Foreign policy

[Al'thor]

This subject has been on my mind a lot lately and I think we (U.S.A.) need to stop having bases all over the world and bring our troops home. What are your thoughts on the matter?

[4Tran]

It's a nice sentiment, but it's utterly impractical for most of the U.S.'s overseas commitments. The U.S. relies on these bases for maintaining its military presence all over the world, and if it were to give them up, it would have to vastly revise its military strategies. Moreover, most of these bases exist because of an invitation from the local government (particularly in South Korea), so any withdrawal wouldn't improve the U.S.'s foreign standing. There are a few exceptions to this like Guantanamo Bay and the natives' dislike of the base in Okinawa, but these are relatively rare exceptions.

Is there any particular reason you think the U.S. should disband all of these bases?

[Aoie_Emesai]

Dun forget. The country that has the largest standing army will always hold most control and power. Simple as that.

If we look at it from a political sense, no. Even I agree we need to have the troops there. You need troops to enforce the rules you submit over them. Like cops, you need them to enforce the law.

[Kamui4356]

I don't think we need all the overseas bases we have, but we certainly need some, if not most of them unless we want to completely retreat from the world stage. I'd advocate reviewing each base and making a decision on whether we really need forces deployed there.

If we did bring all those troops home, just what would we do with them anyway? We'd have to either downsize the military, adding a lot of additional workers to an already weak economy and hurt defense contractors, or find random stuff for them to do, like public works projects. Neither is really a good solution. The only other option is to invade Mexico and/or Canada.



In a broader view of foriegn policy, I think we should be more willing to talk to nations we have less than favorable relationships with. Having a dialog with the Soviet Union is the only reason much of the world isn't a radioactive wasteland now. Talking to your enemies isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign you're somewhat rational.

It's an act of insanity to think a nation you have a disagreement with is going to accept many of the conditions you need to talk about for the honor of sitting down and talking with the US. The worst that can happen in talks is you fail to reach an agreement and are back to where you started. Not talking at all can lead to unnecessary military confrontation.

[Vexx]

As isolationist as I might like to be, too many countries DO depend on us for regional support and leveraging of resources (military). Japan is a major example (though I agree with japanese citizens that we could easily work with them less obtrusively than our bases currently manifest).

On the other hand, our blatant attempt to make Iraq a huge base of operations so we can quietly exit out of Saudi Arabia (placating the situation there between the thugs, I mean, sultanate and the people).
We seem to have a knack as a nation for supporting This One Guy and his minions - thereby infuriating the population (see Pakistan now, Shah of Iran, etc). It makes me think our foreign policy "experts" over the decades are pretty simple-minded.

[Sorrow-K]

Obviously the US has set up numerous mutually beneficial bilateral relationships that are maintained by a certain amount of military presence. Hell, even here in Australia, we have US military bases (two according to Wiki, but I thought it was actually a few more). The problem with the current US foreign policy is that it goes towards a certain extreme, and is significantly driven by this idea of "democracy" exportation that history has shown time and again to be in most cases a bad idea.

[tripperazn]

I don't really see the upside of removal all of our various "acquisitions" over the centuries. Certainly, keeping the lowest level possible of personnel to both lower costs and keep a low profile is good policy, but I don't see the point in not having them.

Since the US has taken the role of "world police", and I don't see that changing anytime soon, it's better that we keep our foreign military bases as refueling stations and troop deployment points. The land is already ours, the infrastructure is already there, if it makes the job easier, why not keep them? Besides, many of them are commitments to allies, like Japan, who has no military.

[Vexx]

Plus, the "exportation of democracy" is really a canard of sorts..... our actions (like, say, in Pakistan or Afghanistan) imply we're more interested in enforced stability and having a single contact point Being able to free oneself from autocratic rule really seems to have to come from within.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Plus, the "exportation of democracy" is really a canard of sorts..... our actions (like, say, in Pakistan or Afghanistan) imply we're more interested in enforced stability and having a single contact point Being able to free oneself from autocratic rule really seems to have to come from within.

Yes, I agree, but it seems many don't seem to think so. I refuse to name names, since playing the blame-game never solves anything.

In my opinion, any wars we are currently in MUST be seen through to the bitter end. Whether or not they were right in the first place. I believe all actions have their own consequences, and it is one's responsibility and duty to uphold this general rule of existence.

...Okay I'm getting off my soap box now.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by tripperazn

Since the US has taken the role of "world police", and I don't see that changing anytime soon, it's better that we keep our foreign military bases as refueling stations and troop deployment points. The land is already ours, the infrastructure is already there, if it makes the job easier, why not keep them? Besides, many of them are commitments to allies, like Japan, who has no military.

The U.S.'s foreign bases long predate the role of "world police". Instead, they exist to "protect the United States' "vital national interests". Even in places where the original purpose of the base is no longer valid, like Germany, those places are often used to support missions in the vicinity.

And by the way, Japan has a large military - it may not have much of an army, but it's got the second largest navy and air force in the neighborhood.

Originally Posted by Vexx

Plus, the "exportation of democracy" is really a canard of sorts..... our actions (like, say, in Pakistan or Afghanistan) imply we're more interested in enforced stability and having a single contact point Being able to free oneself from autocratic rule really seems to have to come from within.

Well, the idea of exporting democracy is only trotted out by the U.S. when it's politically advantageous to do so; and it's endemic of an uneven approach to foreign policy. It's not a surprise that American achievements in this field have been very hit-and-miss since World War II. It'd be great if the U.S. were to rethink its foreign policy in light of its successes (and lack thereof), but the current system is far too deeply entrenched to easily change.

[Lanner Falcon]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

The U.S.'s foreign bases long predate the role of "world police". Instead, they exist to "protect the United States' "vital national interests". Even in places where the original purpose of the base is no longer valid, like Germany, those places are often used to support missions in the vicinity.

And by the way, Japan has a large military - it may not have much of an army, but it's got the second largest navy and air force in the neighborhood.


Well, the idea of exporting democracy is only trotted out by the U.S. when it's politically advantageous to do so; and it's endemic of an uneven approach to foreign policy. It's not a surprise that American achievements in this field have been very hit-and-miss since World War II. It'd be great if the U.S. were to rethink its foreign policy in light of its successes (and lack thereof), but the current system is far too deeply entrenched to easily change.

You've made a very good point there, and I mostly agree. However I think there is one way it might work.

If we were to say, pull out of Iraq, and then remove our military bases, we would gain money, but then be on the defensive. We are an important limiter for russian interests in Europe, and have been for years. Nonetheless, I can't say that it is advisable for us to keep bases there. We should have a few, at certain border points: Just enough so we could declare war if necessary.

And I would keep the bases in Japan: the Chinese have rising influence in the area, and, and with the whole Taiwan thing… (I believe we have treaties with them that would implicate us, if the chinese attacked)

However on the whole, it would mean a massive pullback, and frankly, I don't think anyone here fully understands the consequences of doing so…

[Solace]

I think the whole idea people have of turning back into an isolationist nation is the frustration in foreign policy in general. It really has been one case after another of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

While propping up regimes and other such things isn't uniquely US policy, it certainly has come back to bite us time and time again. Personally I don't think it's worth the effort. The only reason we should be anywhere in the world is to stabilize the region, and only because it's in the worlds interest, not just ours.

I think for current world events, we need to see things through completely. It really makes no sense to pull out of Iraq right now, for instance. We're the only thing holding it together, if we left, the place would explode and drag other countries with it. Then people will really be left wondering what the point was going there in the first place.

What troubles me the most is that foreign policy seems to have taken the forefront over domestic policy. This has really come into peoples minds with the current elections thanks to a failing economy and concerns about support systems like health care, education, and transportation.

I understand that it is inevitable for a country like the US to spend efforts on foreign affairs but I think many citizens are starting to wonder what good that's actually done for the country as a whole.

[Lanner Falcon]

Originally Posted by Solace

I think the whole idea people have of turning back into an isolationist nation is the frustration in foreign policy in general. It really has been one case after another of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

While propping up regimes and other such things isn't uniquely US policy, it certainly has come back to bite us time and time again. Personally I don't think it's worth the effort. The only reason we should be anywhere in the world is to stabilize the region, and only because it's in the worlds interest, not just ours.

I think for current world events, we need to see things through completely. It really makes no sense to pull out of Iraq right now, for instance. We're the only thing holding it together, if we left, the place would explode and drag other countries with it. Then people will really be left wondering what the point was going there in the first place.

What troubles me the most is that foreign policy seems to have taken the forefront over domestic policy. This has really come into peoples minds with the current elections thanks to a failing economy and concerns about support systems like health care, education, and transportation.

I understand that it is inevitable for a country like the US to spend efforts on foreign affairs but I think many citizens are starting to wonder what good that's actually done for the country as a whole.

We were never isolationist: We were a republic, and not an empire. That means that instead of overseeing are allies, we oversaw ourselves. There was a long period when america was involved only in small, isolated conflicts, primarily over islands. And do you know something? We did better then then we do know.

Nonetheless, I agree almost entirely with the approach of definitely settling current events.

And also, that domestic policy isn't being as well looked at. The immigration issue in particular.

[Jinto]

Here are some statistics about deployments of the military of the United States.

I think it is strategical not advisable to pullout everywhere. Because that will limit air reachability and support chains in crisis regions that are more than 8,000 miles away from the US mainland.

[Lanner Falcon]

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

Here are some statistics about deployments of the military of the United States.

I think it is strategical not advisable to pullout everywhere. Because that will limit air reachability and support chains in crisis regions that are more than 8,000 miles away from the US mainland.

A reasonable point on the deployment. Of course, it might be more advisable to have carriers, instead of static bases, and long, term, I believe our fleet, and carriers in particular are the greatest assets we posses.

This would cost more money in the short term, but long-term, it might be a better idea.

And it to tell the truth, If we settle the current problems we have, then most of those "hot spots", will have nothing whatsoever to do with us. And those that do could probably be reached through carriers, air refueling, and a few key bases.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Lanner Falcon

A reasonable point on the deployment. Of course, it might be more advisable to have carriers, instead of static bases, and long, term, I believe our fleet, and carriers in particular are the greatest assets we posses.

This would cost more money in the short term, but long-term, it might be a better idea.

And it to tell the truth, If we settle the current problems we have, then most of those "hot spots", will have nothing whatsoever to do with us. And those that do could probably be reached through carriers, air refueling, and a few key bases.

If oil is going to stay rather cheap that may be an correct assumption. Though I assume you underestimate the costs for the support chain. There is no other country in the world deploying a similar high number of soldiers in crisis regions. To think one can keep such amounts of personell, material and machinery running from carriers or homeland based air supply alone is quiet adventurous.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Lanner Falcon

We are an important limiter for russian interests in Europe, and have been for years. Nonetheless, I can't say that it is advisable for us to keep bases there. We should have a few, at certain border points: Just enough so we could declare war if necessary.

And I would keep the bases in Japan: the Chinese have rising influence in the area, and, and with the whole Taiwan thing… (I believe we have treaties with them that would implicate us, if the chinese attacked)

Nope. Russia hasn't been in shape for attacking anyone since the early '90s. Likewise, the American presence in Asia hasn't limited China at all; China itself is, both militarily and politically, simply incapable of launching any major attacks. Right now, Japan has a stronger navy and air force than China, so an attack in that direction is unthinkable (and probably will remain so for the next couple of decades). And the U.S. is under no treaty obligation to defend Taiwan.

Originally Posted by Solace

I think the whole idea people have of turning back into an isolationist nation is the frustration in foreign policy in general. It really has been one case after another of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

I think that it's more a case of the American people not having any idea how to conduct foreign policy. The benefits and drawbacks of a particular approach usually isn't readily apparent for many years, if at all, so there's little in the way of feedback for what's working. In recent years, such policy has taken an ideological cant, which is possibly the worst way to conduct policy. It isn't a wonder that people are looking more closely at isolationism.

Originally Posted by Lanner Falcon

And it to tell the truth, If we settle the current problems we have, then most of those "hot spots", will have nothing whatsoever to do with us. And those that do could probably be reached through carriers, air refueling, and a few key bases.

Currently, much of the U.S.'s foreign policy revolves around protecting the business interests of American companies. Since such interests can be found all over the world, the American military needs to be able to project power all over the world in order to fulfill its obligation. Doing so with all the support facilities in American territory won't work since the logistical network is inadequate for meeting such demands.

[Lanner Falcon]

Originally Posted by Jinto Lin

If oil is going to stay rather cheap that may be an correct assumption. Though I assume you underestimate the costs for the support chain. There is no other country in the world deploying a similar high number of soldiers in crisis regions. To think one can keep such amounts of personell, material and machinery running from carriers or homeland based air supply alone is quiet adventurous.

I'm sure the cost would be less than it is now at least

However, how man of these "hot spots" are really are concern? If you're just talking abou humanitarian aid, I'd remind you that we have a sizable national debt, and the taxpayers aren't paying to run the UN's Charitable Organization.

I do understand the military point however. You want to keep the same military force in some places, as a deterrent, correct? This make some sense, however as adventurous as I know I'm being, I think it's possible to rely entirely on carriers. You'd need to build a vast amount however…

I guess part of my reason is this: in the long term, a navy can do a lot more to protect our country the a foreign military base, and it's also less susceptible to attack, and sabotage. The ability to send the equivalent of ten military bases anywhere in the world, is a sizable one.

(and in some carrier groups, you have that)

Nonetheless, I still doubt that either one of us has any idea what we'r really talking about.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Lanner Falcon

However, how man of these "hot spots" are really are concern?

Just about all of the hot spots in the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe, North and South America are deemed to be of vital interest to the United States. And none of this has anything to do with foreign aid. In fact, foreign aid is little more than a red herring in these matters since the U.S. gives out very little aid to begin with; and of what is given out, most of it is tied to using the aid money to purchase American military equipment (this is especially true of Egypt and Israel).

[Sakura_Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Nope. Russia hasn't been in shape for attacking anyone since the early '90s. Likewise, the American presence in Asia hasn't limited China at all; China itself is, both militarily and politically, simply incapable of launching any major attacks. Right now, Japan has a stronger navy and air force than China, so an attack in that direction is unthinkable (and probably will remain so for the next couple of decades). And the U.S. is under no treaty obligation to defend Taiwan.

You greatly underestimate the Former Soviet unions ability to launch attacksand that of China's aswell and the point you raised about Japan having a greater air force, that is one of the funniest things i have read, China's ir force is the third largest in the world, and on top of that uses top of the range interceptors from Russia which are more than capable of eliminating the somewhat meager and outdated fighters that japan uses, and Russia has Some of the most sophiticated weapons in the world especially in terms of Air and Armour, and on top of that even Russia has The Strategic Rocket Forces which comprise the world's largest force of ICBMs, totalling 560 missiles able to deliver 1,970 nuclear warheads. easily can launch an attack on another country with its capabilty of retailiating very little, thats all for now ill keep sniffing around this thread though >.>