What if we just brought all the troops home?

[Monkeyleg]

There's some very bright minds here on THR when it comes to international relations. Unfortunately, I'm not one of them.

But I have to wonder, and to ask: what if GW, after being rebuffed by the UN security council, announced that we were pulling our troops from every area in the world, except for those forces deployed to protect our true allies?

Let's say that he makes a speech in which he says that the citizens of the US have long paid more than their fair share to keep world peace, and it's time that we look to taking care of pressing domestic problems. Further, the US will respond to any attack on a true ally by wiping the attacking nation off the face of the earth with the most powerful weapons in our arsenal. ("True ally" being defined as a nation that either didn't try to blackmail us into cooperation, or one that--like Britain--actually stood by our side for principled reasons).

What would be the short and long-term repercussions of such a move? And what would the new name of France be?

 

[sonny]

And what would the new name of France be?

How do you name something that would not exist

 

[Greg L]

It would be interesting if nothing else. Also it would provide many masters thesis (thesi?) for those involved in political science as to just how long it would take for the State Dept.'s panties to unwad from such an announcement.

(I'm all for it BTW)

Greg

 

[Standing Wolf]

I think we should announce we're thinking about it, and then stand back and try not to smirk as lots of nations suddenly realize they're suddenly looking at having to defend themselves.

The police don't often go on strike...

 

[DadOfThree]

I think we should announce we're thinking about it, and then stand back and try not to smirk as lots of nations suddenly realize they're suddenly looking at having to defend themselves.

I would bet that their first thoughts wouldn't be about who was going to protect them but about the amount of money 70,000+ troops and their families would not be spending in their respective countries each year. I see no reason to support countries that don't want us there. Save that for allies.

 

[Azrael256]

except for those forces deployed to protect our true allies

That would basically mean a pull-out from everywhere but... well... Japan. They're the only ally I can come up with that treats us well and can't defend themselves (although I would advocate changing that). There is probably somebody I'm not thinking of here, but we don't have a whole lot of good allies that can't defend themselves. Please don't think I'm arguing, I think it's a terrific idea.

 

[NewShooter78]

All I have to say is that people look to the Phillipine Islands to see what happens when we pull out. I personally wouldn't mind seeing us close our bases in Germany and in France (if we even have any in FR?). The only problem with that is the amount of support personnel that would have to be let go, and the downsizing of our military forces that would ensue. These extra soldiers and other persons would be right on the chopping block for congress in that situation.

 

[Jim March]

This is what I really think would happen:

The moment Saddam got ahold of four nukes, by whatever source, one would go off in Tel Aviv and one would go off in a rowboat on the Potomac with a flea-bitten Taliban at the helm.

But let's pretend for a sec that Saddam is NOT that crazy.

If Saddam had nukes, he'd immediately take Kuwait. He'd still make sure Israel gets hit...through cutouts of course. Saddam would be in a position to threaten to take either Iran or Saudi Arabia. Given his own oil, plus Kuwait's, plus one of the other two, he's now got control of the world's oil market and so much oil that he'd be "embargo-proof".

Now look at North Korea's situation: they can't invade China, and to the south they face SK, Japan and the US. By a fate of geography, they're "pinned in place" - all they can do is use their nukes to commit rapid suicide.

Iraq on the other hand is surrounded by weak, corrupt, unpopular and/or incompetent nations.

Saddam is a potential bull in an oil-drenched china shop.

 

[coonan357]

I'd say bring them back and reopen the bases that we closed here at home , thus giving the money back to the communitys that got hurt by the closings .

 

[Lennyjoe]

World stability would definitely be questionable.

I dont like being away from my family as much as the next military member but I have been to places and have seen alot. The world isnt a happy place like the U.S. Until you travel to third world countries you dont know how lucky we really are back home in the motherland.

Reminds me of a time when I made my first trip to Kuwait in 96. My daughter, 8 years old at the time asked me a question that I remember still to this day. She asked me just before I walked out the house on the way to my flight out.

"Daddy, why do you have to go there and be away for Christmas"?

I replied, "Honey, I have to go there so the little children in Kuwait can be safe with their families and have an opportunity to grow up too".

"Ok daddy, make sure they are safe for us too".

Many people in this world have had the opportunity to grow and prosper cause we were a presence in that region and deterred the badguys from giving them that opportunity.

Giving them that opportunity is worth it for me.

 

[JimP]

Lenny-Joe, you the man!!! Almost brought a tear to my eye. I've been doing this crap for 24 years now and have been to some very bad third world hell-holes. I love the United States and truly get sickened and enraged when I see some lib-commie-freak-show turn her back on the flag because she doesn't agree with everything we do. I say let these jerks either travel the world and work in these countries they idolize; or start protecting themselves.

I feel the same way about other countries: South Korea, Germany, Japan, - name the other umpteen countries - wouldn't be in the situation they are in and be even able to criticize us if it weren't for the generosity of the American soldier and the American taxpayer. Bottom line: we are where we are because it is in our long-term interest to be there, despite what the host ****ry says about us at the time. However......I wouldn't mind "scrubbing the list" and making some reassignments!!!!

 

[Drizzt]

I would have nothing against moving our troops out of Germany, and into some of the Eastern European countries who can appreciate freedom.

 

[gburner]

I think that a substanial amount of re-deployment is called for. Current deployments seem to reflect an archaic cold war strategy. Instead of containing the Russian Bear, we should be looking toward dealing with the wellspring of Islamo-fascism...the Middle East and Indonesia.

Do that AND kick the UN out of the USA
and you've got a winner of an idea.

 

[Waitone]

I think it prudent to consider a pull back and / redeployment. The geopolitical situation has changed to the point changes must be made.

That said, there are rational, logical reasons and emotional reasons. US bases in Germany may well be better placed in former eastern Europe. Korea, maybe pulling off the DMZ. If the SK's are so hot to reunite, then lettem get kissy-kissy with their bros.

Reality is, if the US were to pull back to the city gates there will be a sudden increase in political instability. Nature abhors a vacuum.

The emotional reasons may well be more profound. There are rumors out there (unverified) to the effect that during the latest anti-US-war demonstration, anti-US types were caught urinating on the graves of US soldiers in France. If true, then its time to bring 'em home and erect a sign over the empty graveyards in France saying "Never Again!"

I'll shut up about France now. My blood pressure just spiked.

 

[dinosaur]

I read an article some time ago that said if we pulled out from the Balkans, the EU would just about collapse. The U.N. has a mandate there and the void would have to be filled by EU troops. The problem being as long as we`re there, there isn`t any need for EU troops.

If we pulled 37,000 troops from S.K, and whatever amount we have in Europe, we might be able to safeguard, notice I didn`t say close, our borders. Then maybe we could let some of the reservists go back to their jobs.

No expert here so TIFWIW.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Well, I consider Israel to be a true ally of the US, and any actions by Saddam--under the scenario I presented--would result in Iraq being glassed over.

LennyJoe, I sincerely appreciate what you're doing for our country, and have no doubt that many parts of the world are better off because of the efforts of you and your brothers-in-arms. It just sickens me, though, to watch the US getting slapped around by people who owe us a great deal of gratitude.

If the EU were to become unstable, would that be bad? Right now they're moving in a direction that could challenge our economic superiority.

Over in North Korea, I'm sure the little guy in the high heels would understand the threat of nuclear annihilation if he attacked Japan.

Once the Iraqi war is over, I'd lay bets that there will be some reshuffling of forces.