And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

How much does our playing police force to the world cost Americans yearly?

Posted on: April 18, 2013

I have long believed and called for bringing our troops home from around the world.  Why are Americans still in Germany?  Why do we have 28,000 American troops on the border between North Korea  and South Korea?  Why are we still stationed in Japan?  Australia? Why in the world do we have troops stationed in Great Britain??   And it goes on and on.  Americans are stationed all over the world.    Our Constitution calls for our federal government to protect the American people, there is nothing about protecting the people of the world in it.  In fact, if you read the Constitution carefully I believe you will see that our forefathers actually demanded that Americans mind their own business and refrain from foreign entanglements.

If it is a matter of not knowing what to do with these soldiers then bring them home and set up bases on our own borders.  Perhaps a few soldiers on our borders will stop the flood of illegal aliens crossing into our country like they are taking a Sunday stroll.  I have myself  watched people coming across the Rio Grande River into the United States and with no one saying or doing anything about it.   I watched a whole family one day wade across the river into the United States and get into a car that was waiting for them.   And we wonder why we have an illegal alien problem.

Anyhow, I found this article of interest because of this long standing pet peeve of mine.   Full disclosure:  I was a military wife and mother.

Oh, I have to point something out here that you may not have noticed Dear Reader:  I am NOT blaming Obama for this problem!  :)  BB

 

 

APRIL 17, 2013 2:50PM

The Costs of Our Overseas Military Presence

The AP’s Donna Cassata is reporting today on a study commissioned by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which purports to calculate the costs of the U.S. military presence overseas. This is a hot topic, but it isn’t exactly a new one. Americans have long been frustrated by inequitable burden sharing, with many of our wealthy allies spending a fraction of what we do on defense. On Monday, Cato published a new infographic on the subject to coincide with tax day (see below).

Unfortunately, the committee’s estimate that the permanent stationing of U.S. troops overseas costs us $10 billion each year is too low–in all likelihood, much too low. I have not yet had a chance to read the entire report, but the DoD’s own estimate of overseas military costs includes the costs of personnel, and is more than twice that amount, $20.9 billion (see p. 207 in the latest budget submission). Even the DoD’s figure, however, understates the true cost of our commitments to defend other countries that can and should defend themselves, because it doesn’t fully account for the additional force structure that is required to maintain a presence many thousands of miles away from the United States. If the U.S. military operated chiefly in the Western Hemisphere, with regular expeditionary operations far afield, we could safely have fewer people on active duty, and mobilize a large and well-trained reserve for genuine emergencies. This smaller military would require ships and planes to take them where they were needed, when they were needed, but not as many planes and ships as we have today. And no report can actually assess the costs and risks when and if our security commitments compel us to become embroiled in a distant war that does not engage vital U.S. interests.

Other studies have attempted to assess all of the costs of these various global commitments, and the estimates vary widely. Graham Fuller and Ian Lesser of the RAND Corporation, for example, estimated in 1997 that the U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf cost between $30 and $60 billion per year. A more recent study by Mark Delucchi and James Murphy estimated costs between $47 and $98 billion. Several of us at Cato have been compiling these estimates, and coming up with our own, as part of a comprehensive study of the costs of our global military presence. We will publish our key findings when they become available.

In the meantime, this much is clear: our security commitments, many of them holdovers from the Cold War, induce other countries to spend less than they could on their own defense. And they compel Americans to spend more than we should.

 

Subsidizing the security of wealthy allies

 

4 Responses to "How much does our playing police force to the world cost Americans yearly?"

You are a gullible hypocrite:

“Now Iraq on the other hand was a necessary invasion. Not for the reason President Bush gave, but because the world leaders knew Iran was going nuclear at a rapid pace and the United States needed troops and the attendant military bases and hardware on the ground in that area to have a rapid response to Iran when the time came. Invading Iraq was the logical choice as Saddam was hated by all his neighbors and it was safe to invade with the approval, if not the support, of the other Arab states in the area.

“Bush and Blair gave WMD’s as the reason for the invasion. And of course Saddam did have WMDs. He also had months in which to get them into Syrian hands, which is what he did. Why wasn’t the world told the truth about the invasion?”

https://brendabowers.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/a-discussion-i-had-yesterday-on-us-wars-the-why-and-wherefores-bb/

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. ~ Thomas Jefferson.

When banks and armies are hand in glove.

BTW. Saddam was put into power by U.S. He was”hated” by his neighbour because of that. See war against Iran. Saddam was used by U.S. on pretext and Saddam was trying to sell his embargoed oil to Russia. His ill advised Kuwaiti take-over was because he believed U.S. sanctioned it. Saudi’s objected, the rest is well documented. Chechnya is now home to Operation Gladio. Which is being used for global terror activity to create terror and reason for continued crack-downs by authority. …. Thirty years ago we could get on a airplane without being subject to full body cavity search. Most people are just travellers, the stinking terrorists just provide reason for the draconian treatment of the people. So who gains?

Dear Lord Roch are you back again?! I suppose I should be flattered that you not only read my posts but remember ones written ages ago and then make the effort to look them up so you can refer them to me and my Readers. Yes, I suppose I should be flattered, but somehow it is difficult to be flattered by a persons attention whose IQ and age are synonymous.

For any of my Readers who may read and check out this post referred to in the comment I will clarify my beliefs: I most emphatically do not approve of American troops being stationed all over the world and in countries that should and could well take care of their own defense. I do however very much agree with sending American troops into other parts of the world when American interest or Americans are at risk. Any soldier will tell you that he/she would much rather fight the enemy on their turf rather than at home on our turf. With that in mind it was necessary that Saddam be taken out as he was becoming more and more dangerous. As for WMD’s Saddam did indeed have them because he used them on his own people. Bush and Blair were right about this regardless of the fact that none were found in Iraq after the troops got there. Saddam had ample time to ship them to Syria and this is precisely what he di. Now the Syrian tyrant is using them on his people.

Thank you for quoting my previous post. The second reason for going into and taking over Iraq was to have troops in the area as Iran was becoming more and more dangerous to the world and especially to Israel and the United States. This was the plan, but unfortunately our Muslim loving president has destroyed this plan with his actions during the past 5 years in Iraq and as he has dithered and allowed Iran to progress further towards getting nuclear weapons. These weapons will be used against Israel before the end of this year unless the Israelis have the good sense to take steps to destroy the weapons sites. Unfortunately the Iranians build their bomb making facilities under and around population centers so many people will die with any attack of their nuclear facilities. This however is the way of Muslims, they care nothing for their own people.

Now Roch, GET TO HELL OFF MY SITE!!Dear Lord Roch are you back again?! I suppose I should be flattered that you not only read my posts but remember ones written ages ago and then make the effort to look them up so you can refer them to me and my Readers. Yes, I suppose I should be flattered, but somehow it is difficult to be flattered by a persons attention whose IQ and age are synonymous.

For any of my Readers who may read and check out this post referred to in the comment I will clarify my beliefs: I most emphatically do not approve of American troops being stationed all over the world and in countries that should and could well take care of their own defense. I do however very much agree with sending American troops into other parts of the world when American interest or Americans are at risk. Any soldier will tell you that he/she would much rather fight the enemy on their turf rather than at home on our turf. With that in mind it was necessary that Saddam be taken out as he was becoming more and more dangerous. As for WMD’s Saddam did indeed have them because he used them on his own people. Bush and Blair were right about this regardless of the fact that none were found in Iraq after the troops got there. Saddam had ample time to ship them to Syria and this is precisely what he di. Now the Syrian tyrant is using them on his people.

Thank you for quoting my previous post. The second reason for going into and taking over Iraq was to have troops in the area as Iran was becoming more and more dangerous to the world and especially to Israel and the United States. This was the plan, but unfortunately our Muslim loving president has destroyed this plan with his actions during the past 5 years in Iraq and as he has dithered and allowed Iran to progress further towards getting nuclear weapons. These weapons will be used against Israel before the end of this year unless the Israelis have the good sense to take steps to destroy the weapons sites. Unfortunately the Iranians build their bomb making facilities under and around population centers so many people will die with any attack of their nuclear facilities. This however is the way of Muslims, they care nothing for their own people.

Now Roch, GET TO HELL OFF MY SITE!!

608, I must agree with much you have said but certainly not all… Our government has meddled too much in other countries and backed too many tyrants. Our government continues to do this. Unfortunately the ‘eggs always come home to hatch’ as we are seeing all over the world today and especially in our own country as the terrorists attack in Boston this weeks proves. . All the more reason for bringing our troops home and allowing countries to determine their own destinies without us.

As for banks……well, banks are businesses and their reason for being is making money. Banks are NOT social agencies! The Democrats starting with Carter, then Clinton and finally Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd trying to force the banks to be social agencies and forcing them to give mortgages to people who could not afford them has led to the melt down we are still struggling with today. Banks are not in my opinion the problem, Government is the problem! It is not the army and the banks getting together but the government trying to use the banks to further social agendas and redistribute the wealth that is the problem. BB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: