We need Germany as long as we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need Japan as long as we want a foot poised to kick NK in the ass if they do something stupid and as long as we are bound by treaty to defend the sovereignty of Taiwan. There are quite a few bases that could be closed, but we should be smart about it. Diego Garcia comes to mind as an invaluable asset in global force projection. We don't need all of them, and if balancing the budget is an actual goal, defense spending must be cut. If we recognize that the U.S. still needs a military, we should think long and hard about what that money is spent on. Bang for the buck needs serious attention, but the procurement process is as broken as the legislative body itself. Things like the Osprey, DDX, and F-35 chap my ass as money wasters.
Although I identify myself as an independent, I am opposed to the "empire of bases" we maintain in this world as Chalmers Johnson says, highly recommend his books. I also suggest reading Noam Chomsky, Michael Klare, and Robert Perkinson. Although this policy of being the world's head sheriff seemed to work great in the 1989 to 2001 era, unipolar qualities such as these don't and can't serve our foreign policy anymore in the post-9/11 world and one where the greatest financial disaster since the 30s has only further shifted power away from the 'West' to the geopolitically powerful oil-rich countries in addition to India and China. Tom Engelhardt (of tomdispatch.com) and David Vine argued earlier this year (can't find their articles) that most of our bases aren't even officially available and that the number is closer to 1000 (only ~39 on acc to the DoD which coincidentally is very close to what the Roman Empire and British Empire had in their heyday). These 'bases' cost the taxpayers billions and are in the interest of the military-industrial complex to remain put or even continue expanding, despite the economic conditions we face today. Use this interactive map below to get a sense of our presence (Mother's emphasizes these are only limited in number since 2007 was the last year which the data was built upon and that many are uncounted for due to classified status, or other sensitivities since many local countries' populations are indeed very opposed to their presence) http://motherjones.com/military-maps
Missy Elliott puts it eloquently: <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FLdGMY9lKos&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FLdGMY9lKos&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
What if China had an army base here in texas? Patriots would be outraged. It's a good thing that some countries like Ecuador have closed down those bases. They served more as a tool of intimidation than anything else.
Why should we care that those countries want the bases there? If they want them so much, let them start paying for them.
Good and Bad reasons to have them there. In times when these countries need assistance good to have some close at hand [then again you can get places in hours as oppose to days but sometimes time is precious in take adavantage of the moment] As stated. If they don't want us there. . . i am not for forcing our way in. I'm not 100% either way because I do see both sides of it. Rocket River
None of those countries are military threats to US. Even in ww 2 could Germany or japan have attacked mainland US?
I think in today's world, with the technology and ability to project power anywhere in the world pretty quickly, it's time to reevaluate the need for many of these bases.
Well, actually the Japanese did attack the US mainland a few times. It didn't amount to much, mainly a few shells, or fire bombs lobbed from Japanese subs off the US west coast. I think a few people were actually killed by one of these fire bombs in Oregon. I believe during the war there was real concern that Japan posed a threat to the US mainland.
this seems relevant to the thread... More Blank Checks to the Military Industrial Complex - Essay by Ron Paul Category: News and Politics Monday, May 24, 2010 Congress, with its insatiable appetite for spending, is set to pass yet another “supplemental” appropriations bill in the next two weeks. So-called supplemental bills allow Congress to spend beyond even the 13 annual appropriations bills that fund the federal government. These are akin to a family that consistently outspends its budget, and therefore needs to use a credit card to make it through the end of the month. If the American people want Congress to spend less, putting an end to supplemental appropriations bills would be a start. The 13 “regular” appropriations bills fund every branch, department, agency, and program of the federal government. Congress should place every dollar in plain view among those 13 bills. Instead, supplemental spending bills serve as a sneaky way for Congress to spend extra money that was not projected in budget forecasts. Once rare, they have become commonplace vehicles for deficit spending. The latest supplemental bill is touted as an “emergency” war spending bill, needed to fund our ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. The emergencies never seem to end, however, and Congress passes one military supplemental bill after another as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on. Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie. The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990! We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases. With this enormous amount of money and energy spent on efforts that have nothing to do with the security of the United States, when the time comes to defend American soil, we will be too involved in other adventures to do so. There is nothing conservative about spending money we don’t have simply because that spending is for defense. No enemy can harm us in the way we are harming ourselves, namely bankrupting the nation and destroying our own currency. The former Soviet Union did not implode because it was attacked; it imploded because it was broke. We cannot improve our economy if we refuse to examine all major outlays, including so-called defense spending. http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc...d,ID=100524_3703,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml
Jesus. With all due respect, this thinking was exactly what FDR had to deal with up until the moment the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
I can't speak for the OP, but isolationism and the 'empire' we have now are almost two extremes. I'm against zero bases and also a thousand bases; there is a middle ground between the two when economic considerations and political developments, of the shift from unipolarity to multipolarity, are taken into account. This opinion is supported by several well-respected think- tanks and experts as well.
We have an empire? Really? Are you suggesting that we are a democratic Soviet Union? I hadn't noticed. What I have noticed is that we have been downsizing for many years now, since the "end" of the Cold War. The size of our military, the number of our bases... all have been reduced significantly since the fall of the Soviet Union. It is a process that continues. Had Bush, Jr. not decided to invade and occupy a country that wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States, we'd see a far different situation in the world today in regards to American military might, our base structure, and the current foreign policy of the countries that wish us ill. You should do a little more reading, with all due respect, and don't get too hung up on what you hear out of "think tanks." There's a "think tank" catering to every political persuasion, even some "persuasions" that have yet to be figured out. And this is coming from a liberal Democrat, JFK style.
You don't have worldwide military bases in other countries because of the current global environment. You have to be prepared for the eventualities and problems that may happen. You have to keep a global presence just in case. What might be a relatively peaceful section of the world today may need a military presence tomorrow, and you don't want to be caught without the infrastructure to support possible operations. Right?
Quoted for truth. Chalmers trilogy is great. Chomsky is not very readable IMHO. Britain had the smarts to actually withdraw from most of their bases around the world before complete bankruptcy. Given the military industrial complex one has to wonder whether the US will have such smarts.
For the first time, Deckard, I may be to your left. I think its time to pull out of countries like Germany and Japan and develop strategic, long-term bases in key areas of the world. IMO we should buy Diego Garcia from the British (it's time to make the island officially ours) and build a deep water military superport and airfield on one of the southernmost Aleutians to add to our other strategic bases around the world built on U.S. territories like Guam. We have enough strategic territories to protect the various sectors of the world without a presence in virtually every nation. I was hoping Obama would find a way to honorably extricate us from Iraq and Afganistan, but that doesn't look likely. However, in addition to pulling back militarily and letting the peoples of Africa, Asia and the Mideast murder each other, we should also cut off "foreign aid" and re-direct the food and medical supplies to the needy here in the United States. The U.S. arms industry would be hurt, but we don't need to be selling automatic / military weapons around the world and on our own borders.
Who said anything about isolationism. How about we stop being the world police. We need to stop subsidizing the world with money we don't have.
There's a big difference between making prudent decisions to scale back our worldwide string of military bases and becoming isolationist. Isolationism in today's world is idiocy. There is a legitimate military/political need for some bases but not all of them.
