This is my second post, and I am still not familiar with the procedures, but I want to ask how many readers have seen Charlie Reese's column "Time to Choose". It gives a few details about a situation that I have thought about for years. I quote as follows: "Excluding Iraq, Afghanistan and the other facilities in the Gulf states that have been built since the Republican war, the Pentagon lists 702 overseas bases in 130 foreign counties on which asre stationed more than 250,000 uniformed troops. There are also dependents and civilian employees on many of those bases." My question is WHY, pretty much the same question that Charlie raises, but I raise the additional question about the constitutionality of this situation. Is there anything in this document that gives us the right, the duty or responsibility to post troops worldwide for any reason, including the so-called protection of our interest in these regions? I think not.

President Bush has asked for about $200 billions for the Mid-East situation for 2008, and will probably get it. How many more billions will we spend supporting our other foreign bases? Many of our troops are serving extended terms and multiple tours of duty because we don't have enough to do the job. Why not bring back our 250,000 from the other 130 countries and deploy some to Iraq to bring this situation to a close as soon as possible.

After reinforcing our Mid-East troops, we should still have enough remaining to patrol our borders; that is, if we are serious about controlling them.

A few years ago I was working at a poorly managed manufacturing plant and eventually quit in disgust. It was common knowledge that "the animals are running the zoo" there. I think we have a similar situation in Washington, and I don't see any relief in the future.

It's sort of like a game of chess. You can hardly expect to win staying behind your line.

The American Empire is probably the most succesful in history in that they have done it with little fighting instead using economic control to dominate. They have achieved what Hitler could only dream of.

But if they keep fighting wars they will be overstretched and their empire will be crushed. Then they'll just be another country who looks after itself rather than dominating the rest of the world.

Wars are fought in defense of what has been gained. Surrender leads to the same bankruptcy.

__________________
From the fury of the Northmen, Good Lord deliver us.

We are not serious about controlling our borders. The lack of a fence is proof enough. Troop levels are not the problem, the desire to actually do it is.

Well, we are certainly not running on empty - that is just nonsense.

But I agree that our domestic concerns should be paramount and, indeed, I would support a return to isolationism - something I would not have supported a few years ago. Americans are hated in many countries. The appropriate response to this trendy anti-Americanism is to pull out as quickly as possible from our overseas commitments and allow other nations to take care of (and responsibility for) themselves.

I believe pragmatism, rather than idealism, is the answer for the US: the traditional conservative policy BEFORE the neo-con takeover. Economic ties are not only strong, but interconnected. But economic ties do not translate necessarily into military and diplomatic ties: the disaster of 1914 is an obvious example.

Alliances are fluid and dynamic. There is no reason to assume that the "friends" of the past will be the "friends" of the future.

European nations are far more concerned with the policies and desires of Muslim nations than those of the US, and will likely form alliances with those nations in the coming years. Europe must contend with the proximity of militant Islam, as well as large and restless Muslim populations with very high birth rates.

At the same, there is a deep and growing pacifism in Europe. The likely result of this will be a move to pacify Muslim nations (this is already hapening) while moving further from the the US. The current trend towards a fawning, sentimental and highly romantic view of militant Islam is the most obvious evidence of this. Sentimentality always has a flipside - while Islam is romanticized, the US is demonized. Obviously this requires a change in policy.

In the Pacific, the situation is even more fluid. China is growing rapidly. Who will China form an alliance with?

Japan and China have a long history of mutual dislike combined with admiration - similar to England and France. Where will that lead? It is trendy now in Australia to have a low opinion of Americans and a high opinion of the Japanese. It seems inevitable for the current agreements between Australia, New Zealand and the US to eventually collapse - replaced by an alliance between Australia and either Japan or China.

All of this is obviously very complex, but the result of all of these scenarios is the retreat of the US from the world stage - corresponding both with our own national interest and the strident demands of other nations.

__________________
Our fears in Banquo stick deep; and in his royalty of nature reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares; And, to that dauntless temper of his mind, he hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour to act in safety.

Macbeth 3:1

First of all I would like to say that I am a international relations student and this is a dilemma that is being routinely discussed in all my classes.

The idea of the United States going back to a isolationist foreign and domestic policy is not going to happen and even if we tried is impossible. Our economy is so tied to the global economy that it will never change and the fact that our economy can no longer support our country alone. We now have a service based economy, not a industrial one and the industries that are still alive can not meet the needs nor the demands of the American people.

This isn't the first time this discussion of US troops in Europe has come to light in both in military and political circles. Currently the United States military is pulling many of its troops out of Europe and the ones that are staying are being made into a smaller, more mobile, modular force. The most recent example of this was the hand over of 90% of the Frankford Air Base in Germany (which was one of the largest US airbases in Europe) to the German Government.

However, the main reason that we haven't had larger troop cuts in Europe is because it is one of the few staging areas that he have in that portion of the world. Granted that we do have other points in the middle east other than Iraq and Kuwait but even those bases have a significant security risk in comparison to Europe and many of those countries don't have the same infrastructure to feed off of like Europe.

Lastly, the American foreign policy that we have to day does seem similar to that of a Empire but that depends on your definition of empire. If we look at a traditional empire their primary focus was on the acquisition on land and territory.The United States hasn't gained a official land territory since before the Second World War. The only empire in the history of man that is close to the situation that we face to day was the British Empire that expanded to gain markets for its goods to be exported to. The American "empire" that we have to day is the result of the Cold War and which most of the world wanted and expected after the fall of the Soviet Union. We are the last super power on the planet and until recently the world looked to us for guidance and in many cases protection. This then demanded a active and rapid US military force that was dictated by foreign policy.

As for my opinion, the United States has a important role to fill in the world and the deployment of US forces to so many countries is expected. I only wish that the US foreign policy hadn't gone astray and promoted the us of force before the use of words.

If the United States does in fact go bankrupt, it will be our domestic policies coupled with foreign policy that will be its down fall.

On the subject matter of the USSR, you seem to overlook that the Soviet Union had many domestic policy issues along with long standing cultural issues that had a significant role in their down fall. I am not saying that the same isn't possible for us, however, the United States has the capability to adapt and overcome such obstacles more easily if we are willing to change and make tough future altering decisions. Are future will depend on long term goals that will require great sacrifice and will not be solved with short term gains and instant gratification.

As for being a neo con, I am not but there are a select few attributes that I can admire. In terms of the neo cons that currently hold power...there is very little that I can say in a positive light.

Isolationism is not a solution but non-interventionism is. No nation has the right to intervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations. Read the US Declaration of Independence if you want a source for this political philosophy. Only the People of a nation have the authority to define the government under which they are willing to subject themselves and only the People have the right and duty to overthrow a tyrannical regime should their government become one.


A staging area for WHAT? Are we planning on attacking someone else soon? The US military does not have the responsibility of protecting the sovereignty of other nations. We, the People of the United States, have a military to defend the United States from attack. It is the responsibility of the British, French, and/or Germans to defend their own borders and not the US taxpayer's.

The United States foreign policy is based upon imperialism as opposed to the historical empire building of the past. The policy is to use economic and military action to force other nations to submit to "our" demands. This is the "role" that you promote but that is not the role that the United States should be fulfilling.

We cannot oppose imperialization of other nations if we are imperialistic.
We cannot endorse peace if we initiate wars.
We cannot endorse the liberty and freedom of the People if we deny this to those under the control of US authority.
We cannot oppose torture when we commit torture.
We cannot endorse the sovereignty of nations when we violate that sovereignty.
We cannot condemn terrorism when the CIA has supported and continues to train and support terrorist groups.
We cannot promote the Rule of Law when we deny that to those incarcerated by our own government.

Instead of being the Bully on the Block it is time for the US to lead the world by example.

We can promote peace by not attacking other nations.
We can promote sovereignty by respecting the sovereignty of other nations.
We can promote Liberty and Freedom.
We can promote the Rule of Law by abiding by our own Constitution.
We can oppose terrorism if we stop supporting it.
We can oppose imperialism only if we cease being imperialistic.

Yes, the US has a role to play in world affairs and we have a choice.

We can continue our imperialistic military and economic interventions, as we have in the past, but we know the results while be that we will be hated and despised for our actions. Such a policy has resulted in wars, terrorism, and chaos around the world and the fundamental violation of the rights of the people in other nations.

Or, we can change course, become non-interventionists and lead the world by example. We can live by the ideals that America was founded upon respecting the sovereignty of other nations, respecting the rights of the people of other nations to self-determination, respecting the Rule of Law through compliance with it. Let the people of other nations to look at the United States as an example instead of the tyrannical nation that our current foreign policy reflects.

To do this the very first thing the United States needs to do is to withdraw our military from foreign soil, immediately ending the wars that the US is engaged in today, and ceasing all CIA and DEA sponsored para-military operations around the world.

Yes, the US will play a role in the affairs of the world. The question is, do you support the role of the US being an imperialistic nation bringing chaos and destruction around the world while violating the rights of the People in the world or as a nation leading the world to peace and prosperity through non-interventionism and diplomacy?