I have, um, "interesting" political conversations with friends and coworkers, because around here there are very few libertarian leaning people. I'm either back and forth with Democrats on spending and taxes, or I'm back and forth with republicans on defense.

Now, my view is that we need to bring our forces back within our borders. I confess that I can't find an exact number of how many bases we have on foreign soil (that we know about), but the numbers I've seen are anywhere from 100 to 700(lol?).

I would like to ignore, for now, Iraq and Afghanistan, except perhaps in how they affect reduction in troops in bases not directly involved with those conflicts. For example, we can't bring troops in from "x" country because logistically they make it cheaper for us to continue in Afghanistan.

The reasons I'm given as to why we can't bring troops home from overseas bases:

1) We have to have a world-wide presence in order to keep our interests and allies safer.

2) Countries PREFER that we have bases in their countries, because we provide them with security and support.

3) These bases are not a complete loss, as they do have some revenue potential (that I must not be aware of).

4) The costs to shut down these bases and bring everybody and everyone home, not counting the land that we'd be forking back over to each respective country.

5) Bringing this many service men and women home would cause even more economic trouble, and drive unemployment higher.

6) Stuff I can't think of right now, but may add later.


Now, I'll be honest. I don't agree with any of these positions. BUT, I'm willing to listen. Of those that agree that we do not spend too much on our military and that our presence overseas is a net positive, what is your reasoning behind this? I'd like to have this discussion with people who can adequately argue their position without relying on, "Because I said so."

Also, is decreasing military spending out of the question? If not, how much?

The only positive you seem to have is that we might save money yet admit you can't prove it. What is there to refute?

No no no. I'm AGAINST overseas bases. These are the reasons people have given me in the past as to why we should keep our bases overseas.

You misunderstood me, I am pro overseas bases. My post was that you haven't provided a reason to leave them. EDIT: I don't see why justification is required for the obvious benefits unless a good reason can be shown otherwise.

Money? Goes back to my conversations with the Republicans I know. We agree on cutting spending and cutting taxes, but when I mention a reduction in military spending....

"ARE YOU CRAZY?"

I just don't get it. When you have a runaway economy, it's ALL fair game.

Ok, now that I understand where you're coming from, do you think that if we shut down our overseas bases, we wouldn't save any money?

I don't know for sure but it seems likely we would save money. Now is it enough to warrant the removal? I would need to see the calculations to offer an opinion. Here is an example, if it saved a billion dollars a year I'd say no way, if it saved a trillion I'd say yes for sure so somewhere between those two numbers is the Hmmm number, where I need to consider whether it makes sense or not.

That's a perfectly reasonable answer that I would agree with. I wouldn't care to even fool with it if it wouldn't save a reasonable amount of money. Now I wonder where I'd find semi-accurate numbers on estimated costs? I've heard figures thrown around, but after a fair amount of looking, I haven't found anything even semi-reliable with which to proceed.

Ron Paul estimates the cost to "maintain the empire" at 1T/year. He's said that you could save 500-600 B a year by bringing the troops home. (Not to mention the money you gain by having the troops spend their money at home)

Sorry I don't have any harder numbers.

Is the rational for overseas military installations based only on cost? Not including diplomatic embassy's and their security details, unless there are American assets that specifically require an armed escort, foreign operations will always be a financial drain. And there is a difference between an American asset and a business asset. The only purpose a garrison can produce is to inflame the indigenous population. Take your hometown or campus. Place an armed militia that answers only to some distant power. Would you feel safe or imprisoned?

I believe we currently have 761 overseas military bases.

As for the countries "wanting" us there, yes, we typically try to install friendly puppet governments in our client states. Also, American military bases are simultaneously bribes and threats. They provide large influxes into the local economies (transfered from the American taxpayer), and are very visible local jobs programs.

To anyone who is in favor of overseas bases-

How would you feel if China had troops down the street from you? How would you feel if they were there to "protect you?"

If they were really there to protect me I would not have a problem with it.

I'm sure the south koreans don't have a problem with it ????

The cubans might but we don't have to worry about that anymore do we !!!!

I must answer your question with a question. Where do we currently have bases overseas that we have been asked to leave by the government in power?

tons of countries (i.e. all of them) don't have the extensive empire we have. are all of those countries getting attacked constantly?

lol. again, how would you feel if China had armies in our country?

i'd love to see any statistics showing that these bases are somehow making us money.

lol this is so ridiculous.

unemployment isn't the issue. production is the issue. just as unemployed workers are failing to produce anything of worth, so are soldiers sitting in germany "keeping the peace". furthermore, we have to pay their salaries out of the taxpayers pocket, thus hurting the citizen more.

http://www.alternet.org/story/47998?page=1

Interesting excerpt from a book covering the topic in question.

I would not like Chinese forces in my country, because China is not an allied and my country and China do not share the same goals.

Like most Norwegians however, I am very grateful for the American military presence in my country. There is no way we could defend ourselves against a powerful enemy, and the fact that Russia is a neighbor makes it vital for us to have a strong ally.

Most of the useful military equipment stored in the mountains in Northern Norway belongs to US Army. The biggest factor in keeping Norway safe from a foreign enemy is our good relationship with the US.

Is this relationship symbiotic? Do you think we could still have a good relationship if, during a strong recession, we decided that we could no longer maintain our bases there? I wonder what the repercussions would be if we could not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures

Yeah, the relationship would still be good. Matter of fact I think there are hardly any US personnel here anymore, but the equipment is stored here.

But if we face an invasion it surely is a big advantage that the US Army have a lot of supplies here, means we/they can respond faster.

Having bases on foreign soil is an important part of American diplomacy. We do exercises with foreign military, provide training, etc. Furthermore, as has been pointed out they help protect overseas interests and allies. Sure there appears to be little threat to American security overseas at the moment but this is sort of infrastructure isnt something you build overnight. Its hard to measure the value of the aforementioned diplomacy effects quantitatively though.

As for those saying having servicemen overseas is drain away from local economies, I suspect that it is pretty negligible. A servicemember going overseas still has family at home. He still makes car payments, rent, etc. He still makes purchases from American businesses (yay intertubez). I would think the only significant dent would be in consumable goods.

I would also point out that that overall Defense spending is a pretty small percentage of GDP.

The Philippines in 1991 rejected a treaty that would have kept US servicemen in the country. Saudi Arabia wasn't too keen on us being there after our tasks were completed either. And of course the obvious: Cuba wants us the hell out yet we continue to occupy their territory and store some of the world's most dangerous people there.

And in 2/3 cases we left when asked to.

EDIT: From globalsecurity.org:

Fwiw, I've been to South Korea for one business trip and we were holed up on a military base unable to leave on a Friday night because of anti-American rally outside the gate. Also, the general population in Seoul rarely would look an American in the eye and when we went to restaurants in Seoul, we were not waited on until everybody else had been served. Outside the base, the locals were more than happy to sell to the Americans. But areas outside the base perimeter, you could feel the resentment in the air. This was several years ago (2002) when there was more anti-American fervor, and yes it is anecdotal. I've seen some polls with pro-American support, but I can only relay my own experiences.

If I recall correctly there was an incident a few years back (might be around 2002) where a young South Korean girl was killed in a traffic incident by a US soldier, and I think that caused a lot of resentment towards the troops.

I think the South-Korean government prefer the US presence for now, but the portion of the public that disagrees is easily visible.

The experiences you had in public and at restaurants can also be a result of the widespread racist tendencies among South Koreans (and several other Asian people) against any outsiders, not only Americans.