Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
Let's interject some reality here. First, according to a data set on U.S. Military international force postings from 1950-2005 at heritage.org, we actually we have military in 149 countries. However, most of these are stationed at places like U.S. embassies. In reality, there are only 30 countries in which we have over 100 (including Canada, Greenland, and Iceland), and only 14 in which there are over 1,000 (including the U.K., Germany, and Italy). According to a report for the U.S. Congress at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS20649.pdf, there are currently 1.38 million U.S. troops on duty, almost 1.1 stationed in the U.S. and its territories.
Certainly seems like we are so busy extending our empire that we can't defend the homeland.
Invoking the voice of great founders like Washington and Jefferson is disingenuous-- theirs was a different day and context. However, when push came to shove both men led this nation in war. For Jefferson see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
What Presidents like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison understood is that there are some prices that are too high to pay. How about the deaths of innocent civilians in countries around the world?
Congressman Paul, get real.
5 comments:
Deaths of civilians in other countries? Sounds like a job for the POLICE their respective countries. The military fights an enemy, which is exactly why sane countries, like ours used to be, have Posse Comitatus laws. Maybe we're just not on the same page -- what does the death of a person in another country have to do with the US and our military?
Deployed troops do not mean the same as a defending force. Also, 0.2 million of those 1.1 million quoted to be stationed in the US and territories seem to be at sea or at war.
Ron Paul is all for war to defend this country.
The wisdom of Washington and Jefferson is the right wisdom for America of the 21st century. The idea that something old is broken is silly.
Compare Ron Paul's approach to other ideas. Romney wants occupation forces and secret police for both allies around the world and countries in hotspots. Giuliani wants Iraq to be permanently under US control. That is, on a an intervention scale, of 1-100, Ron Paul is 5, Romney is 90, Giuliani is 85--if you are 15 to 25 like most people or even 35, Paul is still closest.
There are limited resources in the world. The US is much more in debt than any other country. We cannot do it all. We cannot live on wishful thinking. We cannot run the world.
John
The point is that terrorists are financed, trained, and many cases controlled by state sponsors.
State sponsors of terror are the mortal enemy of everyone on earth, even you. We have to be willing to say to these sponsors is an unequivocal way that they must stop supporting, training, and using these organizations for creating chaos. Manny of those who have died are Americans.
But if you value life, you should value all life, not just those that carry a U.S. passport and or happen to be within the U.S. at the time.
I'm afraid Congressman Paul has his head in the sand on this issue.
Let's interject some reality here...
Of the military "at home", that includes all of the Coast Guard, most of the injured or otherwise unable to be deploy at this time, 47,000 in transit, 35,000 in Hawaii, 18,000 in Alaska, 120,000 afloat, and the vast amount of the military who serve in some sort of training, supply or support fashion, which a majority of do so from home. It takes, well, a small 'army' of personnel to put one soldier in the field. Think about how many it requires to staff and maintain just a tank... or how about a carrier battle group, or a naval shipyard. Then there's all those that work just to transport materiel around the globe on a daily basis.
With just under 100,000 troops in Asia, just over 100,000 in Europe, 20,000 in Afghanistan and 170,000 in Iraq, the U.S. military, specifically ground fighting forces and the equipment they use, is indeed stretched quite thin. But that should have been obvious by the fact that they are now recruiting felons as well as people who 8 years ago were considered too old to serve.
All that aside however, Ron Paul makes a very good point in that we would be much better served wielding our vast economic might rather than military might. By making it in a nation's best interest monetarily to make us happy, we get them to do the work for us and at the same time curry favorable opinion rather than the hatred engendered by force. If you have any doubt about the power of economics, simply look at the Iraq war and the monetary interests which got us into it. Big Oil, the defense idustry, Israel and Saudi Arabia have wielded their economic might on our politicians to their own benefit in this case.
tsoldrin ~
I think you prove my point. We have made it in the economic best interest of these countries to, as you say, "make us happy."
Saddam was wealthy, the Ayatollahs are wealthy. bin Laden is wealthy. Even Saudis at best only pretend to be our friends. The average al-Qaeda member is better educated than the average American.
You can't pay people to be your friends (didn't Lennon and McCartney write a song about that?). We are facing a real threat. Real people who have shown in the past they ready to kill innocent U.S. civilians and, all protestions by the Paulites aside, still so desire.
It isn't our fault they kill. They kill because they think it will serve their ends. We need to make sure it doesn't.
Ron Paul isn't up to the task.
P.S. Armies/Navies require support whethet in the U.S. or in the field. A large number of 170,000 in Iraq, the 100,000 in Europe, and the 100,000 in asia are support personnel. To claim the homeland is not protected due to our overseas positioning is just false. If you and the Congressman really feel the Military is over extended why not call for more troops as Barack Obama (D - Illinois) and Mitt Romney (R - Massachusetts) have?
Post a Comment