What is the point of having military bases leftover from previous wars?

[P F Tinmore]

America Still Has Hundreds of Military Bases Worldwide. Have They Made Us Any Safer?

In the Persian Gulf alone, the US has major bases in every country save Iran. There is an increasingly important, increasingly large base in Djibouti, just miles across the Red Sea from the Arabian Peninsula. There are bases in Pakistan on one end of the region and in the Balkans on the other, as well as on the strategically located Indian Ocean islands of Diego Garcia and the Seychelles. In Afghanistan and Iraq, there were once as many as 800 and 505 bases, respectively. Recently, the Obama administration inked an agreement with new Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to maintain around 10,000 troops and at least nine major bases in his country beyond the official end of combat operations later this year. US forces, which never fully departed Iraq after 2011, are now returning to a growing number of bases there in ever larger numbers.

Story @ America still has hundreds of military bases worldwide. Have they made us any safer?

And countries who have no foreign bases are safer than we are.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Which bases did you have in mind?

Every base that isn't on US aoil. No need for the US to be paying to protect our enemies in Europe and Asia among others.

So our ships will have no place to refuel, aircraft will have nowhere to land, our troops will always be weeks away because the ships will take two weeks to get there.

I guess you had better plan on building about 20 more $13 billion carriers and make all of their support ships nuclear also.

 

[Kosh]

I generally feel that most of our military presence in the world is unnecessary since they are leftovers from wars from several generations back. I always kind of thought that if the war is over with that we retract but why do we have bases left over from WWII and the cold war. THose are long over with so why are they still needed? Who does this make happy?

It is that military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about. It is all about sucking the money out of our country.

Have you notice that in the last two or three generations that military values have been institutionalized into us. I'm not knocking the military or anything but before FDR and WWII Americans were, I think, were pretty non-militeristic when compared to today. It just wasn't an issue as it is today.

It was the great military industrial complex that FDR created that made America strong. The far left has been trying to dismantle what their GOD FDR created.

And tearing up a military base is very costly, but Lucas used one for Star Wars.

George Lucas sets up shop on former military base

 

[easyt65]

Mutual military cooperation

Having bases in parts of the world help provide for our military projection

There are numerous reasons. The dact you are asking is a good thing because it is a sign you are trying to educate yourself.

BTW, a military base abroad is not part of the 'military complex'....the F-35 IS, though.

 

[Kondor3]

Yes, we need military bases on foreign soil, in each major region of the world...

Insofar as we can obtain and sustain these, in reasonable numbers, and insofar as we can staff and equip these sufficiently to fulfill their regional missions...

Furthermore, we need to be able to pre-position equipment and munitions in secure areas adjacent to likely trouble-spots, well in advance of such troubles...

Why?

Two reasons:

1. we have global interests that need protecting

2. instantaneous communications and high-speed transport make it more necessary than ever to act quickly and preemptively in our own defense

Our two-ocean shield is no longer the near-insurmountable barrier against enemies that it once was...

We no longer have the luxury of spending six months or a year ramping up before launching counterattacks...

But take heart...

We have dramatically reduced our footprint in Europe, and, I'm guessing, elsewhere across the globe, as well, in the context of Old Bases...

 

[Anathema]

So our ships will have no place to refuel, aircraft will have nowhere to land, our troops will always be weeks away because the ships will take two weeks to get there.

I guess you had better plan on building about 20 more $13 billion carriers and make all of their support ships nuclear also.

Why would they need to refuel elsewhere when their only mission is US Border Security? With a,properly isolationist policy, there is little need for what you're suggesting.

 

[Anathema]

China and Russia gave up their nukes years ago? Right? [/sarcasm]

Our troops are not border guards. That would be the Border Patrol.

What do the Chinese and Russian nukes have to do with anything?

Our rroopa primary role should be birder security. Save the funds from Border Patrol and all the legal crap by just shooting anyone trying to get in.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you realize how few bases we have now compared to just a few decades a go? I guess Russia is not a threat. China? Nope! No problems with ISIS or Al Qaeda.

Let's just do away with our military. They never contribute anything to our nation.

Two answers for your first paragraph..... Fat Man II and Little Boy II. Fuck with us, we NUKE your ass.

Closing foreign bases means more troops to patrol our borders here at home.

China and Russia gave up their nukes years ago? Right? [/sarcasm]

Our troops are not border guards. That would be the Border Patrol.

Our troops are not border guards....
Well, they should be.
Not only should our military be protecting our borders, but the seaports, inland ports on major waterways and our air terminals.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So our ships will have no place to refuel, aircraft will have nowhere to land, our troops will always be weeks away because the ships will take two weeks to get there.

I guess you had better plan on building about 20 more $13 billion carriers and make all of their support ships nuclear also.

Why would they need to refuel elsewhere when their only mission is US Border Security? With a,properly isolationist policy, there is little need for what you're suggesting.

Your belief that that is the purpose of the US military appears to be the problem.

Our people travel the world and our nation has business and political interests all of the world. A "proper isolationist policy", as you call it, is based on utter ignorance.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Do you realize how few bases we have now compared to just a few decades a go? I guess Russia is not a threat. China? Nope! No problems with ISIS or Al Qaeda.

Let's just do away with our military. They never contribute anything to our nation.

Two answers for your first paragraph..... Fat Man II and Little Boy II. Fuck with us, we NUKE your ass.

Closing foreign bases means more troops to patrol our borders here at home.

China and Russia gave up their nukes years ago? Right? [/sarcasm]

Our troops are not border guards. That would be the Border Patrol.

Our troops are not border guards....
Well, they should be.
Not only should our military be protecting our borders, but the seaports, inland ports on major waterways and our air terminals.

Did you attain at least a high school education? I certainly am having my doubts!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

China and Russia gave up their nukes years ago? Right? [/sarcasm]

Our troops are not border guards. That would be the Border Patrol.

What do the Chinese and Russian nukes have to do with anything?

Our rroopa primary role should be birder security. Save the funds from Border Patrol and all the legal crap by just shooting anyone trying to get in.

You are too stupid to carry on an intelligent conversation. Go do your homework until Mommy tells you it is bedtime.

 

[Tehon]

What is the point of having military bases leftover from previous wars?

Global hegemony is the point.

 

[Jarlaxle]

So our ships will have no place to refuel, aircraft will have nowhere to land, our troops will always be weeks away because the ships will take two weeks to get there.

I guess you had better plan on building about 20 more $13 billion carriers and make all of their support ships nuclear also.

Why would they need to refuel elsewhere when their only mission is US Border Security? With a,properly isolationist policy, there is little need for what you're suggesting.

Your belief that that is the purpose of the US military appears to be the problem.

Our people travel the world and our nation has business and political interests all of the world. A "proper isolationist policy", as you call it, is based on utter ignorance.

Nah, he's just batshit.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What is the point of having military bases leftover from previous wars?

Global hegemony is the point.

You say it as though it is a bad thing.

 

[Kondor3]

What is the point of having military bases leftover from previous wars?

Global hegemony is the point.

Spoken like a true retired Soviet propagandist.

 

[Tehon]

What is the point of having military bases leftover from previous wars?

Global hegemony is the point.

You say it as though it is a bad thing.

I stated it as a matter of fact. I implied nothing.

 

[Tehon]

Though two posters interpret the phrase global hegemony negatively.......curious.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Yes, we need military bases on foreign soil, in each major region of the world...

Insofar as we can obtain and sustain these, in reasonable numbers, and insofar as we can staff and equip these sufficiently to fulfill their regional missions...

Furthermore, we need to be able to pre-position equipment and munitions in secure areas adjacent to likely trouble-spots, well in advance of such troubles...

Why?

Two reasons:

1. we have global interests that need protecting

2. instantaneous communications and high-speed transport make it more necessary than ever to act quickly and preemptively in our own defense

Our two-ocean shield is no longer the near-insurmountable barrier against enemies that it once was...

We no longer have the luxury of spending six months or a year ramping up before launching counterattacks...

But take heart...

We have dramatically reduced our footprint in Europe, and, I'm guessing, elsewhere across the globe, as well, in the context of Old Bases...

Has it ever occurred to anyone that a lot of this isn't necessary. I have no problem with having a military to defend ourselves but why is it every conflict in the world seems to involve us somehow. I'm getting a little sick of it. I like peace not war.

 

[Kondor3]

...Has it ever occurred to anyone that a lot of this isn't necessary. I have no problem with having a military to defend ourselves but why is it every conflict in the world seems to involve us somehow. I'm getting a little sick of it. I like peace not war.

Yes, of course.

We (the US) have not been doing a very good job of looking before we leap, in the context of military engagement, within the past several decades.

Can we - and should we - strive mightily, to do a much better job in vetting our engagements before we jump?

Absolutely.

Does that mean we have to withdraw our military presence, beyond our own shores?

Nope.

The two goals - proper vetting of engagements, and the forward projection of power, for preemptive and buffering purposes - are not mutually exclusive.

The "truth" - the correct, balanced "mix" - lies somewhere in the middle; between what we do now, and what we should be doing.

That, too, should 'occur' to people, widely.

 

[Tehon]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that a lot of this isn't necessary. I have no problem with having a military to defend ourselves but why is it every conflict in the world seems to involve us somehow. I'm getting a little sick of it. I like peace not war.

None of it is necessary, our military is not used for our common defense, it is used to protect corporate interests. Those and the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia as well, both have enormous influence on our internal politics.