Do you support removing our troops from Korea, Germany, Japan, etc.?

Question

Why should American tax payers pay for the security of other countries? If they can't, or won't, defend themselves, why should US tax payers care?

Answer 1

Rapid deployment in case of emergencies.

Answer 2

Because we need allies in various parts of the world. Take the most obvious example: S. Korea. Our presence there is the primary--in fact practically the only--check on the North korean regime.

Now we could witdh draw, and save a few million. But how many tens of thousands of American lives and how many Trillions of dollars is it going to cost us in the long run when we have a major theater war in tha tregion that would irectly threaten our interests?

You can pay now--or pay a much higher price later. That's NOT a "knee jerk" position. We should have bases where they clearly serve US intests (and so are worth the cost) and not otherwise. There are installations around the world that serve little purpose--and some, like Gitmo--that are actively hurting US interests. We don't eed those and should close tem down. But any such policy initiative needs to be based on careful analysis of the individual situations--NOT on some idiotic political ranting about "defending other countries with taxpayer dollars."

Answer 3

Ever since WWII, when the US federal government grew by leaps and bounds and we developed our ability to travel around the entire world, we felt that we needed to keep a military presence everywhere to counteract the influence of communist Russia.
It is debatable if we hadn't been all over the globe, then the rest of the world would be communist by now. Communism has proven itself to be inferior to capitalism, and any countries that would have turned to communism would have failed. Look at Viet Nam, they are coming back to capitalism. Yet there are probably billions of people around the world who still want to destroy capitalism. And millions in the USA who call themselves Democrats.
The American taxpayer shouldn't fund a world Army, bring them home.

Answer 4

I think on a case by case basis, its certainly worth considering. I would think that nations like Japan and Germany are stable enough so that we could start reducing forces in those countries.

The North Koreans make me a little nervous, but as a gesture of good will, I wouldn't mind unilaterally reducing forces in the DMZ. This could be a carrot for getting rid of their nuclear capabilities.

I think given the problems that illegal immigration poses, it might be more wise to station some of our troops on patrols on our southern border.

However, your question does have one flaw. We aren't necessarily defending other countries. If we have bases in Germany, Japan, etc,, it's because someone thinks its in our national interest to do so. We aren't doing it for them.

Answer 5

Discretionary Spending...
http://www.cdi.org/news/mrp/discretionary-graph.pdf

Yes. I support the decommission of the majority of our military bases around the world, save for several strategic locations.

The amount of our budget that goes to the military is astounding. If most Americans knew the proportion of our budget (the MAJORITY of our discretionary budget) and the amount of money we spend on the military, in comparison to other domestic needs (which there is enough complaints about spending in those categories), there would be a much stronger call for this. However, people do not know and do not care, it is easier to criticize welfare moms than the operating costs of obsolete military bases around the world that dwarf what we spend on welfare, health, education, infrastructure, police, firefighters, research, and science combined.

When you consider how much we spend nationally on all of these things, you start to get a sense of just how much we spend on the military.

Answer 6

Im inclined to agree but I also see the strategic benefits for the US in the event of global war.

Answer 7

Yes. Maybe, as far as Korea is concerned, only if the Koreans want US troops out.

Answer 8

My husband was in the Air force , We are not just there to defend them. We are there for strategic reasons. We are based in different parts of the world for our own defense.

Answer 9

The majority of them, yes. We should leave some there, of course, but most of them can be taken out.

Answer 10

We only have troops in locations in which we have substantial capital investments and are currently exploiting the local people to procure resources for our own use and profit .