Wouldn't it make sense to remove all Troops from Non-Combat Foreign Posts,for long term savings to taxpayers?
Germany Japan S. Korea And on and on,bring them home.Why waste our money keeping Troops there,let them pay for their own Troops if they need them.
Politics - 16 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
That would be a great idea, until we looked around and realized that Russia, China, and the United States were the only three countries left in the world.
2 :
It would be good for our economy, but our allies may not like it. I say who cares what anyone else thinks because when it comes right down to it the only person who has your best interests at heart is you.
3 :
Yes. The Constitution does not Grant the power of the Federal government to base American troops on foreign soil... As any conservative constructionist knows, only the states can do this...
4 :
That's not why they're there. Troops are in Germany in case Russia starts being stupid. Japan and South Korea in case North Korea starts being stupid.
5 :
I think so, but when I've said that, people have made some good arguments for keeping them all around the world. Some have said they need to be in non-domestic posts in case we need to deploy them to a place where violence pops up. Sounds plausible.
6 :
Technically, the ones in South Korea are not non-Combat posts, since the war never officially ended.
7 :
Whimsy- Bases in foreign countries are American soil. No it wouldn't make sense in the long run, those bases are used every day to support combat areas.
8 :
And what kind of jobs are here for them to do when they all get back? Savings to taxpayers? I think not.
9 :
the reason our troops are still there is the reason that there all non combat areas, once there all gone, things change. our troops are in these areas to let the other side know that we can strike and hit em hard within a hours notice anytime we want to, 24/7/365 the bases in korea/japan are there not to protect these countries but to let the russians and chinese know that were right next door, as far as germany that's a short flight to moscow/st, petersburge the day we move out of thee bases is the day the far left get some balls and make trouble again.
10 :
It would actually cost the taxpayers of this country a LOT less to close down every single foreign military base, and build 2-3 dozen nuclear aircraft carrier tasks forces to patrol the world's hot spots from international waters instead. Imagine that for a moment...... 24 nuclear powered Ronald Reagan size aircraft carriers with the most technologically advanced aircraft and weapondry on the face of the planet, plus support vessles, patrolling the world's oceans without a single US footprint on foreign soil. Sounds good to me.
11 :
Meant to be more of a deterrent than anything, but yeah. I think the US likes having this kind of control in those countries.
12 :
I'm undecided on this. Partly because Germany for example is used as a forward staging and training ground for our troops. It's closer to where the action is in Afghanistan for instance. While I was there the majority of Germans wanted us to stay for various reasons, economic being one of them. South Korea? I'm not sure we can leave without the area blowing up. Now would I like to bring the troops home? Yes. I have family in the combat zone right now.
13 :
Germany and Japan, yes. S. Korea, unfortunately, no.
14 :
Yes! Definitely! & also to honor a tradition of not getting embroiled in foreign entanglements.
15 :
Actually, the bases the US maintains in Europe are arguably the most useful. Mostly because there we hold troops that train to fight effectively with our NATO allies. Moreover, we make it possible for Europe having a civilized relationship with Russia (which is in our economic and political interest) because if Russia moves, we hit them. If Europe moves, we pull the plug and let them fend for themselves. We have a vested interest in guaranteeing the sovereignty of our allies, Japan and South Korea. Either we let the Japanese have an actual army, or we protect their asses. South Korea can theoretically fend for itself, so we could scrap our bases there. We can reach it in a day from Japan, where we hold bases, so what's the need for bases on Korea?
16 :
Before ICBMs with nuclear weapons, I would have said no. That that we can defend the US without those bases, yes.
