The Costs of Overseas Military Garrisons

[william the wie]

I'm getting some numbers that strike me as outrageous using the following formula:

Cost = multiplier effect (about 5) of not having that money spent over here + lease costs + (multiplier effect [about 10 due to higher savings and investment rates] of lower defense costs and added garrison expenditure for the receiving country to increase its comparative advantage relative to the US).

The problem i get is that ending the empire would seem to wipe out the national debt in about 10 years without cutting the defense budget. And without those garrisons the defense budget could be redirected to enhance reserves giving us an insanely large military of no possible use short of fighting WWIII as a conventional war. So what other formulae can be used to get different results.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm getting some numbers that strike me as outrageous using the following formula:

Cost = multiplier effect (about 5) of not having that money spent over here + lease costs + (multiplier effect [about 10 due to higher savings and investment rates] of lower defense costs and added garrison expenditure for the receiving country to increase its comparative advantage relative to the US).

The problem i get is that ending the empire would seem to wipe out the national debt in about 10 years without cutting the defense budget. And without those garrisons the defense budget could be redirected to enhance reserves giving us an insanely large military of no possible use short of fighting WWIII as a conventional war. So what other formulae can be used to get different results.

Author H.W. Brands wrote “American Colossus: The Triumph of American Capitalism, 1865-1900.” He proposed the following:

“Brands’ First Law of History: Sooner of later, every nation gets the foreign policy that it can afford.” Early in our history, wars were smaller, somewhat ‘frontier wars:’ the Revolution, 1812, the Mexican War…the Civil War may be considered an exception. Even the Spanish-American began as a Caribbean skirmish, and expanded into across the Pacific.

a. The 20th century saw two great, international wars, and then wars more frequent than generational wars, instead more in step with the nation’s economic fortunes: by 1900, the United States was the most powerful economic force in the world- yet with a relatively unambitious foreign policy vis-à-vis other powers. We retained a 19th century mindset.

b. From 1941 onward, we have never wavered from the belief that everything that happens in the world is our concern.

c. Tomorrow???

 

[California Girl]

I'm getting some numbers that strike me as outrageous using the following formula:

Cost = multiplier effect (about 5) of not having that money spent over here + lease costs + (multiplier effect [about 10 due to higher savings and investment rates] of lower defense costs and added garrison expenditure for the receiving country to increase its comparative advantage relative to the US).

The problem i get is that ending the empire would seem to wipe out the national debt in about 10 years without cutting the defense budget. And without those garrisons the defense budget could be redirected to enhance reserves giving us an insanely large military of no possible use short of fighting WWIII as a conventional war. So what other formulae can be used to get different results.

You need to consider slightly bigger picture shit than how much it would save financially. We're not based around the world for the fun of it.

 

[ShackledNation]

I'm getting some numbers that strike me as outrageous using the following formula:

Cost = multiplier effect (about 5) of not having that money spent over here + lease costs + (multiplier effect [about 10 due to higher savings and investment rates] of lower defense costs and added garrison expenditure for the receiving country to increase its comparative advantage relative to the US).

The problem i get is that ending the empire would seem to wipe out the national debt in about 10 years without cutting the defense budget. And without those garrisons the defense budget could be redirected to enhance reserves giving us an insanely large military of no possible use short of fighting WWIII as a conventional war. So what other formulae can be used to get different results.

You need to consider slightly bigger picture shit than how much it would save financially. We're not based around the world for the fun of it.

Why do we need military bases in 39 countries and troops in 130, including tens of thousands in Germany and Japan? What bigger picture is that for? No, its not for the fun of it. But its not smart either. The bigger picture is that our empire costs trillions of dollars and the result is we are less safe as more and more countries grow to resent our expansion into their territory.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The world is not the same as it was in 1900.............

 

[william the wie]

The world is not the same as it was in 1900.............

Quite true. However the European empires that would have fallen along with Europe are mostly gone. The one child policy means that China lacks the boots on the ground to maintain its empire. For somewhat different demographic reasons the same is true of Russia. Indian Imperialism is possible but unlikely.

Alternatives to ME energy are needed but for the most part credible foreign threats are pretty much gone but our foreign policy does not reflect this.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The world is not the same as it was in 1900.............

Quite true. However the European empires that would have fallen along with Europe are mostly gone. The one child policy means that China lacks the boots on the ground to maintain its empire. For somewhat different demographic reasons the same is true of Russia. Indian Imperialism is possible but unlikely.

Alternatives to ME energy are needed but for the most part credible foreign threats are pretty much gone but our foreign policy does not reflect this.

Our forces overseas are shrinking. Should this ME BS ever end it will be very apparent.

 

[william the wie]

Our forces overseas are shrinking. Should this ME BS ever end it will be very apparent.

That's the main reason I started this thread. Our total forces will shrink at perhaps too fast a pace. Relocating forces to US territories saves nearly as much money as mothballing them. Relocating to areas of high unemployment and relatively low cost of living while shrinking the force more slowly should help to cushion the pain all way around.

 

[Avorysuds]

Yes, the world is different... Now we don't need a base somewhere because we can watch stuff and move troops there in hours if needed...

In the past countries (hundreds of years even) used to put bases everywhere, we need to evolve.