Do we need military bases in foreign countrie?

[candycorn]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

Unless it's in our national interest, AND we are invited by the host nation, AND, we have the option on how long we stay, AND where the bases are precisely, no.

 

[Redfish]

get off my thread Fluke. you are on ignore for a reason

 

[Rocko]

Deterring regional aggression by means of military bases has been a U.S. military strategy since the end of WWII. We may rely greatly on those bases if we need to go to war.

 

[candycorn]

get off my thread Fluke. you are on ignore for a reason

What you going to do about it short-stack?

 

[candycorn]

Deterring regional aggression by means of military bases has been a U.S. military strategy since the end of WWII. We may rely greatly on those bases if we need to go to war.

True. While it is more convenient to have bases, outside of Korea, it's hard to imagine one of our bases being in just the right spot to stop opponent X. The threat matrix has changed over time..

 

[Samson]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

Unless it's in our national interest, AND we are invited by the host nation, AND, we have the option on how long we stay, AND where the bases are precisely, no.

Where is this not already the case?

 

[Redfish]

Deterring regional aggression by means of military bases has been a U.S. military strategy since the end of WWII. We may rely greatly on those bases if we need to go to war.

Why? Do you think a war with China would be a ground war fought from bases in Japan or South Korea? Thats idiotic.

Our bases may be deterring Chinese agression towards Japan and South Korea, but why is that our responsibility? Why shouldn't we be paid for protecting them?

 

[mudwhistle]

I wonder if anyone remembers Desert Storm.

It took 6 months to build up the forces that were needed to move into Kuwait and expel Iraq's invasion forces. Without having bases in the region it never would have happened. You need a foothold next to the places you intend to move into before you even attempt to commit troops. Also, if we brought everyone home it would take over a month to move the troops to where they were needed. You still have to use ships to transport the mechanized forces needed to do the heavy lifting.

Can we rely on anyone else to do this? Can they even afford it? No.

Why? Because their funds are mostly wrapped up in entitlements and infrastructure, not defense.

 

[Samson]

Deterring regional aggression by means of military bases has been a U.S. military strategy since the end of WWII. We may rely greatly on those bases if we need to go to war.

True. While it is more convenient to have bases, outside of Korea, it's hard to imagine one of our bases being in just the right spot to stop opponent X. The threat matrix has changed over time..

Agreed, we should have more bases along the Mexican border.

 

[candycorn]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

Unless it's in our national interest, AND we are invited by the host nation, AND, we have the option on how long we stay, AND where the bases are precisely, no.

Where is this not already the case?

Gitmo down in Cuba seems to come to mind but I have to admit, I'm no expert on this. Did Cuba invite us? I'll bow to your greater knowledge on the subject...like Grumps said...way above my pay grade.

 

[candycorn]

Deterring regional aggression by means of military bases has been a U.S. military strategy since the end of WWII. We may rely greatly on those bases if we need to go to war.

True. While it is more convenient to have bases, outside of Korea, it's hard to imagine one of our bases being in just the right spot to stop opponent X. The threat matrix has changed over time..

Agreed, we should have more bases along the Mexican border.

Right on except I'd have army troops in hummers instead of ICE jeeps.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I wonder if anyone remembers Desert Storm.

It took 6 months to build up the forces that were needed to move into Kuwait and expel Iraq's invasion forces. Without having bases in the region it never would have happened. You need a foothold next to the places you intend to move into before you even attempt to commit troops. If we brought everyone home it would take over a month to move the troops to where they were needed. You still have to use ships to transport the mechanized forces needed to do the heavy lifting.

Good. Then our politicians would put a lot more thought into whether to declare war (sorry, "authorize the use of force") on other nations for borderline reasons.

Can we rely on anyone else to do this? Can they even afford it? No.

Why? Because their funds are mostly wrapped up in entitlements and infrastructure, not defense.

Did you really think that through?

Is the role of America's military is now supposed to be propping up the welfare states of the rest of the world?

Seriously?

 

[blackhawk]

Lets talk about this. Why do we have military bases in foreign countries? What national interest are they protecting? Should the host country pay for the base? Should we close them unless the host country pays?

Why is it our role to protect South Korea and Japan from China?

Why is it our role to protect Germany from Russia?

The bases serve as a deterrent for aggressors which was mainly the Soviet Union after WW2 the world has seen it's share of conflicts during that time they have been regional ones Korea and Nam being the most well known we have not had a world war since the second one I think these bases play a key role in that. Since it seems like Putin wants to remake the old Soviet iron curtain closing down these bases would seem to be a questionable decision at best in my view.

 

[Samson]

I wonder if anyone remembers Desert Storm.

It took 6 months to build up the forces that were needed to move into Kuwait and expel Iraq's invasion forces. Without having bases in the region it never would have happened. You need a foothold next to the places you intend to move into before you even attempt to commit troops. If we brought everyone home it would take over a month to move the troops to where they were needed. You still have to use ships to transport the mechanized forces needed to do the heavy lifting.

Can we rely on anyone else to do this? Can they even afford it? No.

Why? Because their funds are mostly wrapped up in entitlements and infrastructure, not defense.

I wonder if anyone remember World War II.

Despite our "projected" military resources in Pearl Harbor being almost completely destroyed, and our scanty military budget, and no bases in Europe, WW II was over in 5 years, and we won.



Of course, we used nukes.......which we could use now.

 

[candycorn]

I wonder if anyone remembers Desert Storm.

It took 6 months to build up the forces that were needed to move into Kuwait and expel Iraq's invasion forces. Without having bases in the region it never would have happened. You need a foothold next to the places you intend to move into before you even attempt to commit troops. If we brought everyone home it would take over a month to move the troops to where they were needed. You still have to use ships to transport the mechanized forces needed to do the heavy lifting.

Good. Then our politicians would put a lot more thought into whether to declare war (sorry, "authorize the use of force") on other nations for borderline reasons.

Can we rely on anyone else to do this? Can they even afford it? No.

Why? Because their funds are mostly wrapped up in entitlements and infrastructure, not defense.

Did you really think that through?

Is the role of America's military is now supposed to be propping up the welfare states of the rest of the world?

Seriously?

Its a fine line.

I tend to think that we should only be where we are invited and have an option on where the bases are and how long we stay, what type of arms we have there, etc... Basically a 51st state. Under those circumstances, I don't see a big downside. We're a global power and having global presence is only natural.

 

[Rocko]

Deterring regional aggression by means of military bases has been a U.S. military strategy since the end of WWII. We may rely greatly on those bases if we need to go to war.

Why? Do you think a war with China would be a ground war fought from bases in Japan or South Korea? Thats idiotic.

Our bases may be deterring Chinese agression towards Japan and South Korea, but why is that our responsibility? Why shouldn't we be paid for protecting them?

Why do you assume it's China we'd be going to war with? Protecting other nations is just part of the benefit, we're also serving our interests. Having a strong military presence overseas is part of the reason we're unrivaled as a superpower.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Its a fine line.

I tend to think that we should only be where we are invited and have an option on where the bases are and how long we stay, what type of arms we have there, etc... Basically a 51st state. Under those circumstances, I don't see a big downside. We're a global power and having global presence is only natural.

Your progressive crank opinions mean almost as little to me as they do to Redfish.

Besides that, I wasn't addressing you.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

It is astonishing to me how otherwise rock-ribbed conservative types transform into busybody nag progressives, when the subject becomes American global military hegemony.

Truly astonishing.

 

[blackhawk]

I wonder if anyone remembers Desert Storm.

It took 6 months to build up the forces that were needed to move into Kuwait and expel Iraq's invasion forces. Without having bases in the region it never would have happened. You need a foothold next to the places you intend to move into before you even attempt to commit troops. If we brought everyone home it would take over a month to move the troops to where they were needed. You still have to use ships to transport the mechanized forces needed to do the heavy lifting.

Can we rely on anyone else to do this? Can they even afford it? No.

Why? Because their funds are mostly wrapped up in entitlements and infrastructure, not defense.

I wonder if anyone remember World War II.

Despite our "projected" military resources in Pearl Harbor being almost completely destroyed, and our scanty military budget, and no bases in Europe, WW II was over in 5 years, and we won.



Of course, we used nukes.......which we could use now.

True but that was a very different time and mindset of both the nations leaders and the people neither the politicians of today or the public has that has that total victory mindset they had back then.

 

[candycorn]

True. While it is more convenient to have bases, outside of Korea, it's hard to imagine one of our bases being in just the right spot to stop opponent X. The threat matrix has changed over time..

Agreed, we should have more bases along the Mexican border.

Right on except I'd have army troops in hummers instead of ICE jeeps.

I tend to think building an inter-coastal waterway from Cali to Texas would be the best type of security fence. Basically a canal that could take freight from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico.

Security is one issue. Harder to cross a wide body of water where there is near constant human presence.

Trade is another.

But having another source of water that cuts through the desert Southwest to help reduce the effect of drought is another reason.

Just a thought. Fire away.