I'll bite...
i8godzilla wrote:Let's suppose that we went down the Ron Paul path. Dismantle and bring all American military members back to U.S. soil. What would the financial costs be to pack-up and ship trillions of tons of equipment home? Do we write it off and give it to the host country? How much would need to be re-purchased to replace it? How many new military bases would need to be built to keep an effective military on U.S. soil? Also, what would be the financial impact to our allies when the money spent by the military dries up? Would this financial impact, on our allies, have an impact on the U.S. financial markets.
Well, let's see... I realize that shipping stuff isn't free, but I imagine that outside of a few consumables (like maybe TP), it'd be cheaper to ship what we already have than buy new, so throwing or giving stuff away would probably be somewhat rare. There's probably a bunch of stuff we could sell to the locals to help offset a small part of the costs. In the long-term, though, it's one less base to keep up with and staff, so we
should see savings there (though I suppose it is possible that local supplies could be so cheap that the base "pays for itself"). I don't know what the financial impact on the host areas would be. Surely we've closed enough bases in our history to have an idea of what to expect; are there any comparable instances of similarly-sized military bases placed in similarly-sized areas closing that we can look at here? I don't know, but I'd
guess that our bases don't have a make-or-break effect on the regional economy... As far as I know, they're generally in fairly populated areas, so while the bars, restaurants, and stores in the immediate vicinity would see a drop in business, the land that our bases were on would get used for something else and then those businesses will get traffic from that.
Why do we have military installations outside of the U.S. borders? Can you say strategic advantage? By the way, there have been more attacks on U.S. interest off of U.S. soil than there have been on U.S. soil. You might say that it is easier to attack off of our soil than on it. This is more than likely true. However, those set to destroy the U.S., will not stop trying to do harm to us just because we are only based on U.S. soil. The two attacks on the World Trade Center are testament to their will to harm the U.S. way of life at home. Only having targets based on U.S. soil WILL mean that we have concentrated any attacks--to those that wish to due us harm--to U.S. soil. Is this what Ron Paul advocates?
"Strategic Advantage" works for me. IMHO there haven't been many attacks on us on our soil because, by and large, our significant neighbors like us. The WTC attacks certainly demonstrated that the BGs are
willing and able to attack us, but I don't see how it proved anything about
why they attacked us. Personally, I'd be more upset about foreign troops elbowing their way into my country and setting up shop than I would be about an "evil" culture expanding its influence. To the best of my recollection, nobody ever offers any evidence that Al Qaeda wants to harm us because of our "way of life", most everyone just says that it's obvious and talk over people who say otherwise. Perhaps it is obvious to someone paying more attention than I have, but I haven't personally seen the evidence.
We have installations in Europe because are allies want us there. Do we also have some obligations under NATO to do so? Is Ron Paul intent on having the U.S. leave NATO? What happens to Israel when our military support to them is days away versus just hours like it is today? We have installations in Japan because they unconditionally surrendered to us after an unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbor. Believe me, our troops in Japan, are a daily reminder to the Japanese that they will never go down that path again. What about Guam, Wake, and Midway? Do we do away with strategic stepping stones to the East? How long after we leave these locations do you think it will take North Korea or China to move in? What does Ron Paul think North Korea will do when we move out of South Korea? Do you advocate telling the South Korean citizens, sorry about your luck, hope you enjoy the living under the thumb of the new Dear Leader?
Well that's the rub, isn't it... our allies
genuinely want us there; whereas our bases in the ME seem to be begrudgingly tolerated by their host governments. At least that's the impression I get. Guam, Wake, and the Midway Islands are all US Territories, so I don't see how closing our foreign bases would affect them. My understanding is that WW2 Japanese cultural viewed the emperor as an infallible god, so hearing him announce their defeat must've stung a bit. I don't think they'll forget about their loss quickly. I think I remember reading somewhere that the surrender documents specifically say that there is no end-date for our "occupation", so we might
have to leave those open. Speaking of which, we might have a similar indefinite agreement with South Korea (isn't that still technically a hot war?) Israel (and South Korea) would still be our allies, and I believe we would still help them retaliate if they were attacked. I don't know if Ron Paul advocates leaving NATO. Personally, I don't have much of an opinion on the topic; I'd have to review what it obligates us to do and what we get out of it.
One thing that keeps us safe today is our ability to collect intelligence from around the globe. We have listening post in most of the countries we have military installations. Bet Ron Paul has very little knowledge of places like Diego Garcia and how important it is as both an intelligence gathering location and a strategic staging location. You would be surprised how much data is collected by intercepting information that takes place during training exercises. Because this intercepted information is broadcast on low powered transmission emitters, you must be close enough to hear it. Maybe intelligence gathering is not part of a Ron Paul administration.
In my opinion, merely gathering intelligence is not incompatible with a non-interventionist foreign policy, and I think the intelligence-gathering efforts of the CIA are critical to our national security. Does Ron Paul advocate dismantling the CIA, or just keeping them from covert nation-building?
Now back to doing away with those worldwide military installations and interest the U.S. currently has. Does Ron Paul really believe that just because we no longer positioned around the world that those that wish to due harm to us will stop? If he does, he is a fool. No, it means the fight we come to the only place targets are located--U.S. SOIL. I, for one, do not wish for daily terrorist attack in places like Austin, Dallas, Miami, Chicago, etc. Believe me, those that wish to do us harm will always try to do us harm. If the only targets are in the U.S. that is where they will bring the fight to us. Of course with any worldwide intelligence data collection they will be more successful. Maybe the video should be changed to: Do you want U.S. troops patrolling cities across the U.S. Because with a Ron Paul administration that will be where we would be headed.
[
citation needed] Again, if there's evidence that they'd continue attacking us even if we left them alone, I haven't seen it. Or at least I've forgotten about it if I have. Running around calling people fools because they disagree with your position does not constitute evidence.
Anyway, I've go do a bunch of stuff at work, so I've gotta run.
Just to be clear, I don't think Ron Paul is the second coming or anything, I just frequently (not always) find myself thinking that the "crazy" one makes more sense than the others.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
