Opinion: American military should get out of Japan & Europe

I'd say most of our european bases could and should be shut down, but a few should remain. It's always good to have at least a small force ready wherever you could need it. Especially whatever is left of the missle sheild bush was building. That needs to stay, it portects us as much, if not more then them.

Asia needs to stay. If the government was really straped for cash, maybe a small cut back would be alright, but there needs to be forces to remind China whos the superpower, and incase North Korea tries somthing, we need to be able to send forces to Korea ASAP. The south could probablly beat them n their own, but with over 8 million invading, they'll need all the help they can get. Japan can take care of itself, but we need the bases there too. And we could never leave Asia completly, as we have Guam, which is not that far off.

I'm baaaaaaack

@Tom -

Point of Order: That India-Pakistan is restrained has nothing to do with the US. India's foreign policy is what has kept Pakistan breathing.

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

^ In 2002 Pakistan and India were on the verge of going to nuclear war. In the ensuing mediation to defuse the situation, the US was among the most major players. It worked, both sides backed away.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

And since when does diplomatic mediation necessitate troops?

I am now known as Flyboy.

Umm, Tom, it's not like we are guardians of democracy and civil rights abroad, or ever have been since the Spanish-American war. American force projection has always been primarily to serve American interests. When we're lucky, American interests are served by removing a bastard from power, and if we're really lucky, they won't set their own bastard up in his place.

Don't pretend otherwise. My parents' country spent too many years under CIA-backed murdering tyrants for me to be fooled on that count.

@Barkey: I've heard that the most devastating part of a hypothetical Korean conflict would be the initial artillery exchange. Any factual basis in that? How far away can we help the South from if we want to consider dropping bases, and how well can they handle themselves? And finally, could you guess what our response to a worst-case scenario would be (aside from turning the peninsula into an island)?

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Trump card. The ability to project power means in mediations you don't come across as all puff and bluff and no substance. Better worded, it means "Don't make me come over there" when engaging in negotiations to resolve disputes.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

That's what submarines and carriers are for. We can have the carriers or the bases, but not both. We just can't afford it, and the military isn't even supposed to be doing that shit. The United States Military was set up to defend this country. Nothing else.

You're the limited government person. Oh, but wait, that ends as soon as the project has "USM" attached to it, doesn't it?

I am now known as Flyboy.

RT, Seoul is in shelling range of the border. While the capital isn't the entire country, it's a pretty significant chunk of it.

Mind you, at present I don't think NK could pull off a successful invasion even without any US presence, but it would be ugly, above and beyond the usual War Is Hell stuff.

As for the OP, I'm actually kind of torn on that. Like Barkey says, the US does need facilities abroad for logistical purposes, but the whole Complaining About Rescues They Don't Like thing does kinda grate after a while. Also, frankly I'm personally tired of indirectly supporting the EU. The main reason they had all the money to throw at their social programs is that the US presence in Europe meant they didn't have to spend as much on their own respective militaries.

Tangentially, if the US did severely cut back or entirely end basing abroad, I imagine local economies would drop in the shitter once the last troops are gone, what with the end of money from all the people stationed at those bases not being spent "out on the town". (Bases are fairly self-sufficient, but sometimes you want a little more than the PX or mess hall carries, and "see the world" isn't entirely without merit as a reason some people join.)

edited 23rd Oct '11 7:40:04 PM by Nohbody

All your safe space are belong to Trump

And where do you base them if you cut off all foreign bases? Carriers cannot remain at sea forever, they'll run out of food for the sailors and fuel for the flight ops. It's inefficient and a logistical nightmare to keep supplying ships at sea. (Not to mention a morale nightmare since stopping to rest at a port is a big boon to the crew.)

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

Nohbody, I've lived in Seoul, and can identify the symbol they have placed on buildings that are strong enough to serve as shelters when the shit hits the fan. Thus my comment on the initial exchange. This goes both ways, so you can expect a lot of high explosives to fly over the DMZ in both directions in the first few hours. A lot of people would have an extremely bad day. I'm just wondering who'd level whose artillery and air support capability first.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

^ In line artillery struggles like that, he who can and does fire first has the advantage since if they are accurate, the counter-battery fire will be greatly diminished.

Doubly so if said initial barrage knocks out the immediate air support.

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

In other words, he who Zerg Rush-es has a very good chance of winning

And yes, it had to be said. We are talking about South Korea.

edited 23rd Oct '11 8:27:25 PM by Sakan4k

@Tom

There is a difference between "mediating as one of the major players" and outright begging India not to waste Pakistan. You have to remember, the US has little to no leverage over India to influence it beyond mere asking.

edited 23rd Oct '11 8:37:50 PM by FFShinra

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

When there is a conflict, we borrow the bases of other nations. The Constitution did not intend for us to have a mssive army geared towards offensive operations we have no business, and it is still right on that, even today.

USAF713 on his phone or iPod.

India makes a lot of money from trade with the United States. It's notable that Indian businesses were very influential in getting the Indian government to adopt a more peaceful tone.

A brighter future for a darker age.

USAF: America is still our BFF, its just that we don't want to spend all of our time with you any more. We want to hang out with other people now and again you know.

Dutch Lesbian

To be sure, but thats not the same as the US putting on the pressure. Besides, I doubt New Delhi would want a nuclear confrontation with Pakistan, so it probably isn't that difficult to convince them...but that convincing has to come from its own lobbies, not that of foreign powers, since India's policies are set up exactly to combat that. If it came down to it and India really wanted a conflict, Indian businesses would simply go elsewhere from the US to prevent being used as leverage. It's the same reason India's not buying their fighter jets in the MMRCA.

Exactly.

edited 24th Oct '11 5:55:37 AM by FFShinra

Final Fantasy, Foreign Policy, and Bollywood. Helluva combo, that...

The Indians don't have much American equipment anyway — it's mostly Russian, French and British kit, on the whole. It's only recently they've started to buy American equipment.

Keep Rolling On

Japan is still not very good at the whole "liberal democracy" thing. The mentality that lead to their mean-streak is still very much alive, if dismembered. Even though they do have an army right now, validating it is a real military force that they can wave around as they wish is not a great idea. Things are fine as they are, here, from an international standpoint. Most Japanese aren't affected by the US military presence, and affected or not, apart from a vocal minority, they aren't very passionate about the issue. Getting rid of the Americans is a bad idea, and because of the whole unconditional surrender thing, I don't think there's legal recourse for it unless the Americans willingly leave - and they know that this is not a good idea right now. Maybe next century.

Quite so, to the degree that I'd imagine numerical differences in manpower aren't going to matter that much (cuz whatever their troop numbers are before the exchange, that won't be their troop numbers after). Which is why I'm wondering who'd win that particular quickdraw duel. It's almost the Artillery Exchange at the OK Corral really.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Average European spending on the military is around 4% or higher of GDP. That's extremely high. Europe has not had American military to defend it for a long time and even at the height of American military assistance, that's what it was, allied assistance. At no point did America ever "defend" Europe. The French and German military were always the backbone of any European war where the Soviets invaded. Add to the fact that both the UK and France have hundreds and hundreds of nuclear missiles, what is America doing?

The bases in Europe are for the benefit of America thus America pays the bills. I don't know why you get into your head that stepping on other people's backyards is for their benefit. When Americans pulled a lot of their military bases from Canada, defending us from the scary commies, you left behind lakes of toxic waste and chemical weapon spills. Thanks.

I can understand maintaining bases in Japan because Japan is not supposed to have an offensive army. But I don't get why any of you are stating they don't have a military. They spend 40 billion USD a year on it. It's not tasers and batons. It's frigates, cruisers and all sorts of other equipment. South Korea could curbstomp North Korea by itself, but they don't mind America helping out a bit (but the people are getting increasingly edgy because it seems like USA wants status quo but the people want to settle the conflict peacefully once and for all). For one thing, most of the US military in South Korea take it into their belief that war is inevitable. That's really grating on the Korean people because they don't want to kill Koreans. So it's important for them to argue for peaceful solutions which the US military doesn't help with. If you spent the same money/resources on diplomatic efforts, they'd be much happier. In fact, it's not possible to spend that much money on diplomacy so you'd save yourself a lot of money and still earn Korean good will.

Look, America's "world police" status is basically like the movie Team America. You have this undying belief in your good intentions and that your actions are awesome. Most people only see you leveling Paris for no reason. It's very much a case of the world telling you Stop Helping Me

Does that get you angry? It shouldn't. People are just asking you to think before you act and to understand the consequences of your actions.

To be fair, the Americans had two army corps in Southern FRG. (V and VII Corps as part of the Central Army Group (CENTAG). The commander of U.S. Army Europe was also CENTAG commander)