One area that I find appealing about the Libertarian positions of Gary Johnson, is their plans to reduce the excessive cost of supporting foreign military bases and personnel -- Money that could go to great use in America. I seriously question whether America would be any less safe.
I believe it is high time for our allies to foot the bill financially and with troops. There is massive youth unemployment in Europe and those young men & women could learn valuable lessons defending their country and supporting the NATO alliance!
Consider these facts and figures …
The United States has more foreign military bases than any other people, nation, or empire in history. We have a presence in over 156 countries with approximately 730 bases and over 300K personnel. In Europe, for example, there are some 110K plus US military personnel including 75K in Germany alone. We don’t just support the people – there are nearly 850K buildings and equipment covering a land area of nearly 30 million acres.
According to one expert calculation, we spend at least $85 billion a year to support this, which is more than discretionary budget of every government agency except for the Defense Department.
Scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson described the situation this way in 2004, “As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize—or do not want to recognize—that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet.”
Interestingly, while we consider the situation normal and accept that US military installations exist in staggering numbers in other countries, on other peoples’ land, the idea that there would be foreign bases on US soil is unthinkable.
But it’s not just the direct costs. There is a human toll that comes along with all this expense. According to Chalmers Johnson, “The families of military personnel are among those who suffer from the spread of overseas bases given the strain of distant deployments, family separations, and frequent moves. Overseas bases also contribute to the shocking rates of sexual assault in the military: an estimated 30% of servicewomen are victimized during their time in the military and a disproportionate number of these crimes happen at bases abroad. Outside the base gates, in places like South Korea, one often finds exploitative prostitution industries geared to US military personnel.
And, worldwide, bases have caused widespread environmental damage because of toxic leaks, accidents, and in some cases the deliberate dumping of hazardous materials. GI crime has long angered locals. In Okinawa and elsewhere, US troops have repeatedly committed horrific acts of rape against local women. From Greenland to the tropical island of Diego Garcia, the military has displaced local peoples from their lands to build its bases.
In contrast to frequently invoked rhetoric about spreading democracy, the military has shown a preference for establishing bases in undemocratic and often despotic states like Qatar and Bahrain. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, US bases have created fertile breeding grounds for radicalism and anti-Americanism. The presence of bases near Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia was a major recruiting tool for al-Qaeda and part of Osama bin Laden’s professed motivation for the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Although this kind of perpetual turmoil is little noticed at home, bases abroad have all too often generate grievances, protest, and antagonistic relationships. Although few here recognize it, our bases are a major part of the image the United States presents to the world—and they often show us in an extremely unflattering light.”
Another area of savings is to reduce cost overruns and simply scale back on new projects. As the first new carrier design in 40 years, the USS Gerald R. Ford incorporates new technology and operational systems that will allow it to have a higher aircraft launch and recovery rate, reduced manning, and improved survivability against projected threats. The problem is that those things don't work and delivery is years behind schedule and tens of billions over budget!! So, which Presidential candidate do you think would have better handled the situation? So let's see who got the most lobbying money from defense contractors.
First of all, Northrup Grumman, lead contractor on the project, was the # 2 contributor. But how did the 2015-16 money breakouts?
Sanders, Bernie (D) Senate $379,135
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $360,262
Thornberry, Mac (R-TX) House $354,500
Clinton, Hillary (D) $317,257
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-NJ) House $288,000
Cruz, Ted (R-TX) Senate $360,262
Thornberry, Mac (R-TX) House $354,500
Clinton, Hillary (D) $317,257
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-NJ) House $288,000
Lockheed Martin, contractor for the new F35 Joint Strike Fighter Jet, is the #1 Contributor in 2015-16. And, the F35 Project is is $163 billion over budget, seven years behind schedule, and will cost taxpayers about twice as much as sending a man to the moon. The $400 billion dollar project for approx. 2500 planes is the most expensive weapon ever built. It is hard to imagine that we couldn't manage with 1500 plane. But it's easy to imagine the incredible good amount of infrastructure we could do with that money! To give you an idea, the TOTAL Federal Transportation budget for 2016 was $17.2 billion - and that's for roads, rail, air, transit, maritime, safety, and grants!
NOBODY OWNS TRUMP OR GARY JOHNSON! We know the establishment in Washington has been wasting tax dollars for generations. Why would anyone believe that the establishment is going to change? They are called the "establishment" for a reason! We need to reduce the size of our Federal government and give more choice and resources back to the states and local leadership. And that includes rethinking and restructuring our defense! We need USA infrastructure more we need the excessive military projects.
