This conversation is closed.
Keeping US forces in Foreign Countries
The USA is negotiating with Afghanistan to retain military presence in the country for some indefinite period. The USA has retained military forces in Europe since WW2 and in Korea since the Korean War. As I understand the idea behind this policy, if there is a new attack against US allies, the US military will be there for support.
OK, a century ago when wars were fought with massive land armies crossed borders, this might have made sense. But, the new wars of today are fought by computer or small groups of fanatics. A huge land army of tanks and artillery have little effect in these battles.
But, this is not about military strategy, because I don't fully understand it, doesn't make it wrong. The problem I have is the enormous expense of sustaining these forces in foriegn countries. I have heard that the cost of these forces could amount to $100 billion a year. I have to think that the amount could be close.
So, the questions beg....
Is the American Taxpayer getting a bang out of their buck to support overseas forces?
What about the people in countries where they are located? There are reports about local discomfort in Okinawa Japan for example...
Or... am I becoming an isolationist?
Closing Statement from Mike Colera
There seems to be two almost opposite points of view. On one hand the benefits to countries having US forces present to engage in or deter hostile actions is well noted. Removal of US forces would cause great hardships.
On the other side, the hardships noted would be real, but the American taxpayer is supporting these foriegn based
forces in the maybe hundreds of billions of dollars. Funds that would be better used within the US.
I believe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Each situation needs to be addressed. However, some of these foreign stations in peaceful countries almost sound like vacation tours.