Something I have advocated before is the unwinding of several of our long standing and no doubt expensive foreign military committments: Germany, Okinawa, ***an; South Korea. I never saw either party support this idea and never heard any maverick politicians or journalists advocate this. I have just found a journalist who offered this idea (see below link). The article does not go into great depth, but there are several ideas that support this action.
First, unwinding committments in Germany, South Korea, and ***an does not mean stopping development of state-of-the-art weaponry. We should continue to push the state of the art and to purchase and deploy credible fleets of weapons systems. Second, this does suggest that we ought to rethink what it means to be strong and weak and what it means to defend ourselves. If we spend ourselves into ruin, is this strong and promoting national defense? If we make South Korea safe on our dime while they are free to spend surplus money in their businesses and steal market share from our own companies (can you say Samsung, Hyundai, Kia, LG?) does that promote our national defense? If we protect the border between Pakistan and Aghanistan but neglect our own border with Mexico, does that promote our national defense? How much damage does our presence in these other lands cause to our national image? In South Korea, US forces are often seen as enablers of the South Korean president who has at least in the past very often been seen as autocratic and repressive.
Location: On an Island in the west coast of New England
Posts: 13,132
I think you are on to something and I have felt that way for some time. Strengthen our military for home defense and allow the other countries to stand on their own. If after 50 years of occupation South Korea can't make it on their own then we are wasting our time and money. We totally defeated ***an and used an unthinkable weapon on them to end WW2. Now 60+ years later we should be able to walk away and roll up our bases and take them home. Same with Germany, Turkey, Israel, Egypt and all the rest. I believe we do need a modern and well equipped military but don't need to deploy them in foreign lands to get the training. Keeping our borders safe and free from invasion should be the first line of defense to protect the US. I can’t figure out how keeping the Afghanistan border safe is a better military tactic than keeping our own borders secure. Our past keeps repeating itself. We get involved with a civil war type arrangement and are drawn into putting boots on the ground after softening them up with our air power and modern tactical bombs. We defeat the enemy and then spend huge amounts of money rebuilding the infrastructure we demolished. I can’t see where the people we “liberated” are ever grateful and often are going against us even when we are paying for the restoration. Biting the hand that feeds them isn’t the way to show the US that they are happy. In the mean time we are losing our #1 standing in the world economically and all the weapons and military strength in the world soon loses the advantage if there isn’t enough money to buy the supplies. I say bring the troops home and focus on our own problems rather than somewhere half way across the globe.
__________________
Too busy with fishing to spend much time here.
Something I have advocated before is the unwinding of several of our long standing and no doubt expensive foreign military committments: Germany, Okinawa, ***an; South Korea. I never saw either party support this idea and never heard any maverick politicians or journalists advocate this. I have just found a journalist who offered this idea (see below link). The article does not go into great depth, but there are several ideas that support this action.
Actually, I believe Ron Paul has advocated this.
From his 2011 speech at CPAC: "Just remember the Soviet system did not collapse because we had to fight them, they collapsed for economic reasons. Guess where their final plunge was on their empire? Afghanistan. So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever. So no matter how badly you want us to do that, it's time to reassess that foreign policy. It's time for us to bring troops home, we've had troops in ***an since World War 2 and in Germany, why are we paying for their defense?
Now, there's been a lot of talk about the budget deficit. The military is not equated to defense, defense spending is one thing, military spending is what Eisenhower called the "military industrial complex" and we have to go after that. Government is out of control and it's very hard for us to get a handle on it."
Quote:
First, unwinding committments in Germany, South Korea, and ***an does not mean stopping development of state-of-the-art weaponry. We should continue to push the state of the art and to purchase and deploy credible fleets of weapons systems. Second, this does suggest that we ought to rethink what it means to be strong and weak and what it means to defend ourselves. If we spend ourselves into ruin, is this strong and promoting national defense? If we make South Korea safe on our dime while they are free to spend surplus money in their businesses and steal market share from our own companies (can you say Samsung, Hyundai, Kia, LG?) does that promote our national defense?
Absolutely correct. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year defending others, and now we're in a situation of owing so much money that we couldn't afford to defend ourselves if we had to.
Quote:
If we protect the border between Pakistan and Aghanistan but neglect our own border with Mexico, does that promote our national defense? How much damage does our presence in these other lands cause to our national image? In South Korea, US forces are often seen as enablers of the South Korean president who has at least in the past very often been seen as autocratic and repressive.
Interesting news about our Southern Border... There have been TWO Mexican military incursions into Texas in the last month. Says a lot about our border controls...
Quote:
DONNA, Texas (AP) -- Almost three dozen uniformed Mexican soldiers in four military vehicles crossed the Rio Grande into South Texas without authorization Tuesday in an international incident U.S. officials were calling inadvertent.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Rick Pauza said no gunfire or injuries were reported when the 33 soldiers crossed the new Donna-Rio Bravo International Bridge over the Rio Grande, about 15 miles southeast of McAllen. The soldiers were processed and returned to Mexico, he said.
"We have protocols in place to handle these types of incidents," he said in a statement. "... We continue to remain in constant communication with our Mexican counterparts, and we maintain a shared interest in keeping our mutual border secure."
Pauza declined to comment on what the soldiers were doing when they crossed the border, referring those inquiries to Mexican military officials.
Mexico has maintained a strong military presence in the border state of Tamaulipas, across the border from South Texas, after warfare broke out between the Gulf Cartel and the Zetas. The war erupted over the killing of a Zeta in the border city of Reynosa, across from McAllen, in January 2010. Since then, Mexico's federal government has mounted a special operation to stop the violence with thousands of military and police reinforcements.
The Zetas are blamed for the massacre of 72 migrants nearly a year ago, then kidnapping bus passengers and burying them in mass graves.
Mexican military helicopter lands in Laredo by mistake
A Mexican military helicopter landed Saturday afternoon at Laredo International Airport by mistake, said a spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Mucia Dovalina, the uniform public affairs officer for the Laredo Port of Entry, said the helicopter landed about 3 p.m., but she couldn’t share details such as the number of occupants or whether they were armed.
Dovalina said that, following protocol, CBP officers checked out the helicopter’s occupants, then allowed them to return to Mexico in the aircraft.
“The only thing that I can tell you is that they did land here,” she said. “It was by mistake. They were processed and they were returned to Mexico.”
According to a statement from CBP, the pilot mistook the airport for a landing strip in Nuevo Laredo.
This is the latest such incursion that officials have called inadvertent as the Mexican military increases troop deployments in northeastern Mexico.
In July, a convoy of soldiers rolled across the international bridge at Donna and were processed by customs and sent back across.
The Mexican military announced last week that it had wrapped up an operation called “Lince Norte,” or Northern Lynx.
The 20-day assault on the Zetas drug trafficking organization used 4,000 Mexican troops, deployed mostly in states bordering Texas.
The operation resulted in the death of the Zeta who controlled Nuevo Laredo and the arrest of a man the military says is a “national level” financier for the gang.
Champlain Islander: Your post may not have explicitly stated this, but I heard an undertone of "Why do we keep doing this?!!!"
I have a hypothesis. Basically the hypothesis comes down to we do this -- establish and maintain bases long term -- because it makes someone an awful lot of money. Maybe this is not the rationale for the original establishment of the base, but the long term continuation is likely explained by the the fact that some people are pocketing a LOT of money supplying food, supplying housing, supplying whathaveyou to this base. Follow the money. Also, the military leaders would rather be the top officer ruling over a satrapy in a foreign land than a middling fish in a big pond polishing a seat in the Pentagon. Just my hypothesis.
Now I know how a cheerleader must feel. I totally agree. Those bases must put huge amounts of money into the local economy. While the unwashed masses might prefer that we leave, the politicians don't want to see the downturn in the economy around those bases if we bug out.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
From his 2011 speech at CPAC: "Just remember the Soviet system did not collapse because we had to fight them, they collapsed for economic reasons. Guess where their final plunge was on their empire? Afghanistan. So it makes no sense for us to think that we can keep troops in 135 countries, 900 bases and think we can do it forever. So no matter how badly you want us to do that, it's time to reassess that foreign policy. It's time for us to bring troops home, we've had troops in ***an since World War 2 and in Germany, why are we paying for their defense?
Although I understand about force projection, etc., it's hard to argue with this statement in general and the emboldened #'s in particular. At some point, you have to wonder why we don't consolidate more, condense our bases and reduce our expenses. It doesn't make sense to pay for so many countries' defense when they are steadily making a buck off our economy.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Why do we keep doing this?
Industrial Military Complex.
I forget which president warned us of this, I think it may have been FDR in his farewell address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alsatian
Champlain Islander: Your post may not have explicitly stated this, but I heard an undertone of "Why do we keep doing this?!!!"
I have a hypothesis. Basically the hypothesis comes down to we do this -- establish and maintain bases long term -- because it makes someone an awful lot of money. Maybe this is not the rationale for the original establishment of the base, but the long term continuation is likely explained by the the fact that some people are pocketing a LOT of money supplying food, supplying housing, supplying whathaveyou to this base. Follow the money. Also, the military leaders would rather be the top officer ruling over a satrapy in a foreign land than a middling fish in a big pond polishing a seat in the Pentagon. Just my hypothesis.
I would like to see American military 'presence' to continue in certain areas. Korea and ***an are more or less directly threatened by China...these places are at risk.
But, thanks to the best efforts of the democrats, we are fast becoming a 'poor' nation.
Maybe we should present these 'at risk' nations, which are quite affluent, with a 'bill' for our services ? That would defray the costs of our military presence on foreign soil in peacetime, it would pay back the taxpayers, and it would allow local economies to continue to enjoy the benefits of an American presence. I think the countries we are 'in' should pay for it......
Redefining Defense
