Our militray is scattered all over the world. According to Politifacts we have military in 148 countries and stationed in 900 bases out side of the USA. We have over 77 thousand troops in Europe alone. Over 52 thousand in Germany. That doesn't include all of the civilian contracted personnel. Now I know we need some bases to be able to move our military and their equipment to hotspots all over the globe, but 900 bases in 148 countries. And why that many bases and personnel in Europe alone? I think we need to cut more out of the military budget so that we can force them to close the unnecessary bases and bring many of our troops home. Now I have served in the military and am from a military family. MY dad and four from my immediate family are retired military and all my brothers and sisters have served, so I am not anti-military. But I have thought for years we have too many unnecessary bases and the cost of keeping each base adds to our deficit. So, I am not worried about our military suffering from the sequester and only wish it would force our military to take a frank look at reducing the number of bases and personnel serving the bases throughout the world to those we have to have. It would go a long way to making our military more cost effective.
Considering the still on-going effects following 9-11-01, where an attack which killed 2,977 people, inclusive of the 19 hijackers that perpetrated the events that caused the deaths (2,402 Americans were killed in the Pearl Harbor attack) used no military weaponry and none of their own weapons, aside from matt knives. I'm not sure why we're spending 700 billion dollars or nearly five time more than the next largest spender on military defense.
Eisenhower, the last president this nation has had with a military career background and supreme commander of allied forces during the last greatest war, put the pitfalls of obsessive spending and escalation of weapons of war quite succinctly.
http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/speeches/ike_chance_for_peace.html
The Soviet Union is no more and it would appear the U.S., instead of heeding Eisenhower's warning in his farewell speech about the military–industrial complex, it would appear he was ignored and some in the U.S. decided instead to pick up where the Soviet Union left off or found a portion of its downfall.
The trouble for the neo-republicans will be distancing themselves from the military spending results based on the stated principles of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/ as well as an ingrained perception (real or not) that the new (neo) republicans became the party of growing the U.S. military to use as a tool to assert its interests around the world. Somewhat ironic considering the basis of fears of the activities of Soviet Union from WWII through Reagan's reign.
We as a nation, appear to run into problems when instead of resisting and stopping the ability of some to create things like WMD or assert their politics upon other nations, we take the things we fear, like Germany's ability to produce a nuclear (atomic) weapon during WWII or the Soviet Union using its military to annex other nations or create satellite nations from existing ones in its own interest, we have adopted what we fear from others and use them for our own interest. In some cases we have used them or use them in ways others find as fearful or offensive to them as Americans felt about or would feel about the same being asserted or used against America.
There will always be people who hate with no basis in reality for their hate, who will use violence against those they perceive should be hated, but any nation can work to reduce attacks against them and thus reasons to defend themselves, by doing less to antagonize and provide the same sorts of justifications they make to use force against others, to others.
The Golden Rule does not say do unto others as they have done unto you, it says do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Leadership is not about following others, but setting the example.
"She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom."
"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."
"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."
"[America’s] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice."
-John Quincy Adams - Speech to the U.S. House of Representatives on Foreign Policy (July 4, 1821)
There are thresholds and saturation points for many things. While there is a strong argument for a strong defense, there is a level, a threshold and saturation point to where "strong" mixed with a lack of care for appication of strength and use of military force can cross the line from being defensive to offensive, especially for those on the receiving end. Self-righteousness can arise from past success, but past success is no warranty of future success, especially if one lets themselves to be lulled into the pitfalls of vanity and the notion that past successes automatically mean future success or that perpetual purity comes from any past purity. While we may think of ourselves as the greatest nation on earth, in reality, we may not be or the world no longer sees us that way, ironically in part because we may have felt we didn't have to actually do things to maintain that status, aside from believe we were great, perhaps thinking mere belief in one's greatness makes them great without having to provide evidence for the same by their actions.
We may very well remain the greatest nation on earth by all accounts, but my believing it is so, does not make it so. A manufacturer that denies a need for regular review, maintenance and quality control is likely not long for this world. Deluding one's self to the point they refuse to acknowledge any faults would also seem to be cause for some serious long term survival problems. I'm not sure how it would be different for nations.
