Why the U.S. Has Troops around the World

American Thinker ^ | 01/21/2012 | By Bernie Reeves

[SeekAndFind]

Two large elements dominate the debate over Barack Obamas decision to re-deploy the U.S. overseas military forces: the political views of preternatural isolationists and the paucity of perspective by news presenters. The isolationists demand that all troops be brought home now.

The national media are ignorant of why we have a military presence outside our borders to start with. No news outlet I know of has presented the background that explains why the U.S. has a military presence in key areas around the world. This fuels the isolationist cause, leaving Americans to decide between re-deployment or no deployment. The issue is exacerbated in the back of the collective mind in the context of the terrific budget deficit. And our efforts abroad appear to be failures and to add to America's bad image.

Since no one else will, let's review the situation.

Before World War I, America was allegedly isolationist, heeding George Washington's warning not to become involved in European wars. And having established our unique representative democracy against the British empire, there has always been a strong anti-imperialist attitude in these United States. Seems simple enough, except for the reality that the U.S., well before entering the European conflict in 1917, had been quietly building an empire of its own.

This is best exemplified by the spoils from the Spanish-American War of 1898 that included Cuba ,the Philippines, and Puerto Rico, which added to our previous possession of parts of Mexico that stood in our way on the road to building a transcontinental nation. We purchased Alaska from Russia -- and took over various islands, including Hawaii. And we enforced the Monroe Doctrine, an obvious big-power policy that smacked of imperialism, which threatened war against European interlopers who ventured into Central and Latin America.

[FreeInWV]

“The Defense Department 20% portion of the 2011 US budget are not my numbers. They are the numbers of the US CBO.”

So you think special war appropriations shouldn’t count? That they are free money?

[Proud2BeRight]

The 20% for the defense department 2011 budget includes the two wars. Yep, the main role of the federal government is uses only 1/5 of the total budget. How sad.

Tell me, if crackpot Paul closed ALL foreign US military bases, as he promised, and gutted the defense budget leaving the US as a weak isolationist nation, what nation or group would you like to see fill the giant void as the dominant world military power? Do you care? Obviously Ron Paul, his Code Pink supporters and a lot of left wingers don’t.

[FreeInWV]

Don Rumsfeld thinks U.S. bases in Germany, Japan and Korea have outlived their usefulness and should be shut down or consolidated too. Is he a code pink supporter or left winger too? Or is he just a realist?

http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/paul-s-foreign-policy-views-not-so-dangerous—20120104?mrefid=election2012

If we don’t reign in spending, at some point we will be the same situation that the USSR found itself in. Is that what you want? A once proud nation and military, unable to pay its soldiers and leaving its ships to rust away in port?

[Proud2BeRight]

Nice try but the crackpot leftwingnut Ron Paul said “ALL” foreign bases. Unbelievable as it might seem, that is fact.

Didn’t answer my question either, did you?

The spending problem is NOT the 1/5 it spends doing its primary function, to defend Americans and our interests here and abroad. The problem is the 2/3+ of the budget it spends and wastes on entitlements, welfare, and corruption.

[FreeInWV]

Times are tough all over. The way I see it, everyone has to take a cut. There should be no sacred cows. If we have to adjust our foreign policy and military posture, so be it. We can’t afford to play world police anymore. Same thing with entitlements and other federal agencies. We have been living beyond our means for too long.