First, read this article: HTML: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/ I'm not trying to promote Ron Paul (although I do support him). I just needed to establish some proof instead of regurgitating more facts, which is all I want to look at (the facts, not the people/person saying them). Now that you've read the article you should know that the estimates Ron Paul says about our military overseas (involvement with 130 countries and about 900 bases) are mostly true. You should also know that there are a lot of very small scale things in random countries some of us probably don't even know how to pronounce, but there are certainly very big operations going on in more relevant countries. No matter what, there is a lot of involvement, and I daresay more than any other country in the world. I do not have facts to back that up, but in my opinion it is a reasonable claim. Do you think our military should be so involved in other countries? Is it good for us financially? Is it good for the countries we occupy? And lastly, is there blowback? Will it give us more enemies over allies in the end?
This thread makes the assumption that simply having a base or personnel in a foreign country is foreign intervention, it's not. The troops in Italy, the UK, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, and such, their presence is not a means to dictate the local policies and laws of the nation they are in; their purpose is to act as forward deployment stations and logistics centers for deployment to hotspot or areas of conflict. Foreign intervention isn't necessarily financially costly. The Persian-Gulf War was run at a surplus, for example. However, the how, why, and where we conduct a foreign intervention are much more important factors to understand. The bases themselves are crucial to the US' interests abroad in being able to deploy troops and equipment as needed in a few days or even hours, for example, part of the reason NATO was able to set up the Libyan no-fly zone was because the USS Enterprise was already in the area and we had F-15 Eagles stationed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, UK as part of USAF Europe. They're not occupied. A US base on foreign soil is not necessarily an occupation. We paid them to lease the property, we're not occupiers we're renters. The foreign bases? Only if we, and by we I mean our troops, act like buffoons when we're there. The majority of bases are leased, meaning we paid the government to use them, and the local area around these bases are typically financially well off thanks to the troops using services at the surrounding businesses. As for actual foreign intervention like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya; well yeah, when you go in half-cocked without a plan beyond blow (*)(*)(*)(*) up, of course there's blowback, but that's an argument against poorly thought out interventionism and not interventionism itself. Notice that in the first two cases the US and Coalition Forces didn't have a plan outside of blowing up Saddam and the Baath Party government and destroying the Taliban in A-Stan, we went in without sufficient troops numbers to properly occupy either Iraq and Afghanistan and we had no plans for reconstruction so all attempts were ad-hoc and half-hearted. Libya on the other hand we went in and listened to the people who wanted to be free of Gaddafi and it's still shaky, but thinks to actually having a plan it's transitioning to a proper democracy. As for Ron Paul he's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing idiot, the financial costs of those bases and the benefits of having them are such that by simply raising the tax value from it's seventy year lowest point to something more reasonable, cutting corporate tax loopholes, instituting a proper single-payer healthcare system, bring back some of the New Deal works projects, and regulating risky business practices we can more than pay for them.
I apologize for my misuse of the word intervention, I should have simply said "Overseas Spending" instead of "Foreign Intervention." But, that being said, why do we even have to have troops over there for deployment? Can't the countries in Europe and other areas handle themselves? Why do we have to always jump into the areas of conflict? It doesn't make sense right now especially when we're in so much debt.
Do you even bother to read? I already explained those bases aren't there for Europe's benefit, they're there for ours. This is how America is able to deploy troops to hotspots all over the world, because we have the bases and infrastructure in place to do so. Things like the operation that saved the Captain of the Maersk Alabama and the Op that finally took down Bin Laden were only possibly because that infrastructure and those bases are in place. We don't. With the exception of Israel, we only get involved in conflicts where we believe we have something to gain by taking part. Note for example we did absolutely nothing about the Darfur Genocide. Again, you can run an intervention on a profit, we did it during the Persian Gulf War. Again, you're making an argument against poorly thought out interventionism, not against interventionism. And besides, cutting spending during or right after an economic downturn is a great way to reverse any process as that money is used to stimulate the economy. Bullets, prefab buildings, uniforms, all require manufacturing which employs more people who spend that money on other goods and services that in turn employs others to spend on goods and services.
It's difficult to quantify the benefit of these overseas bases. You have to look at it in broad terms. The U.S. is the world's only superpower in an ever more globalized economy. What happens in a tiny country in Africa can have a ripple effect throughout the world. The global economy is a large sensitive network of trillions of dollars of goods and services flowing everywhere. This network can be easily interrupted by a rogue country, terrorists, pirates etc. Right now the U.S. is the only country in the world capable of truly exerting it's will anywhere in the world and protecting it's interests. This may seem selfish, but you'll find that U.S. economic interests tend to align with the general good of the world economy. Dozens of other countries without the capability to intercede also receive the benefit of U.S. power. These countries realize just how beneficial this U.S. presence is and are often more than happy to play host. This military presence also gives the U.S. great political influence. Virtually every NATO/EU/UN expeditionary mission overseas is completely dependent on U.S. support. Libya, Gulf War I/II, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Somalia, etc. would have been crippled or couldn't have happened without U.S. support....support that came from U.S. overseas bases. If the U.S. withdrew from all of it's overseas bases and slashed its military budget it would lose an incredibly large amount of economic and political influence in the world. It's likely that without the constant threat of U.S. power projection, certain areas in the world would "act up" more. Leaders in countries hostile to the U.S./UN/NATO etc. tread very carefully when dealing with the U.S. because they know that within 72 hours a U.S. aircraft carrier and amphibious assault ship can be parked off their shore ready to act. When China, Germany, or the Vatican (haha) make the same demands these leaders are much less likely to listen because they know their largely empty threats.
First of all, with the exception of the Middle East, most of our bases are no longer necessary as they are cold war relics. Bases in Western Europe were designed as deployment centers in case of a Soviet invasion. Now, these bases mostly act as a stimulus for the surrounding areas, as the DoD pours millions into developing commercial and service institutions for the service population. The fact that many interventions don't end up serving US interests when long-term effects are considered show that they aren't entirely necessary. Anything unnecessary that costs several hundred million to tens of billions of dollars isnt good for us financially. I think the author is referring to specific instances of military intervention instead of leased bases. In the cases of intervention, there has been a history of blowback, even when there was a contingency plan. We can examine the 1953 coup in Iran, in which President Mossadegh was overthrown by a US-supported coup. The Shah was reinstalled, and the situation held for 3 decades before anti-Western sentiments helped lead to the Islamic Revolution. It's also unfair to use the example of Libya because the situation hasn't played out yet. Currently, the new regime is notoriously unstable, divided, and corrupt. Militia bands that fought Gaddafi with western weapons have refused to demilitarize, and roam much of the countryside. Eastern leaders in Benghazi have also made moves towards further autonomy from Tripoli, further destabilizing the country. As a result, the central government of the NTC is too weak to do anything. A recent ban on islamic parties (which are supported by a significant segment of the population) could lead to further violence and even civil war. Some leased bases are effective in regards to being ready for an intervention. However, interventions have been historically ineffective in the long run and provide ammunition for radical groups to target the US (i.e 1980s Lebanon bombing, both WTC attacks, USS Cole). To bring in these other proposals is non-topical and they are controversial within themselves. increasing taxes with ceterus paribus may partially restrict the economy, while a single payer healthcare system has concerns with quality and efficiency. the works projects themselves didn't create any long term jobs, but only crowded out the private sector for the remainder of the 1930s. regulating business practices will bring in a insignificant and marginal amount of revenue.
The problem is that interventions rarely produce desirable long-term results. The reason we didnt intervene in Darfur can also be linked to Sudan's close trade ties with China and China's position on the UN security council. Your argument of the military stimulus leads into the trap of the perpetuation of the military industrial complex. Jobs may be created, but the investment that creates them is a malinvestment of capital that could be diverted somewhere more economically efficient and effective. Many people often focus on how many jobs are created rather than the overall impact on the economy, and in the case of military goods, the produced capital has little economic use. But I do believe he was talking about the cost of interventions, not slashing defense budgets. Interventions themselves cost a sizable amount of money, and the debt isn't something to ignore either. To put it in perspective, the cost of servicing the interest payments on our debt now makes up over 2/3 of our entire defense budget. (i believe its somewhere in the range of $420-450 billion per year)
Theres no reason why we can't have stop-overs at air bases of our NATO allies, since in the event of an actual military scenario most of these countries would be coordinating with our military in some way. The problem is that interventionism is a flawed policy to begin with, and when figuring in blowbacks, the failures tend to vastly outnumber the successes. You point out the Gulf war as the only example of a successful intervention, but even it had devastating consequences for the developing countries in the middle east. Studies have shown that the losses of oil imports, remittances, resettlement costs, exports, and tourism took as much as 3-35% of GDP in countries like Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, etc. Its also ironic that the Iraqis in the Gulf War were financed and equipped with American weapons/equipment that we gave them in the 1980s to fight the Iranians. One of the factors that motivated an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in the first place was our lax policy towards them, since Bush I wanted an US-Iraqi alliance against Iran. You can't also say that we had a good endgame without a mess of war-objectives, since Bush I suddenly cut off the war effort without talking to Hussein about any terms following the "Highway of Death." http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ars-mistakes-explain-us-presence-in-iraq.html The author's question refered to whether or not there is blowback at all, and your answers show that you don't seem to understand blowback at all. This phenomenon, according to the CIA, which coined the term, occurs not because of our leasing of a foreign base, but because of a US covert operation/intervention. Examples include the US coup in Iran (1953), the US intervention in the Soviet-Afghan war, the US intervention in the Chechnya conflict in the 80s, and many other instances of supporting anti-communists during the cold war. What I'm saying, if you didn't understand me, is that the situation is worse in many aspects. The NTC is close to becoming a failed government, since it can't stop the roaming armed rebels/brigands in the entire country, some of which attacked the PM's office a week ago. A recent UN envoy even reported the failure of the rule of law being enforced at all. The NTC, which mind you is an unelected body, recently reported the loss of $billions due to "financial anomalies" in the budget. Self-determination, while ideal, should be achieved through sustainable means. We can see from the Versailles treaty that the creation of indepedent states like Poland, Hungary, etc. that the arbitrary creation of a state through their people's support isn't enough. The lack of practical/successful economic and political institutions ultimately resulted in the rise of dictatorships in each of these countries The private sector definitely got crowded out in the 30s, as the portion of publicly funded jobs grew vastly in porportion. Everyone knows that works projects only work as long as money goes through the system, thus resulting in short-term jobs. Additionally, many have argued that FDR didnt even distribute the works projects funding based on economic need, but instead gave much more to battleground states to score political points. For example, poor states like Georgia in the solid democratic south received much less funding than better off states in the west that FDR barely won in 1932. Then you have the unconstitutional AAA, which during its implementation kept crop prices artificially low by destroying food, and is attributed to causing the unemployment of over 2 million farmers and sharecroppers. The new deal is perhaps the most corrupt period in US history, in which the economy failed to recover in a prompt manner like it had in previous depressions in the 19th century. But of course, everyone nowadays avoids talking about FDR's numerous abuses of power that makes Nixon and McCarthy seem transparent and just.
After the Soviet Union collapsed US foreign policy remains largely unchanged so what does that tell you? This Red Manace excuse, I really hate. You have no idea. Look here: http://www.politicalforum.com/warfa...th-star-protect-us-investments-have-nots.html The United States has bases in over 130 countries.
It tells me that the generals are too selfish and stubborn to cut their influence and that our politicians are too scared to touch defense spending. If you doubt the fact that many european bases were made specifically for the cold war, here is a list of some bases/US facilities -RAF Lakenheath (leased air base) made to offer air support in case of Soviet invasion. Now it's located in a friendly country, far away from any possible conflicts, in a location much worse than that of Germany or Italy. Fighters based here have to fly back to Nevada for training due to the lack of large spaces in Britain. -The MCPP-N program, which was designed to prevent a Soviet invasion of Norway. It consists of many facilities and equipment that is used to train troops for winter combat. Completely unnecessary due to closer locales in the US that offer the same climate. Rumsfeld himself commented on the uselessness of this program in 2005: "The Marine Corps, with agreement from the capabilities-Norway government of Norway, has assigned a new global mission for the Norway Air-Landed operational area, it is not clear how these capabilities would be employed or what operational value they add to current capabilities." -USAG Garmisch, which was originally labeled a center for Soviet studies. Now it serves as an army resort for high ranking officers, complete with a army run ski lodge and golf course. -Any german base, as it actually takes a longer period of time to deploy from Germany to the middle east as compared to direct deployment, since going from germany requires going being shipped to the northern ports and sailed around spain and the mediterranean. The usage of foreign ports and rail in the mediterranean and europe also pose costs, as the army is not given first priority in terms of unloading/disembarkment. The maintenance and upkeep of military equipment at these bases all take place in the US, so costly equipment is shipped back and forth across the atlantic. -RAF Menwith Hill (US base) -RAF Croughton (US base) -RAF Alconbury (US base) -The entire 501st combat support wing, consisting of 900 service members and 2700 civilians, is spread throughout England and Norway. Funny thing is that they have no assigned aircraft to support. -All of our share-a-nuke sites, which are located in Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Turkey. A 2008 USAF report found that many nukes were stored at NATO-country bases and guarded by ill-trained NATO conscripts, and deemed this system of storage "unsafe." -Also the Soto Cano base in Honduras, which was built to support anti-communists in Nicaragua and El Salvador. The base is too small to house civilians, so service members fly back from Honduras to visit their families every once in a while, resulting in unnecesary cost. Despite the fact that the communist groups it was founded to fight collapsed 2 decades ago, it still exists, posing a huge waste of money to the defense budget.
I challenge your list on this part. It asserts that the US bases in Honduras used to facilitate Contra terror in Nicaragua were specific to the Cold War when it had absolutely nothing to do with it so this effectively challenges the credibility of the rest of the list. The Nicaraguan government wasnt even communist and they had a non aligned foreign policy. They sought significant aid from the Eastern bloc for counterinsurgency warfare after the Reagan administration blocked all other sources of supply with the embargo in 1985. The limited amounts of truly modern military equipment acquired by the Sandinistas came from Western Europe before the 1985 embargo. That said, Im sure some of the bases were specific to the Cold War but there is a larger strategy at play here.
First, I'm assuming that you have conceded to the other dozen or so useless European bases on my list. Seeing as the topic of discussion was the uselessness of European bases, its clear that they are nothing but cold war relics as well as evidence of the stubbornness of the Pentagon to make spending reforms. While the Sandinistas received no direct military aid from Eastern Europe, they were heavily supported by Communist Cuba in the form of growing trade ties, military advisors, as well as economic and infastructural aid. Seeing as Americans effectively saw Cuba as an extension of Soviet power in the Western Hemisphere, its no surprise that actions against the Sandinistas (like the building of Soto Cano) were actions against the Communist threat. While I'm not saying that the U.S was right in its perception of Soviet interference in its sphere (Eastern Bloc nations only offered intelligence/secret police training), the US was still motivated by Cold War fears in building that base, which coincidentally exists near the two Civil Wars that pitted right-wingers against communist leftists. Hopefully now you can truly realize the extent of the waste that occurs in U.S defense spending.
Useless bases, huh? You do realize the backbone of much of the operation in Libya were supported from these "useless bases"....not to mention OIF,OEF, Kosovo, etc.
Do you have tunnel vision? Do you not see all the threads I put together on this topic? As in exposing the motives and the lies? The US is still enforcing the 50+ year old embargo on Cuba. The Soviet Union no longer exists. In fact, the US has more people monitoring the embargo against Cuba than they have monitoring the finances of Al Qeada. If they are so worried about national security as you believe why are their priorities all (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up? And Im the one saying that after the US imposed the embargo on Nicaragua in 1985, they did seek significant aid from the Eastern bloc for counterinsurgency warfare. They had been fighting the Contras since 1981 with mostly European military equipment.
Look here.. Motive: http://www.politicalforum.com/warfa...t-spread-populist-politics-latin-america.html Motive: http://www.politicalforum.com/warfa...od-example-nicaragua-cancer-must-cut-out.html Motive: http://www.politicalforum.com/terro...-terrorist-war-against-nicaragua-context.html Im sure you're capable of critical thinking.
Both Libya and Kosovo conflicts did not threaten US interests at all. Seeing as the Arab League was already intervening in Libya, there was no need for US action. It actually costs more and takes longer time to deploy these troops and planes from Germany because we have to send them up to the northern German ports to sail them around the mediterranean rather than simply shipping them over from America, as there are no viable railways through the alps.
Both Libya and Kosovo conflicts did not threaten US interests at all. Seeing as the Arab League was already intervening in Libya, there was no need for US action. It actually costs more and takes longer time to deploy these troops and planes from Germany because we have to send them up to the northern German ports to sail them around the mediterranean rather than simply shipping them over from America, as there are no viable railways through the alps.
How was the Arab league going to intervene in Libya? They lacked the military capability to carry out such strikes. Even France/UK/Belgium etc. couldn't pull the airstrikes off without extensive U.S. support. It is DEFINITELY cheaper to have these units in Europe, especially when it comes to aircraft. The U.S. also has large bases in Italy and other European countries that have easier access to the Med.
To say the entire Arab league would not have been able to police a No-Fly-Zone over Libya, or provide strike-support, would be questionable. To say that Europe was not able to without US help is stupid. You need to come down off of your cloud matey!
Our overseas bases exist for multiple reasons. For example, those in Japan and South Korea are there as part of treaties with important allies. Part of the agreement that ended WWII was that Japan would no longer have any kind of large military force. And in order to help them keep that force small, they pay the US and provide bases so we can share that with them. More or less the same thing goes for South Korea. And you have many other bases "overseas", like Guam. And there are some under shared agreements, like Diego Garcia. While this was originally built as a base during the Cold War, it has become a major base for operations in the Western Pacific, as well as for operations in the Indian Ocean. Including the security patrols that work to keep piracy down off of the area of Somalia. If you look at most of our current bases, the Cold War has little to do with them anymore. A lot of those in Europe have been either closed or seriously cut back. Most of the remainders are for reasons of local security. Going back to Diego Garcia, it is a major area for the US Prepositioning ships. These have been one of the primary response activities for regional disasters, like the tsunamis in Indonesia and Japan. And are also major staging areas in the event of future hostilities with China. And no, the DoD does not pump "millions into developing commercial and service institutions" surrounding these bases. I have been stationed overseas many times over the years. Go outside the base, and it is 100% civilian local economy. While the economy does benefit from servicemembers spending money locally, this is no different then the same effect in any US town. The US no more builds facilities outside of a base in Japan or Italy then it does in a base outside Jacksonville North Carolina or Philadelphia Pennsylvania. In all the years I have served (15), Continent I have visited (4), or countries I have served in or visited (9), I have never seen a "commercial and service institution" outside of a base that was built and paid for by the DoD. Not once, ever.
