?

But OTB, I thought the American military only intervened in defense of American interests? Wasn't that why GWB invented whole "WMD" justification?

Why else would the US intervene? The problem is our interests are heavily overlapped with everyone else's (oil out of the Middle East, China not invading Taiwan) but we seem to get stuck with the bill.

Tell you what, I won't pretend that US military power hasn't often been a force a good in the world, if you won't pretend that the US military/intelligence hasn't just as often "defended American interests" at the expense of local concerns - and lives.

I'm not pretending that at all (thus my Central / South American comment). I just think we could stop the drug trade from Central / South America (and illegal alien issue) if we used those AWACs and 350k ground troops on our Southern boarder. Then there would be no reason to send troops and aid to support *sshat dictators to try and stem the drug flow.

Tell you what no.2: Why don't you guys withdraw your military from all fronts for a least a year, and if all of us barbarians start killing ourselves, we'll invite you back.

Tell you what, when you start killing yourself we'll watch it on CNN and wait for the UN to intervene - it worked in Rwanda right?

OTB

 

[Drunken Master]

Re: Re: Re: Should US Forces Go Home?

Tell you what, when you start killing yourself we'll watch it on CNN and wait for the UN to intervene - it worked in Rwanda right?

OTB

Oh, I could mention that little adventure in Somalia, but since both of our countries participated in that debacle I'll leave it alone.

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Should US Forces Go Home?

Oh, I could mention that little adventure in Somalia, but since both of our countries participated in that debacle I'll leave it alone.

Where we got shot up delivering food and hunting a warlord? See, trying to do good never pays.

OTB

 

[Drunken Master]

Neither does fucking up, delivering food into the hands of the worldlords instead of the people, going after a single warlord and choosing sides in a nasty civil war, and leaving a country in worse shape than when you entered. Can we really be surprised that when the US goes running in somewhere shouting "We've got good intentions! We're here to help you!" people run the other way? The military escapades of the last decade hardly inspire confidence.

 

[onthebottom]

Neither does fucking up, delivering food into the hands of the worldlords instead of the people, going after a single warlord and choosing sides in a nasty civil war, and leaving a country in worse shape than when you entered. Can we really be surprised that when the US goes running in somewhere shouting "We've got good intentions! We're here to help you!" people run the other way? The military escapades of the last decade hardly inspire confidence.

And thus the reason to go home and leave it to the UN.

OTB

 

[Drunken Master]

And thus the reason to go home and leave it to the UN.

OTB

Oh, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't like to say who would win a Fuck Up Contest between the US and UN.

 

[onthebottom]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't like to say who would win a Fuck Up Contest between the US and UN.

But it's cheaper to let the UN do it, I also think we should kick them out of NY and let Trump develop the site (can't you see a Trump UN condo package....) but that's another thread.

OTB

 

[oldjones]

But it's cheaper to let the UN do it, I also think we should kick them out of NY and let Trump develop the site (can't you see a Trump UN condo package....) but that's another thread.

OTB

BTW; is the US finally up-to-date with its delinquent UN dues?

 

[*d*]

The US should not retreat to an isolationist policy, it would not serve anyone's interest. But what the US should do is to get more involved in issues that do not have to do with advancing US corporate interests or in looking after the oil supply.

The US should be part of the team, rather than trying to be the entire team.

The US went into Somolia and Yugoslavia with the right intentions. What the US has to do is to understand that it can be a force for "good", if it truely believes in democracy, then it should work within the "democratic" frame work of the UN.

I don't belive for a moment that the UN is perfect, but at the moment it is the best international organization of its kind.

Agreed. The power of the US does have the potential to help all humanity. But unfortunately foreign issues are not a big concern to the average American. Most US foreign affairs are left in the hands of an elite few who use American power(military, US tax payers) to impress their own agendas on the world. And they do so unimpeded in most cases, falling on US values like liberty and freedom as an excuse to better themselves. In many cases the human and natural resources of other countries also suffer.
As for the US helping the world protect itself from itself -lol, that's an illusion.
www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_search/0,10987,1101011001-175979,00.html

 

[onthebottom]

BTW; is the US finally up-to-date with its delinquent UN dues?

I hope not, any idea what we're charging for rent, I wonder what the City and State of NY get out of the UN in the way of Property Taxes each year, that must be a killer bill.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

The US should not retreat to an isolationist policy, it would not serve anyone's interest. But what the US should do is to get more involved in issues that do not have to do with advancing US corporate interests or in looking after the oil supply.

But isn't every US economic interest really a corporate interest at the end of the day? I think it could be argued that it would be in our best interest to just stay out of it for 50-100 years and see how it goes.

The US should be part of the team, rather than trying to be the entire team..

Here is the problem, we are part of the team, but we pay for the entire team. It's like having a group of mates you meet up with once a month for poker and getting stuck with the bar bill every month. After a while you stay home and see if the bastards can buy themselves a beer.

The US went into Somolia and Yugoslavia with the right intentions. What the US has to do is to understand that it can be a force for "good", if it truely believes in democracy, then it should work within the "democratic" frame work of the UN...

Why couldn't Europe figure out Yugoslavia? Isn't Yugoslavia in Europe (was last time I checked) why do we have to schlep half way across the world to protect Europeans from Europeans.

That "democratic frame work" in the UN has a handful of countries (the WWII Allies) with all the real power. This group no longer reflects the real power in the world, if you were going to pick a group of countries to give veto power in the UNSC you'd pick JUST THE US (if you were using real power) and Japan, Germany would also be on that list, both China and Russia are 3rd world countries (but have strong militaries). It's a flawed system.

I don't belive for a moment that the UN is perfect, but at the moment it is the best international organization of its kind.

I'd say it's third in a race of one.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Agreed. The power of the US does have the potential to help all humanity. But unfortunately foreign issues are not a big concern to the average American. Most US foreign affairs are left in the hands of an elite few who use American power(military, US tax payers) to impress their own agendas on the world. And they do so unimpeded in most cases, falling on US values like liberty and freedom as an excuse to better themselves. In many cases the human and natural resources of other countries also suffer.
As for the US helping the world protect itself from itself -lol, that's an illusion.
www.time.com/time/archive/preview/from_search/0,10987,1101011001-175979,00.html

See, better to just stay home, and yes I'd look to a protester in Pakistan for foreign affairs advice.

OTB

 

[*d*]

See, better to just stay home, and yes I'd look to a protester in Pakistan for foreign affairs advice.

OTB

?? Is a Pakistani inferior to you?

 

[onthebottom]

?? Is a Pakistani inferior to you?

No, just a protester ;-)

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

Agreed. The power of the US does have the potential to help all humanity. But unfortunately foreign issues are not a big concern to the average American. .....[/url]

True, but watching your election from afar I would conclude the same about Canadians.

OTB