Reducing our military where they are no longer needed.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Leo Hubbard, Aug 17, 2004.

  1. Leo Hubbard macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #1
    Its about time.
    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/16/121144.shtml
    Why do we have military in countries that should be defending themselves. Yes I know it was to protect our interests. Well they aren't needed there anymore, they are needed elsewhere.
     
  2. Stelliform macrumors 68000

    Stelliform

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    #2
  3. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #3
    Why are they waiting until 2006, they should/could pull them right now.
     
  4. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #4
    you gotta have something to campaign on...
     
  5. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #5
    15.000+ german contractors + 80.000 jobs
    long running contracts etc. etc.

    and it isn't quite sure how much are pulled out ... there are talks with german politics _but_ there aren't any decisions made yet
    actually this "we pull troops out of europe" is an old thing....it comes up regulary every 2-3 years

    actually soldiers (few thousands) have already be sent into the middle east..so whats this big fuss about it now ? oh yeah now it is an election coming down the road
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    You're not subsidising the Germans, they are subsidising you. Look it up. It will cost more to house them and feed them in the US.
     
  7. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #7
    Who says they will live in the US.
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
  9. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #9
    isn't the rent payed for the ground the bases use a symbolic dollar or something around that
    so the only thing that will change are prices for fuel,(electricity) and of course they will exchange all contractors ;)

    when they change bases into the middle east i seriously doubt that those contract jobs would be given to locals...
     
  10. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #10
    Just where are the US military needed/wanted?

    Send them all home.
     
  11. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #11
    exactly

    funny how both kerry and bush suddenly are proponents of pulling troops out of countries.

    oh, except iraq
     
  12. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #12
    Kerry is against it.
    http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6b66998e-f08b-11d8-a553-00000e2511c8.html
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    Probably S Korea at least, to be fair.
     
  14. wwworry macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2002
    #14
    I think this is the only time in which I agree with Bush. Maybe something else but I can't think of what.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #15
    Yeah, but he's probably doing the right thing for the wrong reasons... ;)
     
  16. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #16
    I think overseas bases provide vital staging points for US/NATO action, training and cooperation and a serve as a healthy cultural immersion programme for our troops.

    Now, we may see a shift to our new superbase in Iraq, where there can be no such interaction with the locals while maintaining the staging point for the invasion of _______.

    Of course, an aunt of mine is German and my uncle met her while serving with the Army in the early 50's. ;)
     
  17. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #17
    I think that this is probably a necessity with the end of the Cold War and the resultant need to reassess geopolitical realities and any subsequent deployment strategies.

    That said, I do think it is good policy (though not a necessity) to maintain bases and troops in several diverse locales for integration/logistical/strategic reasons. Considering that the location f the N American continent is far removed from an areas that might deserve US attention, it is good to maintain bases in Europe and Asia, close to the action.

    While I am in favor of bringing troops home, most of those being discussed are not involved in active-combat, and will return at the end of their enlistment anyway...It is the troops in Iraq and Afganistan I want home, as they are enlisted indefinitely, shot at, and pursuing a flawed political vision...

    Out of curiousity, some conservatives have blamed Clinton for decreasing the size of the military establishment as a cause of our Nations' ill-preparedness for 9/11, even though we were at peace during the 90's...

    Are there no cries of this new policy making the US potentially vunerable in responding effectively to geopolitical flare-ups/crises?

    I never bought the argument in the first place, but if you were one who did, care to explain any difference here?
     
  18. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #18
    So your saying the reason we tax payers fund overseas bases is to give our troops a cultural immersion experience? :eek:

    I always thought it was so they could be first responders in trouble zones, and well we don't have any trouble zones in Europe anymore. After all they are all suppose to be our allies there right?

    Why can't there be interqactions between troops and Iraqi's if their staged in their country? :confused:
     
  19. Leo Hubbard thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    #19
    I don't think he's actually planning on reducing the total number of troops in the army. I do think he's trying to use technology to do more with less, but then expect them to do more so no actual reduction in manpower. I also think that he'll redistribute them, that they will not actually be stationed in the US.
     
  20. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #20
    The trouble zones were never primarily europe (eastern soviet satellites) but the USSR itself...despite any argument on that point, the current potential trouble zones in N. Africa, the transcaucaus (sp?), E Asia (+China) and the ME are much closer to europe or asian countries we are deployed in. About as close as we can get, with the use of Allied countries...
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    That's my analysis as well. We certainly could use a discussion on how and where our forces are deployed overseas, however we don't need to be forced into that discussion by a severe lack of manpower.

    I don't see any reason many of these bases are still where they are except for inertia. Redeployment is probably in our best interest where the threat has changed or gone away over the years.

    I would agree with Dubya that this needs to be done. I'm just pissed that it is happening because we have stretched our military to the breaking point so unnecessarily. You can bet your last dollar that Bush would not have proposed drawing down our troop levels just prior to an election if things in Iraq had gone as they were predicted to have gone by Rummy, Wolfy, et al. That would be an action taken by someone who is 'soft' militarily. But with the current state of our military, 'bring the boys home' is a message Bush hopes will bring him some votes.

    I'd like to see some numbers that would show how much we'd be saving over time with his plan. A CBO analysis earlier said a dramatic overseas troop reduction would save perhaps $1B per year, but would cost about $7B up front. That was for a generic plan though, I'd be curious to see what they come up with for this plan. (I certainly wouldn't trust the administrations numbers, they lowballed by 1/3 on Medicare for political reasons.)
     
  22. diamond geezer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    #22
    That's about the only place I can think of and even then, do you think the the North would attack if the US wasn't there?
     
  23. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    I think this will help a lot w/logistics surrounding troop and supply/equipment movement. During the Cold War the bases had significantly more troops and supplies than they do now. They were literally ready to repel an invasion that could happen at any time. Post Cold War it is no longer viable to keep every base at "maximum capacity" if you will. So you have fewer troops and fewer supplies at each base so when a deployment in-mass is needed you have to coordiante logistics between numerous bases around the world to get the needed forces and supplies to their destination. And the US military has a startling small mass transportation ability (which is cooler, a fighter jet or a cargo plane?) especially when it comes to carrying heavy equipment (tanks and the like). But if more of the troops and supplies are in a single location (like w/in the US) then your logistical demands greatly decrease.

    What you lose in geography you can make up in logistical efficiency.

    I don't think we should completely abondon the bases or anything like that. They should still be used as staging areas, but keeping large amounts of troops there to stop a "commie invasion" just isn't needed anymore. Plus, in some areas at least, there seems to be a growing resentment by the younger generation to have US bases on their soil. For example, on more than one occation while my brother was stationed in Germany he was refused entry to to some clubs or bars because he was in the Army.

    Plus I like this idea because it will make it easier on the families. Trotting around the globe every 4 years is really tough, especially on the kids.


    Lethal
     
  24. mouchoir macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Location:
    London, UK
    #24
    Your article.

     
  25. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #25
    i just want to make a comment on that: here there are clubs who don't let in (groups of) soldiers in uniform as well ...especially near military bases because from experience _it causes problems_

    guess how many 'friends' from my unit got picked up by police after a fight ;) i can assure you it was _a lot_
     

Share This Page