Facing the possibility of seriously cutting the Defense Budget, maybe we should think about withdrawing our military forces from bases located in foreign countries? Wouldn’t we save a bundle if we didn’t have our forces spread around the world? Considering the way many of them feel about us, pulling out seems like a win/win for everyone; right? How many of the host countries celebrate our presence on their soil?
I am not advocating that we withdraw our forces, quite to the contrary, but shouldn’t we think about it? Doesn’t it make sense that we reaffirm that assumptions regarding our national interests made many years ago have not changed? At the same time, our supposed allies can reconfirm that our presence is advantageous and desirable to them as well or maybe not.
We pay a lot to have a military presence in many of these countries which enables the host countries to allocate a much smaller portion of their own budgets for their own defense and military while substantially increasing our cost. Keep in mind that the cost is not just measured in monetary form; our military forces are made up from millions of young Americans that we ask to go in harms way to protect freedom around the world. Maybe I would feel different if our treaty partners asked their own kids to make the same sacrifice.
Since the European economy is significant, aren’t they capable of paying for their own forces? So what portion of our cost to protect their interests do they pay?
If they beefed up their own forces, couldn’t we support them from bases on American soil? And while we’re at it, who are we protecting the Europeans from? Since we already let almost every European country into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) aren’t they all our allies now? So who is the threat? Since we didn’t let the Russians in, they must be the threat along with China since nobody else has the ability to project force significantly beyond their own borders.
Besides America, who funds NATO? Besides America, whose forces constitute the muscle of NATO? Without America, what happens to political stability in Europe if we pull out of NATO?
What happens if we give NATO a notice of intent to reduce participation over the next five or ten years?
The same questions could be asked about mutual defense treaties between America and a bunch of Asian countries like Korea, Taiwan, Japan and the Philippines.
If we closed American bases in all those foreign countries, what would happen besides our Defense Budget going down? Or, would it go down? Would the world become less safe if the United States of America did not have bases in all these places supplemented by a Navy that patrols international waters around the globe? Isn’t that an important consideration?
How would a withdrawal of American forces affect the aggressive tendencies of countries wanting to have a louder voice in international politics?
When you get right down to it, isn’t our military presence around the world the only reason things are as safe as they are? What is that worth to our allies and ultimately to our own people? Shouldn’t we be asking that question?
If our Army had not driven Iraq out of Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded in 1990, what would the Middle East look like today? If our troops weren’t stationed in Saudi Arabia, would Iraq have control of all their oil too? How would that affect our national strategic interests or more importantly, how would it affect our NATO allies? Would a Middle East controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood be a threat to Great Britain,France or Germany?
What would those countries have done had we held back and done nothing in 1990?
Consider the plight of Israel. If our forces were not in close proximity to that country, what do you suspect would happen to them? The fact that they are allowed to have nuclear weapons means they will put up a good fight if they are attacked, but there is not much protecting them from an increasingly hostile Middle East.
The lessons we learned over the years taught us that it is easier to defend our own shores if we maintain a presence in those foreign countries. If we prevent destabilization of our “allies” they are more likely to actually be allies.
There are good reasons for America to have presence in all these far off foreign countries, both tactical and strategic. I’ve listened to the rationale from knowledgeable retired Army officers I respect so I don’t doubt that we need to keep our forces in place, the problem is that not everyone shares my concern about the intent of many of our supposed allies and clearly many of the countries that would benefit if we failed.
So is slashing Defense our best choice as we work to balance our budget? I’m concerned that many in our own country are prepared to find out the hard way.
No Loss for Words 
This President has Never been about Jobs, but what?
by Steve DanaPresident Obama often talks about how everyone needs to pay their fair share and then points to successful citizens as taking advantage of the system; but in a negative way, rather than using their example of success as encouragement for others to be successful as well. At a time when many Americans are struggling, Obama and many of his ilk are angry because some Americans are not struggling so much.
Think about all the immigrants who became the foundation of our country over the years. When asked why they sacrificed everything to come to America, they answered with two things; liberty and economic opportunity. They wanted to be free and have the chance to work hard and be successful in America.
Liberty and Economic Opportunity!
When the Democrats try to rationalize how folks who don’t pay a dime of federal income tax are paying more than their fair share, they compile all the increases in their cost of living as evidence supporting their case.
So who or what is driving up the cost of living for Americans?
The short answer, your government!
Who wrote the tax code that gives General Electric the loopholes so they pay no tax? Who wrote the regulations that told banks to make loans to folks who couldn’t afford to pay for them? Who passed the laws that enable a single person to file a frivolous lawsuit that prevents a factory from being built without either proof or economic penalty for failing to provide proof?
Don’t get me started about why food cost has risen so much!
Once again, your government!
I remember when he was Candidate Obama he said that by necessity energy costs would have to increase. He didn’t explain too well why it was necessary but knowing that higher energy costs would unfairly target lower income Americans he spent the past two and a half years working to raise energy costs. I think the strategy was to raise the price on current cheap energy so the really expensive “ALTERNATIVE ENERGY” companies the President and his cronies wanted to promote appeared more competitive. We all know how that worked out with Solyndra and others.
It appears that strategy worked as far a supporting Obama’s core supporters, but hardly Main Street Americans. Could it be that average Americans are not his first priority? Think about those union construction workers not going to work because of the Keystone Pipeline deal being delayed. Could it be that the rank and file union workers are not his first priority either?
At a time when the President talks about energy independence from foreign sources, he turns his back on American energy companies and offers billions of American dollars to Brazil to develop their petroleum resources which just happen to be found in deep water off their coast.
So the President is subsidizing oil exploration and development for Brazil so we can pay them for the foreign oil rather than Saudi Arabia or Kuwait while depriving American workers of family wage jobs on the oil rigs and in the refineries here at home.
I would think that if deep water drilling is as risky to the environment as the President suggests, then it shouldn’t matter if it’s in Louisiana or Brazil, should it? And, maybe if we shouldn’t be subsidizing American oil companies, certainly we shouldn’t be subsidizing foreign oil companies either. And if it’s good for the Brazilian economy to create jobs in the petroleum industry it’s got to be really good for Americans too, right?
When the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was asked in a Congressional hearing whether his folks ever considered the economic impacts of the regulations they adopted, he indicated that they did not. So what’s so important about that? Well, think about the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act for starters. Your utility bills in your homes are impacted by changing standards for you local water and sewer providers. Your PUD rates are severely impacted by regulatory changes for our hydro-electric and nuclear energy producers.
Folks in my small city experience these impacts every day. In 1992 we built a state of the art sewage treatment plant designed to meet current and future discharge standards as outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology but in 1993 when the plant was completed, Federal regulations had changed to the point where the plant was out of compliance before it ever processed a gallon of sewage.
Since I was Mayor at the time, I took a lot of heat for that but we did what we were told by both the state and federal regulators at the time. Those changes affected thousands of other small cities and millions of people; and not in a positive way. When asked whether he was concerned about those folks who had been damaged, a DOE staffer replied that it wasn’t his job to be concerned about economic hardships.
There is no doubt that the cost of living has increased substantially, but I suspect that if you want to point fingers, the Democrats are more responsible for those increases than Republicans.
Our challenge today is to get Americans back to work at jobs that will support families. That means the government has to roll back regulations that strangle job producers while still considering the mission of their agency. The EPA still needs to do a job, but not at the expense of our economy.
Those Occupy Wall Street protesters may have a legitimate beef, but the culprit is not the guy that followed the rules, it’s the government for making the rules. How many times have you yourself said “just tell me what the rules are so I can get on with my project?”
Given the choice of creating family wage jobs in the energy industries and even the financial industry or inhibiting job creation with more excessive regulation, the President and the Democrats consistently choose more regulation. What does that tell you about their priorities?
Then take a look at their fall back position on every issue today; raising income tax rates on everyone earning more than a million dollars per year. Even though studies show that the revenue needed to solve even one of the problems would not be collected by the increase they propose. Remember the discussions about raising the debt ceiling, RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH! Remember the Super Committee, cut spending by RAISING TAXES ON THE RICH! Remember talks about Entitlement Reform, RAISE TAXES ON THE RICH!
Our problems have gotten so big even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet can’t come to our rescue.
Why isn’t anyone talking about that?
Raising taxes on rich folks will not solve a problem with spending that increases 8% per year, every year while the economy only grows at 2%.
Posted in Federal Government, Political commentary, Regulatory Reform | Leave a Comment »