id sure prefer my $$$ going to infrastructure and education over raytheon and general dynamics. always make sure there is an adequate military for defense, but developing exotic weapons should not be a priority. oh, and get the hell out of korea and germany, etc. thatd save a few bucks.
unless of course if it were your a$$ getting shot at in the middle east. i'm sure you would be in favor of ramping up that defense spending.
Global economics require global engagement. Global engagement requires a global presence (and not just one element of national power - all elements of national power). Global presence requires a global footprint. Getting "the hell out of Korea and Germany" without relocating to more advantageous bases of operations is just strategically stupid. We live in a real world and it's complex and nasty and expensive. Isolationism has failed in the past and it will always fail - only FASTER.
Keeping soldiers as safe as possible should be priority #1, I doubt anyone would argue differently, save possibly those who would send soldiers into harm's way unnecessarily.
Interventionism has failed in the past and the present. Non-interventionism sounds good to me and I'm not sure we need our noses in every corner of the world (and more to the point, I'm not sure we can afford it). Why should Americans spend their money abroad to the degree that we are now? I think we can manage national security with far less presence overseas, and likely better with the bulk of our power back home. Plus, we need that money at home. The only reason for keeping troops around the world to maintain a global footprint is for reasons against the will of hosts or their neighbors. Is it to keep China and Russia in check? Is it to facilitate information gathering on future terrorist plots? Is it to make sure we keep the flow of oil going? Or is it to keep the world from crumbling, to blot out evil and maintain stability? Does it come down to, we are the badasses and we are going to stay here so you don't get any frisky ideas? I claim ignorance, so if someone could let me know, it'd be much appreciated.
Have a global military presence is not the same thing as interventionalism. National security is not the only issue here. Do you understand military strategy? If we need to take action in a foreign country, our presence in strategically located areas will be very adventagious. False.
I don't "understand" all of the military spending and positioning and what not either. I personally think we could sit at home at watch from satelites and be just as safe as we are with troops scattered all over the world. The only countries that I beleive could truly do large scale damage to us before we turned their piece of dirt into a landfill is Cuba and Canada. I don't think Cuba has the money, and Canada is like our first cousin. And I am not ashamed to say that I don't give a rats ass about the poor overseas, or the mistreated. When everyone in this country is taking dumps on gold plated toilets, then we can help those other folks out. Until then, keep my tax money in the country. Trust me, they will still sell us their stuff and buy our stuff if we don't get involved in every spat around the globe.
To an extent I think I can agree. I can somewhat understand this argument, except that technology has made the world smaller and the idea of boots on the ground less relevant. I can understand keeping US troops near China, say in Japan, to deter China from ever considering an attack on Japan, as it would require an attack on US military. Same with Russia... and Germany? That doesn't mean we couldn't cut back globally. I have to say I'm very limited in my knowledge of military strategy, but I'm doing my best to understand and be reasonable. How false is it, really? We are in Japan, not against Japan's will, but probably more against China's will. I can see a strong strategic reason to remain in Japan against China's will, don't misunderstand me. What other reason is there for military installments? I suppose they can also work as a regional artery. I still argue that we're too interventionist and don't hold our allies responsible for issues important on the world stage in their neck of the wood.
true, but the lack of imperialism is not isolationism, either. its come to the point where we dont need no stinkin allies. we'll do whatever we want. and by "we" i mean a handful of suits. better reign this spending in or we're looking at the fall of the next empire its high time this country had another moon mission so we dont have to dick around with the middle east and russia. problem is, its possible that its past the time. the worst thing about democracy is that it doesnt lend itself to planning ahead. bunch of hedonists running the country.
