If all of the US military were brought home to defend the borders, how would the US not be safer?

Question

When you consider…

…how beefed up our borders would be thus significantly decreasing terrorists ability to come in to the US

…how safe the borders would from the water and the air

…the focus we could put on our own protection versus that of other nations (such as missile defense, satellite technology, or whatever other defense would be needed to protect our nation)

…we would no longer be mixed up fighting the enemies of our enemies (a policy that for years has created massive conflicts of interest)

At that point, those nations that do no like us can choose not to trade with us and will suffer their own consequences economically.

Why would this not be FAR better to the policy of intervening worldwide that we have had going on for generations and has left us hated by so many?

Koalatco – the US military has been spread all over the planted since WWII, and around the world we have enemies constantly plotting against us. If you thin this is working, maybe you should give it a rest. Also, asking someone who poses a question regarding thoughts on strengthening the safety of America is a bad idea? One would think just accepting the status quo is closed minded, but to each their own I suppose.

Richard J – are you kidding me??? The entire problem we face with terrorism is that they are coming form all over in response to our military, even at home…yet you somehow think sending our military thousands of miles from us is a better idea? When has America volunteered to fight the enemy of the enemy??? HAVE YOU NOT HAD ANY HISTORY???? How about Viet Nam. How about when we supported Osama against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. How about when we supported Saddaam against Iran? The list goes on and on and on and it is shocking you would ask such a ridicul

ridiculous question in response. You call the idea of bringing home the troops a fantasy…and I call that thinking small and closed minded. The US landed a man on the moon, I hardly think changing a policy to use our troops at home is so difficult to conceive. May be this is too daunting for you personally, but not for the Average American.

**Richard – if you are going to change your answer, please at least use leave what I responded to you in your answer.

You seem to hit the nail on the head of my point. You are now trying to say that the war in Vietnam and Afghanistan was for democracy, and I am saying no matter what the reason, the policy was supporting the enemy of our enemy, as neither country was an ally at the time. Look at Afghanistan, we provided economic relief and money helping them fight the Soviets, and those same weapons were used against us later on. This doesn’t strike you as an idiotic policy??? Of course the Soviets were the enemy, but the point is to fight them we merely partnered with THEIR enemy which came back to bite us in the worst way.

cont...

...Your point about not being American and wanting our troops at home is EXACLTY my point. I prefer to have troops from ALL over the world (not select nations) come home to actually protect our nation, not fighting aboard. The fact that you think it solved your problems is great, as I do as well. I think using the military to interfere with foreign events that did not elicit specific war with us is a terrible idea, and the ongoing mess in the middle east despite the long standing US military actions is evidence enough.

**Sooj With all do respect, your entire answer expressed the very problem at hand. This mentality is what is the resulting cause of the mess the US is in worldwide.

You stated, “For one the military overseas does a lot more than protect against terrorist.”

And this ironically is true, as the military overseas has caused animosity and adverse action against the US for generations. Consider all the nations with FAR inferior military power to the US that have no issues whatsoever with terrorist threat. You seem over breeze right by the fact that the huge potion behind the cause of all the issues IS the military presence, combined of course with arrogant policy making and a history of hypocritical action (supporting nations militarily and economically for one purpose, only later to fight them for another totally different purpose).

cont...

You suggested my answer of bringing home the troops is oversimplifying…and that line of thinking is saddening. Why would you expect any major change in policy be easy? This says nothing to whether it is a positive or negative idea however.

The legality of military on the border is mere semantics. I am suggesting having them operating and stationed for use in and around our own country is better than having them in other nations.

You seem to be mixed up that I ma referring to only the military in Iraq or Afghanistan, and that is incorrect, I am referring to ALL military stations outside the US.
I do not believe there is a 100% proof means of averting any attack whatsoever, but I think rooting out the motive (our military constantly in the face of opposing nations) is a GIANT step towards removing most of what is causing the threats we face (over time).

cont...

You stated, “So by your thinking we should let them plan finance and train these terrorist cells abroad unhindered.”

No, by my logic we should remove the motives that cause them to want to come to the US with their terrorism in the first place.

You stated, “Our current strategy of disrupting terrorist activity at every level both abroad and domestically is the only strategy that is likely to achieve even moderate success.”

And yet this strategy has led to more terrorist attacks against the US. If your history only begins in 2001 and completely disregards the fact that we have been pressing our hypocritical policies for generations, then there is nothing I can say other than you might want to spend some time reasoning about US military policy for the past 50 years.

cont...

You stated, “Unfortunately the statement supposes we have a self sustaining society and economy and we don't. Our Economy depends on goods and raw materials produced globally.”

And I am for free trade. You are suggesting that less military action would decrease other nations willingness to trade with us, which is preposterous.

You comments about the spread of communism are unfounded. Nothing in my suggestion denotes that I would recommend avoiding joining the efforts in WWII. Might I remind you (in regard to all your comments regarding WWII) that we were at home prior to joining forces and only joined after we were attacked? That policy proved correct, yet now you slander those who propose the same policy.

cont...

As far as the spread of communism, perhaps you have forgotten the obvious:
1 – the Soviet Union, the supposed shining example of communism, failed economically, meaning if it had spread it would have been an even bigger failure
2 – our military build up at HOME (our weapons) was the biggest deterrent to a Soviet Attack, meaning our defense at home was far more pertinent than any abroad.


I find your entire answer very saddening as your close minded thought process is the root cause of why the US is under such duress from external influences. Perhaps a better question would have been to ask why nations with far inferior military presence are under no terrorist danger, but I suspect you would find out your party line and merely present that as your basis. Too bad so many like you are not more willing to keep an open mind. To bad for the US.

Answer 1

You make some good points and we're pissing enough people off around the globe, I think it would be a good idea to bring the vast majority of our troops home immediately. We have created a monster in Iraq and we have an army full of illegals right here at home, where's our army to protect us from this invasion?

Answer 2

What does a terrorist look like? Are not they often homegrown and already among us? What is this magical border defence technology of which you speak? When has America volunteered to fight the enemy of a friend? America fights when it is only in its own interest. (eg WWI, WWII, Iraq, etc.) When countries that do not like you stop trading with you, it is you who will suffer, as the current American economy demonstrates. There are not enough soldiers to protect America's massive border region. You can't even keep out Mexicans! You are dreaming a fantasy that is completely out of touch with reality.

Vietnam, Afghanistan etc., were wars for democracy, so your government said, not wars against enemies of friends (Afghanistan a friend of America?), but for economic grabs. Russia was a common enemy. Don't you remember that Russia was YOUR enemy? Strange too how Iraq was a great friend until it wasn't convenient. Your troops are already being used at home. Finally, I am not American, so keep your soldiers at home and away from my home! That solves my problems, not yours! Where did I suggest sending your troops abroad? Nowhere! Go home yankee dogs!

Answer 3

For one the military overseas does a lot more than protect against terrorist. So your proposition is oversimplifying the situation at best. It also ignores the fact that the use of the military in policing the border is neither legal nor an effective use of an armed service. The purpose of the military is to protect and defend America's territory, citizens and interests both domestically and abroad. A secondary mission of the military is projecting power abroad in support of diplomatic efforts. Leaving the debate of Iraq aside the forward staging of military supplies and personnel is essential in effectively performing the military mission assigned our armed forces. The majority of our armed forces overseas are not in Iraq or even Afghanistan for that matter. They are in Europe, Japan Saudi Arabia, Korea and spread across the globe in our naval forces. So your arguments are less than truthful at best and misleading at worst but lets take them on.

"how beefed up our borders would be thus significantly decreasing terrorists ability to come in to the US"
"how safe the borders would from the water and the air"
Short of a police state the likes of N. Korea no amount of bodies and equipment will prevent a determined, planned and financed party from entering the US and conducting a terrorist strike. As long as we desire and enjoy a free society based on capitalistic principles it is impossible to eliminate the risk only to mitigate it. Iraq is a good example given the chance to train, plan and position a terrorist cell near or in a country the likelihood of them successfully carrying out that attack greatly increases. So by your thinking we should let them plan finance and train these terrorist cells abroad unhindered. All that remains is placing then in or near our boarders to carry out their strike which we at which point the task is virtually impossible to to accomplish with any degree of certitude. Our current strategy of disrupting terrorist activity at every level both abroad and domestically is the only strategy that is likely to achieve even moderate success. We need to disrupt their training and planning facilities, eliminate or limit the movement of active cells while abroad and finally to intercept and neutralize cells that have already established themselves domestically

"the focus we could put on our own protection versus that of other nations (such as missile defense, satellite technology, or whatever other defense would be needed to protect our nation)"
"At that point, those nations that do no like us can choose not to trade with us and will suffer their own consequences economically."
Unfortunately the statement supposes we have a self sustaining society and economy and we don't. Our Economy depends on goods and raw materials produced globally. The goods, services and raw materials we produce also depend on a global market to consume them. Our own Government depends largely on capital invested in bonds to to support it's operation much of that coming from abroad. In short you ignore the realities of the situation.

"we would no longer be mixed up fighting the enemies of our enemies (a policy that for years has created massive conflicts of interest)"

If we had followed that strategy historically the Third Reich would stretch from the Ural Mountains in the east to Greenland in the west after all Hitler never attacked us till we declared war on his ally. or maybe the Iron curtain could of stretched from Denmark to Italy. Or maybe you like to take a nice vacation to the Peoples Republic of East Asia. Then again you might not even of had to worry about US policy for if France had not supported a bunch of upstarts hicks half way across the world.
America has been the most successful dynamic economy for over a century. No economic power in history has been able to sustain itself without projecting power to protect it's trading routes and partners. Look up Minoan, Phoenician, Greek, Carthaginian Roman, or British Empires and you will see my words ring true.

"Why would this not be FAR better to the policy of intervening worldwide that we have had going on for generations and has left us hated by so many?"
Aside from the afor mentioned points i suggest you ask the people of Belgium after they declared neutrality in WW2 and were promptly steamrolled by the Germans. or maybe have a scholarly discussion with Neville Chamberlain who knew all Hitler wanted was to protect the German peoples of the Sudetan Land and how "we have peace in our time"

I find your arguments to be naive if not to mention dangerous. They go much like the arguments for Communism. If everybody got along and shared the wealth and woes of their labor and no one profited at the expense of another. If everone turned the other cheek........

IF............That were the world were lived in. IF that was the human nature of man. Darn strange thing about that little word IF it lets you know that that is not the current state of things. So you can Imagine just like John Lennon did once upon a time but the truth is that is not the reality of the world and hasn't been since that pesky snake entered the Garden of Eden.

Answer 4

because they would not be defending us where al qaeda is and leave them free to plan and bomb as they did when the military was defending our borders and clinton was IGNORING AL QAEDA ELSEWHERE. give it a rest ok?