Thread: Bring the Boys (and Girls) Back Home!

Originally Posted by Bruno

I think I must have missed something (either your or jim's intention) because I have no clue what you mean.

Sorry Bruno. It's just the way I read it. Let me explain:

Jim posts this:

Originally Posted by syslight

Well it is about time somebody says it. The time for the Marshall plan and related treaties is passed! Other then a token bases on the shores of the UK, Italy, Diego Garcia and Cuba, it is time to pull our troops out of every foreign country. Except, where there are still open hostilities such as Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq.

This would allow US bases to remain open/ re-open and would lower our overall military costs without jeopardizing our borders.

Further, this would lower anxiety around the world and foster either national pride or capitulation among nations that do not want to provide for their own defense.

in the era of an ever spiraling out of control budget we must make cuts where possible. End our NATO and UN contributions and allow others the freedom to assume their place in history.

My brain distills this into: "We are tired of being the worlds muscle. Its time for you all to stand or die on your own merit! No excuses!"

You posted this:

Originally Posted by Bruno

Except this is not really desirable, because a large standing army on home soil would make a lot of people very antsy. I don't know the specifics surrounding this issue, but isn't this even illegal?

Also, it is not a matter of protection, it is also a matter of strategic importance.
In the event of SHTF, foreign bases are of crucial importance because they allow armies to deploy rapidly.
So unless you propose never to involve yourself again with the rest of the world in a military fashion, 'bringing the boys home' is not an option.

Having foreign military bases is to control global politics and economies in the long run. It is NOT for our protection. Contrary to what you imply, we do not rely on US bases for our protection.

The US military is meant for foreign actions ONLY. That's the whole point of foreign bases. There is no point in deploying them at home. They wouldn't have anything to do. So they'd have to be fired en masse. Not sure that would do the economy a whole lot of good.

My brain spits out this: " you can't... who will protect us from the big bad men of the world?"
That was my first impression!

I missed this part in Bruno's post:

Having foreign military bases is to control global politics and economies in the long run. It is NOT for our protection. Contrary to what you imply, we do not rely on US bases for our protection.

well then most of the rest of the world should be protesting our "army of occupation" As who wants their country occupied? We left forces in Asia and Europe for three reasons

1) to quell any future unrest in europe... we were sick of the nastiness of modern warfare.
2) to protect historic allies from the advances of the USSR
3) and to make it so that other nations would not seek to rebuild a large military complex


As for the needs of the USA... we have enough missiles laying about to prevent either of the remaining powers (Russia and the Peoples Republic of China) from taking too aggressive of a stance against us, all the rest is minor.

But in doing these thing we have robbed the European and Japanese of their cultural heritage and honor. It is merely time to allows everyone to gain testicular fortitude, or cease to be.

Originally Posted by syslight

It is merely time to allows everyone to gain testicular fortitude, or cease to be.

I like the way you phrase it!

Originally Posted by syslight

I
But in doing these thing we have robbed the European and Japanese of their cultural heritage and honor. It is merely time to allows everyone to gain testicular fortitude, or cease to be.

Well the Netherlands do not have a really great cultural heritage or need for testicular fortitude as you put it..

This has gone horibly wrong in the second ww where we were not prepared for the germans and tried to fight them off with our army on bycicles and flooding area's since then we have build up a decent arrmy that helps their allies and takes it responsibility in international conflics..(yes the Netherlands have troops in Iraq and Afganistan and they are not on a picknick)

I do agree that the presence of american troops in Europe isnt all that nessesary but comes in handy for the US if they should venture on another war.

Maarten

Originally Posted by JMS

My brain spits out this: " you can't... who will protect us from the big bad men of the world?"
That was my first impression!

Hmmm. Definitely NOT what I meant. Read my post again

What I meant was that from the US pov, it would be silly because you need forward bases to be able to rapidly deploy armies, and have refuleing capabilities, safe airstrips, etc.
Without those, it will be very difficult to move troops / materials rapidly.

I did not mean that I am counting on the US to protect us. As far as I am concerned, I'd be more than happy for US bases to close over here. It'd mean that Europe has to up its cooperation internally and increase its armed forces. That is one of the things that I'd be in favor of.

But as I said, it'd be a loss for the US because you lose the quick deployment. Even if full scale land wars are a thing of the past, there are still several scenarios where you need to get lots of stuff and people to a small region asap. And without bases, you have no choice but to rely on allies.
And once you let go of the bases, you won't get them back any time soon. It's like, if you withdraw from cuba, you can't go back without creating a major incident.

The only way in which I can see the closing of bases not causing harm is if the US would build and deploy more aircraft carriers, because those could then fulfill the role that is now filled by forward bases.

So by all means, don't let us deter you from demanding the closing of foreign bases. Especially in Europe.
I'll help them pack if need be