Honestly, I'm surprised to even be having this argument. As someone who actually protested the war in Vietnam, had friends who were drafted and sent there, a couple wounded in the conventional way, another returning addicted to heroin, the VC being adept at seeing to it that our guys had access to all they wanted, and that it was very cheap to get (not that the VC really needed to encourage it, heroin being available regardless, but they did). My friend who returned an addict, someone I was friends with since grade school, eventually managed to kill himself with the crap, so I guess you could say he's the only buddy I had who was killed by the Vietnam War. So yeah, I know all about "police actions" and the consequences, both personal and national. I was against the Iraq Madness before Bush got us into that and said so here. Unlike glynch, however, and some others here on the left, I'm for fighting in Afghanistan until those responsible for 9/11 are brought to justice. So far, that hasn't happened. Bush made a ****-up of that conflict after initially going about it the right way, choosing to send the resources needed there to Iraq instead, the fool. As a result, Obama is trying to play catch up, with mixed results. He may be making a gigantic blunder, but like me, he said the gigantic blunder was Iraq, not Afghanistan. For me to suddenly say we should pull out from there would be a tad hypocritical, so I'm not doing that. I'm more than willing to pull out as soon as the top AQ leaders are killed, declaring victory, so I'm that hypocritical. (victory? at least the bastards would be dead) And turn our bases over to the UN? I'm sorry, but that's hysterical. I support the UN, but it is one of the more ineffective organizations on the planet and a bureaucratic nightmare. I'm not willing to hand our security over to that body. Some UN in the future that actually works effectively? I would at least think about doing something to take the load off the United States. Not now, not today.
You want to give our bases to an organization with Russia and China as Security Council members with absolute vetos? I generally support the UN but even I think that's naive.
I grew up next to one (actually two). One of them was closed while I was still a kid, I think the other one (Bitburg) is closed now as well. During times of the cold war, it definitely made us feel safer to have the US troops there. I guess it is only logical that as enemies change, the location of bases changes...but in principle, to have them makes sense imho. How many with how much staff and where, etc., I don't know.
I haven't read the full thread, so apologies if I've missed something. IMO, this is a "tiger by the tail" issue. It's very easy to say "just let go of the damn tail" like it is the simplest thing in the world. Unfortunately, people only see the problem at hand and seem to have more trouble with projecting forward all the scenarios where by "just letting go" you end up getting eaten by the tiger. The DoD and the White House appear to have pretty much given up on that as impossible. Right now we are at the stage that was signified by Operation Linebacker in Vietnam, where we ratchet up pressure to try and improve our negotiating position with the other side. They will then have the big meeting, and we will declare victory, probably make a big deal out of Afghanistanization and lie about how strong the Afghan national army is, and prepare to start pulling out. They aren't even talking about total victory for the benefit of the press any more. They're just arguing over when would be the right moment to begin negotiating.
Naive? For sure, but I see it as something that should be considered as a solution going foward. The sovereinty of every nation should be respected... The fight in Afghanistan does not fall into the "policing the world" issue that I have, the US has valid reasons to go in there and fight. We have no argument... Agreed, but the worlds greatest superpower should make sure the UN is effective by working on incresing its legitimacy not by undermining it.
Question: for those who travel internationally. . . does knowing there is a base in the country make you feel more secure? Rocket River
No question about it. One of the reasons the UN is as ineffective as it is has been the roller coaster of a ride that is the changing of US foreign policy, and the changing of the US attitude towards the UN from one administration to another.
Some notes: - I went to Bahrain earlier this year. From what I gathered, there will be maybe 5-10 Bahrainis who benefit from this. - Bahrainis don't have access to A LOT (yes, A LOT) of their country because of millitary presence. I'm talking half. - There are bases in the Persian Gulf basically for ever single country (Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman, Qatar and I think Saudi). Some of them might be British bases, I'm not sure.
Read Rising powers, shrinking planet: new geopolitics of energy by Michael Klare if you get a chance, there's an entire chapter devoted to this where the Persian Gulf is described as an "American Lake" where the US is on defensive about the region's hydrocarbon resources and its goal are to preserve its dominant position and keep out competitors. A lot of this US presence was backed by political developments such as 1980's so-called Carter Doctrine.
