Thread: It's time for BIG cuts in our military

Originally Posted by dudeman

OK. What is his [Ron Paul's] exact plan to draw down troops? Which countries, What is the timeline, Which military analysts has he spoken to, Let's see the accounting, What are the troops going to do when they are back in the US? Collect unemployment for 2 years and then get a job at Walmart? This is exactly the type of rhetoric that the head moron in charge today used and was not held accountable for.

Well then, let's help him out, because I think this is something that ought to be done no matter who gets in office.

What is his exact plan to draw down troops?

• Which countries? I would pull all permanent troops from any sovereign nation currently enjoying peace, with the exception of diplomat support, of course. That means Japan, Germany, UK, Italy, and any others I didn't think of.
• What is the timeline? Each base would have to be case-by-case, but the bases I helped close took less than two years from the time we were given the order to draw down. I don't know how long planning took.

Let's see the accounting.

• What are the troops going to do when they are back in the US? Collect unemployment for 2 years and then get a job at Walmart? Most troops nowadays have marketable skills. GI's are a very desirable commodity because they know the value of teamwork, know how to follow orders, and have a better work ethic than average.

But the way you state that Walmart remark, it seems without this information then you'd rather keep our military empire in place. Is that accurate? Since the Cold War ended, the military has been little more than a glorified work program. It's time to pull in our tentacles.

Originally Posted by Accountable

Well then, let's help him out, because I think this is something that ought to be done no matter who gets in office.

What is his exact plan to draw down troops?

• Which countries? I would pull all permanent troops from any sovereign nation currently enjoying peace, with the exception of diplomat support, of course. That means Japan, Germany, UK, Italy, and any others I didn't think of.
• What is the timeline? Each base would have to be case-by-case, but the bases I helped close took less than two years from the time we were given the order to draw down. I don't know how long planning took.

Let's see the accounting.

• What are the troops going to do when they are back in the US? Collect unemployment for 2 years and then get a job at Walmart? Most troops nowadays have marketable skills. GI's are a very desirable commodity because they know the value of teamwork, know how to follow orders, and have a better work ethic than average.

But the way you state that Walmart remark, it seems without this information then you'd rather keep our military empire in place. Is that accurate? Since the Cold War ended, the military has been little more than a glorified work program. It's time to pull in our tentacles.

What about the strategic importance of these bases? If we run away back home we won't be able to deploy anywhere in the world to protect our interests. It will end up costing us significantly more if and when an incident breaks out. Generals and diplomats could write books on just how important these forward deployed bases are. We don't put troops there as an "occupation" force as some crazies on this site suggest. They're there to support ongoing operations and to serve as strategic stepping stones. The majority of the these bases are tiny (in the neighborhood of a few hundred) and serve mostly as training advisors at the request of the host government.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

What about the strategic importance of these bases? If we run away back home we won't be able to deploy anywhere in the world to protect our interests. It will end up costing us significantly more if and when an incident breaks out. Generals and diplomats could write books on just how important these forward deployed bases are. We don't put troops there as an "occupation" force as some crazies on this site suggest. They're there to support ongoing operations and to serve as strategic stepping stones. The majority of the these bases are tiny (in the neighborhood of a few hundred) and serve mostly as training advisors at the request of the host government.

Strategic importance implies we have a strategy, which implies we have a conflict. A more important question: what about the sovereignty of those nations? Don't they deserve as much respect as we do? We would never tolerate another country building a military installation on our soil.

I like the way you phrase that: "run away back home." Moving out of Ramstein Air Base in Germany or RAF Mildenhall in England is not running away.

Are you aware that during Desert Storm we deployed B-52 bombers from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, that dropped their payload on target in Iraq and returned home without ever touching foreign soil? If and when an "incident" breaks out (love those euphemisms!) the people of those nations should be able to protect themselves. If not, we can be there in a matter of hours.

As for expense, war should be expensive - prohibitively so. It should be difficult, inconvenient, and downright messy.

These bases are not at war. I had such a great time at Kadena Air Base that I stretched my 18 month tour into just over 7 years, then returned for another 3-year tour 8 years later. Those nations can maintain those strategic stepping stones as efficiently as we can. We don't need to be there.

Originally Posted by Accountable

Strategic importance implies we have a strategy, which implies we have a conflict. A more important question: what about the sovereignty of those nations? Don't they deserve as much respect as we do? We would never tolerate another country building a military installation on our soil.

I like the way you phrase that: "run away back home." Moving out of Ramstein Air Base in Germany or RAF Mildenhall in England is not running away.

Are you aware that during Desert Storm we deployed B-52 bombers from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, that dropped their payload on target in Iraq and returned home without ever touching foreign soil? If and when an "incident" breaks out (love those euphemisms!) the people of those nations should be able to protect themselves. If not, we can be there in a matter of hours.

As for expense, war should be expensive - prohibitively so. It should be difficult, inconvenient, and downright messy.

These bases are not at war. I had such a great time at Kadena Air Base that I stretched my 18 month tour into just over 7 years, then returned for another 3-year tour 8 years later. Those nations can maintain those strategic stepping stones as efficiently as we can. We don't need to be there.

No it doesn't. You don't wait around for the incident to breakout. You prepare for every contingency and put yourself in the best position so that when conflict does break out your ready.

Many of these countries agreed and or want U.S. troops there. Yes, in many countries the population as a whole may not, but the population tends to be more symbolically driven rather than practically. Can you expect that 19 year old to understand strategic warfare?

The B-52s are a terrible example. Dropping bombs is easy. How do you get the boots on the ground? It takes one hell of a lot of stuff and people to move an Armored or even Infantry division half way across the world.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

No it doesn't. You don't wait around for the incident to breakout. You prepare for every contingency and put yourself in the best position so that when conflict does break out your ready.

Many of these countries agreed and or want U.S. troops there. Yes, in many countries the population as a whole may not, but the population tends to be more symbolically driven rather than practically. Can you expect that 19 year old to understand strategic warfare?

The B-52s are a terrible example. Dropping bombs is easy. How do you get the boots on the ground? It takes one hell of a lot of stuff and people to move an Armored or even Infantry division half way across the world.

Doggone right dropping bombs is easy. We've forgotten the purpose of war and thus spend American lives too cheaply.

The military 20% of the budget.

Obama will triple the debt in 10 years and double it in five years while cutting the military.

It's not the military.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Many of these countries agreed and or want U.S. troops there. Yes, in many countries the population as a whole may not, but the population tends to be more symbolically driven rather than practically. Can you expect that 19 year old to understand strategic warfare?

It doesn't matter if they want us there. Why are we there? What is the justification for keeping tens of thousands of American troops in England?

Its time to greatly expand our intelligence programs...

Originally Posted by Revere

The military 20% of the budget.

Obama will triple the debt in 10 years and double it in five years while cutting the military.

It's not the military.

What's not the military?
I'm not saying that we need to save money and so we need to cut something we really need. I'm saying our military is too large, too spread-out, and is being used as a tool of convenience rather than giving the spending of human life capital the serious consideration it deserves. I would be calling for the same cuts if we were in boom times and had a budget surplus.

The military does waste huge amounts of money..i know because i was in the military...there is no incentive to not spend all the money your unit is given every year...in fact you are punished if you don't spend all the money...