According to an article in Global Research by Professor Jules Dufour, the United States has a vast worldwide network of military bases. In the year 2007 there were 737 foreign-based U.S. military installations scattered around the globe. It should be noted that number does not include super, ultra, highly classified secret bases that are undoubtedly located near potential adversaries and notorious hot spots. The site claimed that there were 255,065 military personnel deployed in off shore posts in 2007. The identified bases contain 845,441 buildings and cover more than 30 million acres. These bases, these deployments and their requisite equipment inventories are not cheap. The critical question is: are these bases absolutely necessary for the defense of our nation? Does our national interest justify these costs? Do these bases, if not vital, provide a strategic or social advantage for our country? And…if these bases are important for local or regional purposes, why not have the host country pay the costs associated with our protecting them? It would be the military version of “rent-a-cop.”
In my view, many of these bases may be superfluous, but I am not a military or logistics expert. On the other hand, if the host nations were to absorb the costs for deployment, it could result in a win-win for all parties. Our budgetary shortfalls would receive some relief from the payments, and our presence in those many nations would not be considered so “imperial.” Our military function would be similar to one of an independent contractor for the host. Chain of command and mission issues might arise, though, and could compromise the financial relationship. As an example, assume we had a garrison in the Dominican Republic and they were paying its costs, but our leaders believed that those troops were needed in Haiti on a short-term mission for whatever reason. How would the costs be allocated? What input would the Dominican Republic military and political leadership have in the decision for deployment? What if there were disagreements between our leaders and the host nation? These questions (and more) illustrate that the rent a troop model may not be workable.
The bottom line for our nation is: do we absolutely need all these bases and their associated native resentments to assure our national security? It seems reasonable that given our advanced technology and the superiority of our personnel and equipment, we can maintain an effective response and deterrence with fewer foreign bases. We will save valuable resources…financial, people and equipment and perhaps generate some goodwill. Frankly, the good will issue is a nonentity for me because there are too many other extraneous factors that determine our standing in the world. Closing several or many bases around the planet may have little impact on our global image. The Constitution requires the federal government to protect and defend the nation…despite what other nations, groups or cells may think of us. The Constitution does NOT require an international network of bases and troops to project an image of power. The Constitution does NOT require several hundred garrisons around the world to provide command opportunities for hundreds of professional officers.
We can reduce our global footprint, maintain our national security, and perhaps, engender some tiny element of goodwill by pursuing an intelligent and fiscally responsible policy for locating and supporting military bases. We need not become an isolationist “fortress America” to follow a reasonable policy. Dismantling some of our militaristic empire-building superstructure need not damage our safety. Our budgetary priorities are so distorted that we must begin with military excesses as we whittle the entitlement monster down to non-existence. The time has come to slaughter all the sacred cows of our bloated, ineffective, inefficient and unconstitutional federal government.
No comments:
Post a Comment