According to the "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012-2013, 131st Edition" by the US Department of Commerce, our national defense may be offensive to many of our international neighbors. In 2010 we deployed 297,286 US military personnel in many foreign locales. What is their mission and at what expense to taxpayers ?
Section 8 of Article 1 of our Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to provide for the common defence (defense) ", and to "declare war". No where in the Constitution is there a provision to maintain military forces in foreign lands. Especially in places where we there is no ongoing conflict. Yet we do it at a great expense. Additionally, we sustain the added expense of dependents in some areas. Their travel, education, housing, provisions, and all manner of infrastructure add to the expense. Discounting our warriors in combat areas, how is our national defense enhanced by these deployments and missions ?
Selected Items from Table # 504, page 332 of Statistical Abstract:
COUNTRY NUMBER as of 2010
Belgium 1,252
Germany 53,951
Italy 9,646
Japan 34,385
Korea 25,062 (2008)
Spain 1,240
Turkey 1,530
United Kingdom 9,229
We have fewer numbers in Canada, Portugal, Greenland, Australia, Greece, Colombia, and another dozen places. Most of the cited nations have good economies, stable politics, and capable modern defense systems. Yet we continue to bust our budget to maintain these sizable occupations. And how are we viewed by our hosts ? NOTE: The Statistical Abstract does not specify the costs of our foreign deployments by country or as a total cost.
Some of these occupations are vestiges of long ago wars and conflicts. Most are probably justified by the cold war mentality of being close to "hot spots" in order to provide an "early warning". Despite decades of advanced technologies in spy satellites, drones, and other means of electronic snooping our country continues to keep boots on the ground all over the earth.
Unfortunately, in addition to this great cost, we are probably viewed as mercenaries in some countries. For all our good intentions we may be taken advantage of by some foreign governments and viewed as bullies by the local folks. Sadly, all these expensive resources didn't help the personnel of our diplomatic post in Benghazi.
We should spare no expense in providing the world's best national defense. With all our technology and skilled fighting men and women, Pearl Harbor and 9-11 should be history never suffered again. In light of our national budget problems, shouldn't we re-evaluate the need and monetary, human costs of maintaining armed forces in peaceful nations abroad ?
Section 8 of Article 1 of our Constitution states, "Congress shall have the power to provide for the common defence (defense) ", and to "declare war". No where in the Constitution is there a provision to maintain military forces in foreign lands. Especially in places where we there is no ongoing conflict. Yet we do it at a great expense. Additionally, we sustain the added expense of dependents in some areas. Their travel, education, housing, provisions, and all manner of infrastructure add to the expense. Discounting our warriors in combat areas, how is our national defense enhanced by these deployments and missions ?
Selected Items from Table # 504, page 332 of Statistical Abstract:
COUNTRY NUMBER as of 2010
Belgium 1,252
Germany 53,951
Italy 9,646
Japan 34,385
Korea 25,062 (2008)
Spain 1,240
Turkey 1,530
United Kingdom 9,229
We have fewer numbers in Canada, Portugal, Greenland, Australia, Greece, Colombia, and another dozen places. Most of the cited nations have good economies, stable politics, and capable modern defense systems. Yet we continue to bust our budget to maintain these sizable occupations. And how are we viewed by our hosts ? NOTE: The Statistical Abstract does not specify the costs of our foreign deployments by country or as a total cost.
Some of these occupations are vestiges of long ago wars and conflicts. Most are probably justified by the cold war mentality of being close to "hot spots" in order to provide an "early warning". Despite decades of advanced technologies in spy satellites, drones, and other means of electronic snooping our country continues to keep boots on the ground all over the earth.
Unfortunately, in addition to this great cost, we are probably viewed as mercenaries in some countries. For all our good intentions we may be taken advantage of by some foreign governments and viewed as bullies by the local folks. Sadly, all these expensive resources didn't help the personnel of our diplomatic post in Benghazi.
We should spare no expense in providing the world's best national defense. With all our technology and skilled fighting men and women, Pearl Harbor and 9-11 should be history never suffered again. In light of our national budget problems, shouldn't we re-evaluate the need and monetary, human costs of maintaining armed forces in peaceful nations abroad ?
No comments:
Post a Comment