So, what's worst could happen? US withdraws troops & bases around World?

[KoKo]

and says: Any country who wants our Presence will still have our bases but those of you who want us to get out...we will do it to show we trust you to police your own countries, but we will put all our efforts into strengthening the UN so that all countries have a voice and we will re-align the voting in the UN to give equal weight to the countries who have no voice. :shrug:

Aside from our NATO Alliance (which could be re-negotiated) what would be the problem with this?

Would this not signal a huge gesture to the "terrorists" that we are not in the business of "Empire?" (this is if we "win" in November...we know the Bush/PNAC Crowd wants Empire and Bases and US troops everywhere.)

If the World is now so "connected" and we are "offshoring" in the new Global Economy we certainly need to think about "commerce/capitalism" with "peaceful/productive" intention.

Could we do this? Should we do this? :shrug:

[SheilaT]

1. Are you kidding?

Withdraw our troops from anywhere around the world? Won't happen. First off, the military vote and the money defense contractors make is crucial to Republican strategy. And we can't effectively rule the world if we don't have our soldiers virtually everywhere.

[Sulldogg]

2. Isreal ceases to exist....

[HawkerHurricane]

3. And How Many bases do we have in Isreal?

[KoKo]

4. Why would Israel cease to exist? I don't get this?

:shrug:

[Sulldogg]

6. If we pull out all of our troops...

With strategic support abilities from around Isreal, we are making it easier to attack Isreal.

As for why it ceases to exist:
re-align the voting in the UN
If that entails giving up our veto power, then there is nothing stopping the UN from authorizing military actions against Israel, as we veto the condemnation all the time.

[HawkerHurricane]

7. Now you're being silly.

Attack Isreal? The Arabs learned thier lesson. It took them 3-4 times, I'll grant you, but they learned. The combined armies of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt couldn't do it when they were recieving massive Soviet support. They wouldn't try it now, without it.

[KoKo]

15. Okay...Israel is always......a "what to do situation for us." BUT...

some new thinking needs to come down the pike about this. With Likud Sharon and Palestinians strapping bombs on....it seems to me there's a BIG Problem that needs a "third way of thinking" about this. Because the two sides with US intervention don't seemed to have done sh*t in resolving this in the last decades since the Brits dropped it on our lap.

Some NEW way of thinking about Israel surviving and allowing Palestine to exist in a way that keeps dignity and territory but doesn't threaten Isreal's own state? But, OMG, the best minds in the world have been "at this" and we have this "mess" over there which just never has a chance of resolution.

I don't know about that. :shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. It is possible that the two sides just can't agree

And that is what has been the case up to now.

As long as the Palestinians insist on the right to return, no agreement will ever happen.

[Trajan]

46. Has anyone heard ...

If the Romans wish to return to Jerusalem ? ...

THe Hellenistic Greeks ??? ...

The Assyrians ? .... The Persians ? ...

What of the extensive occupation of the area by the Egyptians ? ...

The Hebrews ? ... When did they arrive ???

Ohh yeah ..... What about the Philistines and Canaanites .... Were the Philistines present in the Fertile Crescent PRIOR to the arrival of the Hebrews ? ...

They were already there when Joshua blew down the walls of Jericho with trumpets ( I suppose they killed quite a few Canaanite strumpets ) ... Right ? .....

I understand that the Philistines wish the right of return ...

Would that NOT identify the Philistines as the TRUE owners of the Levant since they existed there before the Hebrews established their 'nation' ? ...

Is it true that the word "Palestine" is derived from the word "Philistine" ? ...

Hmmmmmmm ... Who wants the right of return again ? ..

I keep forgetting ....

[camero]

5. A few things will happen

Some countries will just learn to get their affairs in order and may actually have a stable society without US interference.

Some will degenerate into civil war and ethnic strife, thus making them unsafe to do business there. (Businesses like stable environments not just low wages) Which means some of the jobs lost would come back here. India is notorious for ethnic and religious strife.

On the home front, the reduction in forces would mean much less money going to the defense budget, thus freeing up funds for other things like schools, roads, infrastucture repair and health care for our citizens. And more money to pay down the debt.

[KoKo]

8. Camero, you're getting closer to what I was thinking...interesting.

But, freeing up money for US Domestic Problems would be a "Plus" here, in some way? Why shouldn't we have money for "domestic programs" instead of sending it all over the place? :shrug:

[camero]

9. I think it would be a plus

One thing I forgot was we could also put more for loans to small business to jumpstart the economy. And increased spending on infrastructure would do the same.

I think we should have money for "domestic programs" instead of sending it all over the place. We currently have troops based in 127 countries at the moment. That represents a huge portion of our defense budget.

[sweetheart]

11. we have over 740 bases outside the USA

With a permanent (?) global garrison... can anyone say "rome"?

[KoKo]

13. 740 BASES? That's an awful lot of "Privatization." For troops that don't

clean their own latrines and cook. :-( But, I guess we are "outsourcing" and helping the "Global Economy" here, by bringin in folks to "service" our troops/bases with local stuff... Unless we are using Diebold and Dyncorp...

On Edit: Sorry 740 Bases.....

[salinen]

19. Can anyone say

"Haliburton"

[mulethree]

49. many in "U.S. Territories"

Guam, puerto Rico, wake, etc. It's about 600 that are in foreign countries.

[KoKo]

12. Yes...I think this is a waste of resources...too many bases. How does

having this many bases protect us from a 9/11 anyway? And our bases cause folks in those countries to think we are after their "resources."

How can that be a good thing? :shrug:

A little info on Dyncorp:

DynCorp Home
csc.com / Careers / IDIQ Contracts & GSA Schedules / Contact
Us © Copyright 2003 Computer Sciences Corporation.
Description: Information systems, information technology outsourcing, and technical services. Headquartered in Reston.
Category: Regional > North America > ... > Business and Economy > Computers
www.dyncorp.com/ - 2k - Mar 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

CSC DUATS on the Web
... questions. For assistance, please call the DynCorp customer support staff
toll free at 1-800-345-3828, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. ...
www.duats.com/ - 14k - Mar 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

Rogue City
... DynCorp Sucks Media At War Bush Team 2004 Freedom of the Press Follow The Money
Class Warfare Oregon Budget. ... Dyncorp-Sucks.com Private Military Corporations. ...
www.dyncorp-sucks.com/ - 27k - Mar 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

CorpWatch.org - Issues - Military Industrial Complex - Articles ...
Home > Issues > Military Industrial Complex > Articles > DynCorp Rent-a-Cops May
Head to Iraq. ISSUE LIBRARY: Military Industrial Complex. ... Dyncorp Wants You. ...
www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=6328 - 25k - Mar 27, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

DynCorp Disgrace
DynCorp Disgrace. Posted Jan. 14, 2002. By Kelly Patricia O Meara.
Americans were seen ... business in Bosnia. But DynCorp was nervous. ...
www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/ detail/storyid/163052.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

[camero]

14. They don't protect us

I overlooked the "problem" aspect of your post and only listed the good things that would happen for us. The problems would be in those countries that are inherently unstable in its political foundations and like sweetheart said, the power vacuum that would result.

Having more troops here defending our borders would be just the thing to prevent another 9/11. Another problem I could forsee is the rise in unemployment at first from the reduction on troop numbers that would be re-entering the work force.

[KoKo]

16. But, just the phrase "power vacuum" is what's always in play. Our

politico's tell us if we withdraw from countries that don't really want our presence we will leave a "power vacuum." But, shouldn't these countries try to hash their differences internally on their own?

Hasn't our "intervention and meddling" caused more problems for us than it's worth in body bags and $$$$$$$'s alone?

Isn't it time we had some NEW proposals on how we as Americans deal with the rest of the world? :shrug:

[camero]

18. Yes it is time to get them out

And yes these, countries will have to hash out their differences. Our politicos use this "power vacuum" as an excuse to further their ambitions in these countries. It doesn't mean everything will go hunky-dorry when we leave, it just means that these things will be there. Maybe I'm not articulating myself well enough. :)

Frankly I think we should just pull all our troops out that don't want us there. And again like sweetheart said, we should make those countries that want us in their countries bear the costs of that protection. The terrorists actually want us in those countries because if we weren't, they would have little reason to exist.

[dpibel]

24. Educate me

There's a lot of talk on this thread about how the costly US presence is a gift to weak and helpless countries, intended to help them keep the peace. Would you mind giving me a partial list of such countries?

You've mentioned India (I think it was your, pardon me if it wasn't) a couple of times as a country likely to devolve into sectarian chaos. I wasn't aware that there was a substantial US presence in India, or that the US was much involved in keeping the Indians in line.

Someone else on the thread mentioned Chad. I freely admit that I have absolutely no information on the situation in Chad; hence, none on how the US is keeping the Muslim hordes from sweeping down out of Algeria to forcibly make Chad a part of the Muslim empire.

I'm aware that there's a standard story in the US that it is only the US presence that keeps South Korea from being overrun by the starving millions of the North Korean army. Yet I also hear that a great many South Koreans would like nothing better than for the US to end its 50-year presence in that country.

Similarly, one of the multitude of reasons proffered by the Fierce Warrior Chieftain for invading Iraq right away was that he was protecting the threatened neighbors of that incarnation of Hitler. Yet those threatened neighbors said, with a great and unanimous voice, "We don't need any protection right now, thank you very much."

Now, the US assuredly has bases all over the world for strategic reasons. We don't seem to be doing much peacekeeping in Uzbekistan, but we've got a dandy new base there. There's no missionary activity on Diego Garcia, since the former residents don't live there anymore. I suppose you could argue that bases in Germany deter attack from the French, but I'm not too sure about that. In fact, seems to me that, since the dismantling of the USSR, and the loss of that great tool for justifying insane spending on the military, the justification for any European bases at all waxes a tad dubious.

I guess what I'm saying here is this: I don't know where all those bases are (I suspect many Americans would be a little surprised to discover that there are 740 of them). I imagine you can find some with an effect of regional stabilization. I imagine you can find a lot more whose primary use is to fulfill US strategic/business needs.

I could be wrong, but I honestly don't think the world would explode into a fireball of civil and aggressive war but for the generosity of the US in having its armed forces stationed hither and yon.

I think we're basically drawing the same conclusion: bring the troops home. But I think we're getting there from different places.

[camero]

25. Yes, we're coming to the same point

Most bases are just there to protect corporate and economic interests in those countries. In India we do not have a military presence per se but they have let us use there bases on occasion in the prior Gulf Wars.

some info here: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/apr/21josy.htm

It is significant that during the 1991 Gulf War-I, India provided refuelling facility to US warplanes. And during Operation Enduring Freedom, several US warships used Indian facilities for rest and recuperation. As part of Operation Enduring Freedom, Indian naval ships provided escorts to merchant vessels from North Arabian Sea till Strait of Malacca in the most active cooperation with US navy in history. In fact, it is in naval cooperation that America sees the immediate future of Indo-US military relations. It is not just access to bases and ports that the US military hopes to get in India, but also training facilities in India.

That being said there is a proposal to put American bases in India.

Here's another one: http://pd.cpim.org/2001/dec02/2001_dec02_indo_us_ties.htm

The question, therefore, is not whether the Vajpayee government has entered into a "military alliance" with the US. The United States does not need permanent military bases in India. Currently, the military strategy of the United States relies on hi-tech mobile armed forces, which are backed by aerial and ship-based fire power and in such a scheme, permanent military bases are not required. What the US expects from India is access to its military and logistical facilities which can be used for any operations in this region. India has already declared that it is willing to allow the Americans the use of such facilities. As for the other aspects of military cooperation, India has entered into a strategic military relationship with the United States which encompasses both joint military exercises and training programmes and participation in peace-keeping and counter-terrorism work.

These talks have been going on for quite some time.

The US presence does nothing to help the weak and defenseless of other countries but to maintain the social order so corporations can operate there. If the US left, the regimes that have been propped up would more than likely fall. That's where the chaos comes in because most of these countries have histories of violent changes in governments.

[mulethree]

50. where (link and map, history)

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm

Diego Garcia is indian ocean, our biggest presence near to India and Indonesia (maybe Uzbekistan is sufficiently close to India?)

Virtually no bases in africa or southeast asia.

I wonder about the staffing of some - eg. Norad bases in Canada may be basically radar stations?

[Yupster]

22. Do you mean take home our trainers and specil force guys too?

A place like Chad would become a killing field and an Islamic state within a few years. Without our help, they have no defense against the Muslim militias coming down from Algeria and across from Sudan.

[sweetheart]

10. Really the worst - the kerry 'new deal'

Technology advances are only increasing, that, were the USA to
withdraw its global empire, the power vacuum would fill right quick,
and likely be hostile in many cases. We would probably not save
money early on, as the shift would be towards re-forming a civilian
diplomatic network that has been dismantled by the militarists
of the AWOL-shrubbery war-nazi administration.

The simplest way to dismantle things is to charge the host country
for the presence of "protection".. REALLY... here's your bill, for
the presence of our troops to protect your nation, oceans, etc.

If you don't like being charged, then tell us to get out, and do it
yourself. Some countries would accept, on open terms, military
protection and a tight alliance with the US.

The result would be a series of nations that really want military
ties to the USA, and a series going on their own. Self determination
is great, isn't it.

Oh, wouldn't it be nice to see the USA blossoming with that
lost military money going in to something productive... wow. With
a tiny fraction of that budget, all americans will have healthcare,
all drugs will cost 10 dollars by subsidy and the schools, roads and
community centres of the new deal can be re-constructed.

[KoKo]

17. Charging folks "big time" for our "military presence." Then we would be

"Mercenary Troops for Hire," around the world, Sweetheart, if what I read from your post is correct.

Charging them for our troops and then bringing the money home for our "infrastructure" needs ...I don't know. It sort of sounds like what happened with the Romans when they were desperately trying to support their Empire as it went into decline from paying too much to occupying soldiers to support their desires for Empire..and the population at home who were overtaxed for declining services started to ask questions and revolt.

I don't know if your scenario would work or if I, personally, could deal with it.. but it's interesting. Privatizing our Military? :shrug:

[camero]

20. Wait a minute

You're right about privatizing our military. Those countries should have to shoulder more of the burden of their own protection by increasing thier defense budgets instead of living under our umbrella.

Good point.

[sweetheart]

23. is national protection "privatization" ?

I merely suggest making the deal above the table, instead of giving
the protection away free for corporate exploitation rights.

I don't agree with military privatization, as it circumvents public
scrutiny, public obligation and control. I don't endorse that at all!

If its not a good deal, then don't pay and we'll leave. Likely the
cost of self-defending will be even higher and certainly, the US
taxpayer could be very suprised by the relief of the billions in
"cooperative alliance support payments".

[KoKo]

21. BTW.....this is just a "throw out for discussion" thought piece.. trying

to move forward with "constructive" dialog, here. Only looking for some "new way/out of the box" thinking about our global situation and our threat from what Bushies call "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Threats."

Of course, Bushies don't talk about the "threat from within...the very RW Fundie/Falwell/DeLay/etc. fundies in our own country who are corrupting and eating us away from our innards through Faux news and the PNAC and other forces....:-(

[KG]

26. what? and deprive US offshore corporate interests of their protection?

[rdfi-defi]

43. yes

[rdfi-defi]

27. good points all

something else to consider: "any country who wants our presence will have our bases but those of you who want us to get out...."

we need to clarify "any country." in most cases the governments of our client states want a strong us military presence, but the actual citizens do not. i think it is important to remember that many of the states that are militarily weak have their governments chosen by the us, more or less.

changes must be made, removing military bases from around the world is a part of the equation. but in doing so the us must be prepared to allow popular sovereignty in areas that are traditionally kept under the boot.

[KoKo]

28. Kick

:kick:

[mulethree]

51. Yes, but - that too

I don't think we should support anything other than "Popular Sovereignty" and so should not have any bases where there are not good valid elections (well, keep our domestic bases - fix our election/representation processes). We shouldn't be endorsing foreign candidates or coup-ing elected governments out of office.

But hey, I'm a crackpot, I think we should be holding U.S. companies to U.S. legal standards in whatever country they are operating. We should certainly use our military to "evict" U.S. Companies when a foreign country requests it.

If we actually stood for liberty and government by the people, even those in other countries, we wouldn't need such a big and widespread military, perhaps would not be able to afford it either.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. U.S. force

Why is it that so many want our bases removed but still expect American peacekeepers in eastern Europe, Haiti and Africa? You can't do one without the other.

[sweetheart]

31. Well then make the empire vountary

Let each of our protected nations have a referendum, and an open
scrutiny of the State of Forces Agreement for their country (the
agreement that puts american bases there and trades away sovereign
choice) If we stand for democracy, then we should stand for that
very thing, and not let a nation house our forces unless they show
democratic choice in that very act.

The peacekeepers don't need forward bases... that is spurious.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. They chose their leaders, their leaders decide

If each nation wishes to put it to popular vote, that is THEIR decision.

How do you propose doing this in nations that don't have voting?

[sweetheart]

33. Our military should not be in countries

where they don't have voting. Our miltary power would be many times
stronger were we only present in open-free-democratic societies
presuming of course that we ourselves could come to that one day.

The SFA agreements are secret and not public. They are secret
because they illegally surrender national soveriegnty. They should
be openly printed and available to the public.

[Muddleoftheroad]

35. That's a bit unrealistic

Given how many nations fit that reality.

That would have meant that the U.S. would not have defended Saudi Arabia against Iraq for instance.

[sweetheart]

38. Why defend saudi arabia from iraq?

The only terms, IMO, on which we should put *our* soldiers in combat
is to defend THIS nation, or a free democratic society that supports
liberty and human rights.

This would have made for interesting negotiations regarding kuwait
and saudi arabia in my administration of the first gulf war. They
would not have gotten 1 bit of "protection" without a firm
committment towards equal rights for women, freedom of religion and
democratic electons. No democracy - no protection.

I could care less who sells us oil. At least iraq had a better
human rights record for women than saudi arabia ever did. The
dictatorships in that part of the world are equally contemtible and
i won't send my kid to die protecting some asshole's land unless
it is for american values.

What we defended, was slavery for women... your defense of liberation
of slavery is ambiguous with your statement.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Self interest for one

Why allow a megalomaniac control of most of the world's oil?

Sorry, while you are negoiating ideal terms, the Mideast would have been overrun and the world oil supply would have been jeopardized.

[camero]

45. Um Muddle

We let him for almost 30 years. If we were that concerned about a megalomaniac controlling oil we would have invaded when he came to power.

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Some oil is one thing

Having a stranglehold on oil in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would have put him in a position to dictate terms to the entire Western world.

[camero]

48. And you forget

that we armed the megalomaniac. What gives?

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Don't blame me

I didn't arm him. I only point out that he couldn't be allowed not only control of much of the world's oil, but also the Gulf.

[camero]

54. Hmmm

You didn't pay taxes?

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. Hmmm

Do you work for the IRS?

;)

[camero]

57. lol

You're right. You have no more control over where those taxes go than I do. I just don't think we should be using it for world conquest.
Which is what it is when you have your army in the vast majority of countries in the world.

[KoKo]

59. kick

:kick:

[mulethree]

52. Bravo - would you allow weapon sales to such?

I wonder if the U.S. or DoD gets money out of selling F-16's to Saudi beyond just taxes? You know like license fees since we funded the R&D on the fees as well as the initial (most expensive) production?

[rdfi-defi]

34. i object,

the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti (a few recent examples) did not pick their current "leaders." but we still have military in those states.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. So what would you suggest

Should we avoid all nations? That's not very helpful.

[rdfi-defi]

37. i'm not sure you and i would agree on what "helpful" means

and i never said "avoid all nations." there are political and economic goals that are manifested through us foreign policy. we can interact with other states in an honest in peaceful way, us hegemony is not cosmic law.

[Solon]

39. How about a compromise Muddle...

Any nation that wants our protection must institute democratic changes in exchange for those protections. To be gradually implemented over a period of years. We should have done that in both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Both are monarchies, with horrendious human rights records, it is inexcusable for us to have them as allies.

[DocSavage]

40. Yet

Somewhere in this tread, there is an idea of using the UN for these missions. Many member nations do not practice Democracy. Does that mean that those nations would be require to change thier political ideals in exchange for UN Support?

[Solon]

41. I agree with Muddle that if the UN is to be effective anymore...

that changes must occur in it, or we withdraw. The problem is diplomacy and geo-politics, the UN was formed to stop, basically, WW3. They were successful, I believe, however, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is now opportunity, world-wide, for the UN to have real teeth, but only if reforms are made in the very structure of the organization. I would say that if any nation were to ask for support from the UN then they must institute democratic changes in their government. Otherwise, would the people of those nations have benefited from the UN?

[KoKo]

42. The PNAC Crowd is against the UN. Their philosophy is that of the

ultra right wingers who believed it was ineffectual and did everything they could to thwart efforts of making the UN stronger. We witheld our dues from them for years because of the RW Repugs views that America must uphold her sovereignty and answer to no one.

Given our "newfound" advocacy for "Outsourcing" and that "Globalization" is now a favored Repug buzzword one wonders how we can still be trying to undermine the UN. Taking an active part in strengthening the UN might help our credibility and do more to lessen terrorist attacks than all the bombs we and our "coalitions of the unwilling" could hope to achieve. Working for peace is a worthy objective which is getting lost in dialog today. It's been shunted off as some left wing fantasy which only "socialits" are advocating, when in fact, there is probably a huge untapped well of support for peaceful solutions growing the world over.
If the UN could be strengthened perhaps it could be the voice to counter the advocates of endless war around the Globe. That was the original hope.

[mulethree]

55. Right,

The US can't trust a democracy in a world governance because "we can't trust them to vote the way we want them to" Sorry can't remember who I'm quoting.

I would start by making U.N. Votes more representative of country populations (more fair) though that would boost several countries to have more vote power that the U.S. or even the combined NATO countries. Give the .... forget name - lower house of UN - more clout and require 2 veto's to veto anything in the Security Council - to start.

[KoKo]

58. I listened to interview of Hans Blix on C-Span last night. His new book

really isn't a criticism of Bush but points out that neither he nor the other inspectors felt Bush would really Invade Iraq. He thought the strategy was to threaten by building up troops to get the inspectors back in. He felt 50,000 troops would have been enough but when Bush increased it to 250,000 there wasn't enough time to pressure the Iraqi's further or to complete the inspections.

He also implied that US,GB and Spain were not within the UN Charter and were possibly illegal in international law by not bringing the last resolution to a full vote. His specialty is "international law." If you remember Powell and Bush said that they didn't need to have a full vote on the resolution because the Resolution (sorry don't have the #) but the one after Poppy invaded still stood and so a new vote wouldn't achieve anything. I think we may here more about that conflict over whether US,GB,Spain should have brought the Resolution to use force to the full vote. Somewhere down the line when this all sorts out, the UN will have to address the implications of what the three countries did.

Blix pointed out that if in the future other countries decide to follow a doctrine of pre-emptive strike none of us will be safe anywhere from missiles being lobbed. He has a sense of humor and a laid back attitude but I think "behind the scenes" some work might be in progress because our actions did weaken the UN and we have to hope that other countries will see how dangerous that is for the safety of all our world's population.