How to Deal with America's Empire of Bases

'We're all Prussians now.' No?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Additionally, hasn't our government grown greatly since 1962? Should the point be that our defense spending is a certain percentage of the federal budget at all times?

Hypothetical situation: Our government has a budget of 100 million. Defense spending takes up 5% of that, making the defense budget 5 million dollars.

If, due to new requirements, our government's budget swells to 1 billion dollars, does this mean that defense spending would be acceptable at 50 million dollars?

---

The graphs above reflect our defense spending as a percentage of GDP, not the budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

The graphs above reflect our defense spending as a percentage of GDP, not the budget.

---

Thanks for the correction, but I would argue the same, even if it were the case that it is GDP.

Should our defense budget be set to a certain percentage of ANYTHING? Or should we just fund it as necessary?

You focused on the weak case instead of the strong one, doobs. What are the geostrategic or political aims of "contingency overseas operations"? Like the Iraq war, AfPak operations lack strategic clarity, it seems to me.

What's the effing aim? Has the win been suitably defined?

Have adequate resources been devoted to secure the stated aims of the action?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Thanks for the correction, but I would argue the same, even if it were the case that it is GDP.

Should our defense budget be set to a certain percentage of ANYTHING? Or should we just fund it as necessary?

---

The defense budget should be set at what's in our national interest. I agree with that. The point is, our current level of spending is certainly not unprecedented, and it's sustainable. I just wanted to show that concerns that "American empire is bankrupting America" are extremely overblown.

Sure, Johnson's hyperbole is over the top as it relates to the fiscal budget. But that's not the salient point here. Why such a massive 'empire' in this day and age? Further, how does that jive with the purpose of the constitutional republic in which we allegedly live?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

You focused on the weak case instead of the strong one, doobs. What are the geostrategic or political aims of "contingency overseas operations"? Like the Iraq war, AfPak operations lack strategic clarity, it seems to me.

What's the effing aim? Has the win been suitably defined?

Have adequate resources been devoted to secure the stated aims of the action?

---

Mind you, I'm not coming out with a full-throated defense of our overseas commitments. I don't have the time, nor do I have the necessary information on hand to adequately support my arguments.

One primary objective, that can't be ignored, is sea control. Free trade depends on it. Who else is even close to being equipped to ensure the safe passage of shipping?

Another objective is war prevention. Was Germany less inclined to militarize after WWII due to our military presence? Was the USSR less inclined to overwhelm Europe with its land forces due to our military presence in Europe? Was North Korea less inclined to invade South Korea because of our military presence?

Finally, our overseas commitments enhance our ability to quickly and decisively project power all over the world. That's probably less important now than it was before, but it still matters. That is, when our military presence fails to deter our enemies, we can take action without delay.

I'm not saying this isn't an expensive and wasteful enterprise. This is the government. I'm just saying that the level of spending is sustainable, and the objectives are legitimate. I'm well aware of the argument that our presence overseas contributes to tensions and may make further military expenditures "necessary." Fair enough. I just disagree, and I believe a retreat into America with a drawdown of defense spending would be incredibly destabilizing for the world.

I think the problem comes down to this:

Some people say that someone needs to keep the seas/world/insert-place-here safe, and since no one else is capable/willing to do such, America needs to.

The other side says that America should not be spending her treasure on doing so, and is willing to risk the instability that might erupt from America not having the capability to respond anywhere, anytime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

One primary objective, that can't be ignored, is sea control. Free trade depends on it. Who else is even close to being equipped to ensure the safe passage of shipping?

---

I wasn't aware it devolved on us to police global shipping lanes to the suitabilites of commerce. Is that a normal and appropriate use of US forces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

Another objective is war prevention. Was Germany less inclined to militarize after WWII due to our military presence?

---

Its only validity is the outbreak of peace. Are we getting close to that yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

Was the USSR less inclined to overwhelm Europe with its land forces due to our military presence in Europe? Was North Korea less inclined to invade South Korea because of our military presence?

---

Sounds reasonable. What's the rationale for AfPak?

To point at the mere existence of an (eminently) plausible strategic aim is unpersuasive. What is the realpolitical aim? What is force supposed to do in AfPak, in particular? War is important enough to spell this out. If you can't spell it out, what does that say?

(It may say more about the shifting sand of official rationales for war than it does about you.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

Finally, our overseas commitments enhance our ability to quickly and decisively project power all over the world. That's probably less important now than it was before, but it still matters. That is, when our military presence fails to deter our enemies, we can take action without delay.

---

Alacrity. Is instantaneousness of response really so important strategically, in the long view?

The tactical expedience is plain, but it is possible to overstress its importance, as I believe you do. Our forceful response to 9/11 in Afghanistan did not require that it be instantaneous, not at all.

It amounts to reserving the privilege of instantaneous retaliation anywhere. I think it sends the wrong message to (our friends, our enemies and ourselves) the world to project ourselves this way. I understand and respect the *dangerous world* thesis that authorizes US projections of force anywhere; I would only ask that the pretense of defending the homeland thereby, be unhitched from the argument at this point.

If it's a bid to make the whole world afraid of us, let's just drop all the pretenses about democracy and security right now doobs. Force breeds resentment, and prolonged foreign wars are the cradle of revenge.

The *keeping us safe at home argument* has never been weaker than it is now in Iraq and Afganistan/Pakistan IMO, and it is bound to get weaker and weaker, as the years pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doobs

. I'm well aware of the argument that our presence overseas contributes to tensions and may make further military expenditures "necessary." Fair enough. I just disagree, and I believe a retreat into America with a drawdown of defense spending would be incredibly destabilizing for the world.

---

Prolonged wars and occupations can be destabilizing, and your own destabilization thesis does no more than peer into a crystal ball and see a favorable outcome. Mine looks different, is all.

This war is longer than WWII. It wrecked one country. It will probably be more expensive than WWII if it is not already.

What's the fight we are pledging our sons and grandsons to join? What will we tell them it was for?

Bottom line, we're half-assing Afghanistan right now. The politicians can't find the manpower US and NATO generals are requesting. Not even close. Just like at the beginning of the Iraq war.

Shinseki was sacked because his number was too high. So was Larry Eagleburger, for his own insanely low (~$200 billion as I recall) cost projection.

So we go in short-staffed again, just enough to muddle through and hold off the bad guys for another season, but not enough to dominate them the next.

Quote:

---

I swear. Are we even trying to win, whatever that means?

---

I have to say I don't understand the original author's rant taking a turn from embassies to actual military bases. The two have distinctively different functions and the justification for their existence would be completely seperate.

For instance, what is the objection to the negotiations to keep Manas AB open? It is a strategically important "staging point" for all activity in and around Afghanistan. The amount of forward-deployed resources and personnel that come through there is massive and it's "closure" at a mininum would have significantly increased the logistical costs and time associated with getting people and equipment in the area....which impacts mission accomplishment (waging war on Taliban forces).

And while the Pacific remains a "dormant" area right now, it is important for similar staging areas to be in place to respond to threats. Now, I don't know about the number of bases the author suggests and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to closure of some of them. But the point remains the same...why go from ranting about too many high-cost embassies to ranting about bases that serve a completely different function?

Bottom line: America forward-deploys its military all over the globe to carry out any number of missions along with the resources to accomplish those missions. They need a place in or around their area of responsibility to set up operations and provide logistical support for forward areas.

I don't see how you could object to that concept.

The concept is unexceptionable. Sure.

But you can object to the extent, I think, and the relevance of the actions taken to the actual defense of the nation.

"Needing forward deployment' begs the question entirely.

Perhaps we are overextended already, relative to necessity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

Additionally, hasn't our government grown greatly since 1962? Should the point be that our defense spending is a certain percentage of the federal budget at all times?

---

Why should it always grow? We already won the size contest. How much more security can we buy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

"Needing forward deployment' begs the question entirely.

Perhaps we are overextended already, relative to necessity.

---

I take that as your argument...not his. And to be honest, I'm not sure I disagree with you for the most part.

I just took exception to the rant by the original author...seemed to lack a logical strain of thought when it veered from uber-expensive and fortified embassies to strategically located overseas bases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFBlue

I just took exception to the rant by the original author...seemed to lack a logical strain of thought when it veered from uber-expensive and fortified "embassies" to strategically located overseas bases.

---

Totally muddled and factually refuted, by now. The article was weak. I think it may have been chosen for the banner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Totally muddled and factually refuted, by now. The article was weak. I think it may have been chosen for the banner.

---

But whether we need all the overseas bases as a function of our current ops tempo...that's a good discussion.

I figure the current administration could draw down even further in Europe (massive draw down after Cold War) and would most likely draw down in the Pacific if/when N. Korea destabilizes and/or stops attempting to build nukes.

I'm certainly not going to defend EVERY base or forward operating location!

The banner and subtitle (a modest proposal for garrisoned lands) do not deliver.

Johnson does not have a proposal, modest, indecent or otherwise, unless it was a proposal he composed for himself. He did not leave any trace of it in his article that I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Why should it always grow? We already won the size contest. How much more security can we buy?

---

That was kinda my point/question WH23 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFBlue

But whether we need all the overseas bases as a function of our current ops tempo...that's a good discussion.

---

It isn't part of the discussion here, and I'll admit to knowing zip right off.

Maybe you could point us in the direction of thoughtful analysis. We'll never get there by ourselves, maestro. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFBlue

I figure the current administration could draw down even further in Europe (massive draw down after Cold War) and would most likely draw down in the Pacific if/when N. Korea destabilizes and/or stops attempting to build nukes

---

Reasonable. Some posters will say you're *gutting* the military and a traitor. Bravo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFBlue

I'm certainly not going to defend EVERY base or forward operating location!

---

What reasonable person would?

Before we can discuss how many bases we need overseas, we still need to first determine what our current ops tempo SHOULD be. More bases enable a greater ops tempo, which, due to mission creep, gets larger and larger until more bases are needed, meaning more ops, etc etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

That was kinda my point/question WH23 :D

---

Until I talked it through for myself, I wasn't sure for myself.

Anyway, questions are very easily lost in this thread, so you should thank me for reviving it LNGR. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norman Soloman

Lots of recent spin from Washington has promoted the assumption that President Obama wants to stick with the current limit on deployments to Afghanistan. Soon after pushing supplemental war funds through Congress, he’s hardly eager to proclaim that 68,000 American troops in Afghanistan may not be enough after all.


But no amount of spin can change the fact that the U.S. military situation in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate. It would be astonishing if plans for add-on deployments weren’t already far along at the Pentagon.


Meanwhile, the White House is reenacting a macabre ritual — a repetition compulsion of the warfare state — carefully timing and titrating each dose of public information to ease the process of escalation. The basic technique is far from new.


In the spring and early summer of 1965, President Lyndon Johnson decided to send 100,000 additional U.S. troops to Vietnam, more than doubling the number there. But at a July 28 news conference, he announced that he’d decided to send an additional 50,000 soldiers.

Why did President Johnson say 50,000 instead of 100,000? Because he was heeding the advice from something called a "Special National Security Estimate" – a secret document, issued days earlier about the already-approved new deployment, urging that "in order to mitigate somewhat the crisis atmosphere that would result from this major U.S. action… announcements about it be made piecemeal with no more high-level emphasis than necessary."


Forty-four years later, something similar is underway with deployments of U.S. troops to Afghanistan.


Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Tuesday that no limit has been set. Speaking to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he sounded an open-ended note: "There is not a ceiling on troop levels in Afghanistan."


Mullen’s comment was scarcely reported in U.S. media outlets. It has become old news without ever being news in the first place.


The war planners in Washington are bound to proceed carefully on the home front. News of further escalation will come "piecemeal" – "with no more high-level emphasis than necessary."

---

"Change" has a whole 'nother meaning.