No more tuition assistance

[sanantone]

Considering that the defense budget by itself is half a trillion, yes..

The defense budget did rise more than $300b for the wars. It was under $400b and it's about $718b now. I think it's very feasible for us to quickly return to prewar spending since we have already pulled out of Iraq and we're about to pull out of Afghanistan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonk...in-charts/

[quasarvs]

Taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for every single American who decides to travel overseas, but that isn't even the reason why we have military bases all over the place. This is when the little Libertarian in me comes out. The tuition assistance is the last thing that needs to be cut. I actually believe the federal government (including the military) could afford to cut the full amount of our budget deficit in a couple of years. Why does it take 10 years to cut a yearly deficit of $1 trillion? Is this some kind of adjustment period? Most of the spending is unnecessary, imo, and we can afford to cut it now. If the government is concerned about taking money out of the economy during a weak period, there are plenty of funds that can be diverted to job creation from unnecessary projects.

What is the reason that we have bases all over the place then?

I guess that's the question: Should Americans be defenseless all across the globe?
And what about American embassies? Don't you think they deserve protection and security?

DISCLAIMER:
I admit I helped blow this thread up, so if someone wants to start a new thread for this discussion I'll move to that one.

[Grand Wizard]

What is the reason that we have bases all over the place then?

I guess that's the question: Should Americans be defenseless all across the globe?
And what about American embassies? Don't you think they deserve protection and security?

DISCLAIMER:
I admit I helped blow this thread up, so if someone wants to start a new thread for this discussion I'll move to that one.

We have bases all over the world so our armed forces can project power quickly and with overwhelming force if directed to do so. It isn't about protecting individual American citizens or the bureaucrats in the Foreign Service, it is about advancing American national interests.

As far as U.S. embassies and consuls, they are protected by detachments of U.S. Marines. Ask the question, "Do terrorists and/or hostile host governments target Switzerland? Who, if anyone, protects the citizens and embassies of Switzerland?" (hint: It isn't the Swiss Guard; they protect the Pope.)

The real dialogue should be about whether the U.S. has a strategic national interest everywhere in the world, or should we scale back the range of those interests to regions critical to the self-defense of the nation.

[sanantone]

What is the reason that we have bases all over the place then?

I guess that's the question: Should Americans be defenseless all across the globe?
And what about American embassies? Don't you think they deserve protection and security?

DISCLAIMER:
I admit I helped blow this thread up, so if someone wants to start a new thread for this discussion I'll move to that one.

Grand Wizard answered your question, so I have nothing else to add.

[asetek]

What makes you guys think we will pull out of the middle east? We still have to pull out of Germany and Japan first... lol quick joke for the thread.

But seriously; DoD can cut spending, but meat-ax sequestration cuts is not the way to do it smartly and readiness/mission capability will suffer. No DoD agency planned for sequestration, because we were not directed to and we thought congress would pull their heads out.

For the economy: keep taxes lower, decrease government spending and address the deficit. Let consumption pull us out when people gain a little more confidence in the economy again. That's my point of view anyways. Why would I want the government wasting my money, I can do that better myself... lol

[quasarvs]

We have bases all over the world so our armed forces can project power quickly and with overwhelming force if directed to do so. It isn't about protecting individual American citizens or the bureaucrats in the Foreign Service, it is about advancing American national interests.

As far as U.S. embassies and consuls, they are protected by detachments of U.S. Marines. Ask the question, "Do terrorists and/or hostile host governments target Switzerland? Who, if anyone, protects the citizens and embassies of Switzerland?" (hint: It isn't the Swiss Guard; they protect the Pope.)

The real dialogue should be about whether the U.S. has a strategic national interest everywhere in the world, or should we scale back the range of those interests to regions critical to the self-defense of the nation.

So is there anything wrong with the ability of the U.S. military to "project power quickly"?
Wouldn't projecting force be necessary if a citizen needed urgent protection?
As far as American interests, as an American I'm generally for them, but I do think that if a country that we are not at war with wants us out of their country we should respect that and not have a base there.

I don't think the comparison with Switzerland is a fair comparison for a couple reasons. First, in past conflicts Switzerland was known for taking a neutral stance. Second, Switzerland isn't a big target. Terrorists have nothing to gain for bullying a small European country that is much smaller than their own, in many cases.

[sanantone]

No DoD agency planned for sequestration, because we were not directed to and we thought congress would pull their heads out.

If this is true, then this is just plain dumb. If the DoD is incapable of preparing for something that is right in their face and has a high possibility of happening, then what else can they not prepare for?

Wouldn't projecting force be necessary if a citizen needed urgent protection?

It would be absolutely ridiculous for taxpayers to pay for body guards for people who have the money to travel overseas. When a person travels out of the country, they accept the risks that come with it. As stated before, the embassies have their own security and are responsible for getting American citizens out when major incidents occur. The military is not charged with that responsibility and it should not be. Americans are kidnapped and wrongfully jailed all the time. The U.S. attempts diplomacy in cases like this. The military does not and will not rush in for any average citizen who is not in a country we're at war with. If you're shot up by some Mexican drug cartel when vacationing, there's not much anyone can do for you anyway. Most of the overseas bases people complain about are in countries that are generally safe for Americans and it's not because the bases are there.

[dposborne]

looks like they brought TA back.

Congress restores TA through fiscal ’13 - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times

[quasarvs]

If this is true, then this is just plain dumb. If the DoD is incapable of preparing for something that is right in their face and has a high possibility of happening, then what else can they not prepare for?




It would be absolutely ridiculous for taxpayers to pay for body guards for people who have the money to travel overseas. When a person travels out of the country, they accept the risks that come with it.

Agreed.

As stated before, the embassies have their own security and are responsible for getting American citizens out when major incidents occur. The military is not charged with that responsibility and it should not be. Americans are kidnapped and wrongfully jailed all the time. The U.S. attempts diplomacy in cases like this. The military does not and will not rush in for any average citizen who is not in a country we're at war with. If you're shot up by some Mexican drug cartel when vacationing, there's not much anyone can do for you anyway. Most of the overseas bases people complain about are in countries that are generally safe for Americans and it's not because the bases are there.

As you may have noticed I like debates and political discussions, not only are they entertaining and educational but they try to solve the world's problems; all this, at the same time.

So my next question, only if you or someone else wants to answer it, is :
What are the reasons people complain about American overseas bases in friendly countries if its not because the bases are there?

[Jonathan Whatley]

So my next question, only if you or someone else wants to answer it, is :
What are the reasons people complain about American overseas bases in friendly countries if its not because the bases are there?

I think the standout case of U.S. overseas military basing being controversial is Okinawa.

A related concern is that some countries – including some of the United States' surest and closest friends – are strongly, or somewhat, opposed to positioning nuclear weapons within their territories. Well, one of the things the U.S. military does is move nuclear weapons around.