Unemployment was much lower and nobody invaded then either.
The priorities are there in summary, and I agree with them. Closing bases in countries which face no real threat wouldn't kick the people out of the army etc, but move them back to US bases where they could be supported by US workers and spend in US businesses. Germany will survive without us. We don't even have to kick out military personnel to reduce the size of the military - just be more restrained and selective in recruiting. We're not talking about the bankruptcy of Raytheon or Lockheed if we cut some unnecessary platforms. But the biggest expense is the overuse of the military. We won't have to replace Humvees and Strykers if we're not getting them blown up in failed nation-building. We won't use as much gas if we're not driving up and down the length of Afghanistan. The VA will cost less if we stop our soldiers getting wounded in ME hotspots unless they are absolutely needed to preserve our safety - which I suspect is free from risk from Balochistan peasants. The military of a free nation should be defensive first and protective second. We can send divisions to help UN peacekeepers quite comfortably and do a good job with a 1990s budget, as Kosovans will attest. We're certainly a damn sight more popular, and at less risk by far, there than we are with far greater expenses in Afghanistan and Iraq. Cutting these imperial adventures doesn't just cut bombs and bullets, but the whole support function, much of it outsourced to foreigners.
= new reply since forum marked as read
