DIGG THIS

I recently sent a note to my email list in support of Ron Paul. One of the more thoughtful replies from a friend questioned the advisability of withdrawing our military from bases around the world. Here's his concern:

"I typically don’t get involved in political discussions, but your email got me thinking (as it intended). I like Ron Paul, and I agree that he seems like a nice down-to-earth kind of guy.

However, I’m very surprised that you think that pulling out of all 700+ US bases around the world is a good idea. Retracting all of our forces seems like a very isolationist policy, and I can’t see that intentionally significantly weakening our worldwide military capability is wise. Further, a great deal of our intelligence is gained from operations that are only logistically possible with those bases in place. Is the hope that other countries would like us more if we just went home and left them alone? Or is the move solely based on economic reasons?

There are other issues that I would also question, but this one stands out the most."

Here is a more in-depth analysis of what a policy of withdrawal would do in actual fact.

The Fairness Factor

I can tell you first-hand that the only people in other countries that like our US military presence on their soil are the pimps, madams, and liquor store owners near the bases. Imagine the impact a Chinese military base a block down the street from your house would have. Armed young foreign men, even if they were angels, are not what we’d like in the US. Every few years the US military kills a few foreign civilians in training accidents alone. Think of the USS Vincennes killing over 200 Iranian civilians, the USS Greenville accidentally sinking the Ehime Maru and US Airmen recklessly killing 20 skiers in the Italian Alps. Imagine the outrage if the Mexican Military killed 30 Texans in a border training exercise. Still, the jingoist may retort "So what! We're Americans, and I don't give a darn about fairness. The US is unique, and our government should try to maximize our every advantage." Since this seems to be the opinion of many Americans, let’s look at this from a US-centric viewpoint.

Intelligence Gathering

The vast majority of our foreign intelligence has nothing to do with guys in uniform stationed at bases. Information is gathered as Human Intelligence and Signals Intelligence (HUMINT and SIGINT as the spooks call it). HUMINT comes from “diplomats” in our embassies who are CIA operatives, information exchange between friendly government intelligence agencies (Mossad in Israel MI-6 in the UK, etc.), double agents, and all the other tricks of the CIA. SIGINT, run mostly by the NSA, comes from our spy satellites, and communications interception, warrantless tapping of International phone calls, etc. Thinking through all the various ways our government gathers intelligence, guys in uniform on bases barely contribute.

Bases and people in uniform are easily spotted, and are no deterrent to terrorist plots. The 9/11 plot was practiced and carried out in the US, with the FBI missing warnings of the attack on several occasions. Military bases around the world did not stop that attack, or contribute in any meaningful way to intelligence gathering to stop the attack. In fact, military bases around the world are one of the reasons for the attack.

Isolationism

A call for military withdrawal is commonly and incorrectly called isolationism. Think through what would actually happen if our troops and equipment were packed up in 2009, and brought home. It’s just the troops and gear coming home. Among the Americans who would remain engaged and on the ground in foreign countries are: diplomats, ambassadors, aid workers, volunteers, ex-pat residents, dual citizens, businessmen, missionaries, and tourists to name just a few. In short, it’s the Americans who are most welcome that would remain, not the ones with tanks and M-16’s. In the absence of a military presence on their soil, foreigners would be more welcoming of Americans.

Some will claim “how can we ensure Americans in foreign countries would be safe without a military presence?” First, the US military is not a police force, nor does it have police power, or routinely carry out police duties. The lone exception of Iraq shows why this is a bad idea. The military is designed to destroy other military forces, not rescue kittens, arrest drunken brawlers, or keep the peace. Second, foreign countries have their own police that are just as functionally dysfunctional as our own gendarmes. Third, it’s the responsibility of an individual to make informed decisions about the relative risks of traveling abroad, and to take precautions while traveling. It's not the responsibility of the US government to try and protect every US citizen everywhere, at all times.

The Real Purpose of Military Power

No state military in the world is poised to invade or bomb the United States. The myth of "Forward Deployment" is a fig leaf for the true purposes of the military overseas: protect US business interests, the foremost being oil; coerce countries like Libya and Syria to get with the US program, run by the neocons; distract from domestic issues by having news-ready wars of choice, such as Yugoslavia, Gulf War I & II, and Afghanistan.

While bases around the world do not protect the territory or citizens of the United States, they provide three important negative consequences. First, they are an irritant or outright provocation to those living in that country. The 9/11 Commission points out that our bases in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Holy Land, provided the ideological justification, however misguided, for the 9/11 attacks. Second, bases abroad are a convenient target for militants and terrorists in foreign countries. The suicide attack on the Marines in Lebanon in 1983, the near sinking of the USS Cole, and the Kobar Towers attacks were all possible because bases are conveniently located in these countries. We were not at war with any of those countries at the time of the attacks.

Third, our military presence around the world negatively influences our own foreign policy. By making a near immediate military response possible, our politicians resort to it first, rather than as a last, defensive resort. When the only tool you have is a hammer…. Consider that Clinton ordered missile strikes on what turned out to be an aspirin factory in Sudan during the Monica Lewinsky testimony and bombed Serbia right after the failed impeachment trial.

Politicians use the military to police the world, protect US business interests, and distract from domestic issues, rather than engage in diplomacy.

The Effectiveness of the Modern Military

Our military is correctly assessed as being ready to fight the last war. In this case, our military is ready to fight and win a World War II or Gulf War I style of conflict against another state military. The military is pretty good at blowing up tanks, planes, buildings, soldiers in uniform, and unfortunately civilians in foreign countries. That style of warfare is over. All the attacks I cited in the fairness factor section were terrorist attacks. No state military would dare challenge the United States. Instead we have entered what military thinkers call “4th-Generation War." This is warfare by non-state actors such as terrorists, secessionists, or ideologues against a state. The war in Iraq continues not because the Iraqi army is making a last stand against the United States military. Rather, some Iraqi’s are furious over a foreign invasion, some are terrorists who have come to harass and kill our conventional forces, and some are fighting for control of the nascent government, eliminating militia-style competition. In this context we not only see the failure of war as an instrument of US policy, but the change in the terms of victory. Perhaps the United States military hasn’t won a war since World War II because the nature of war itself, as understood by the people in it has changed. Read everything by the excellent William Lind for more insight on this topic.

The Final Analysis

The United States would not be undefended if our military was withdrawn from around the world. Exactly the opposite would happen. By having our military here in the United States, military forces could be used to patrol and enforce our borders, and regain their proper place defending the United States rather than policing the world. Our intelligence gathering capability would not suffer. Overall, the United States would be safer, US citizens would be more welcome abroad, and military personnel would not be needlessly placed in harm’s way. This is hardly an isolationist policy.

The warfare Republicans in control of the executive branch are fighting this tooth and nail, because it would mean an end to their ability to wage wars of choice, and carry out the Likudnick policies of the neocons. The feckless Democrats, swept into legislative power on the high tide of anti-war sentiment, are also fighting it. One need only examine the cruise missile diplomacy of Bill Clinton to see that the supposed anti-war party is just as ready to kill foreigners and sacrifice US troops to advance their pro-big government agenda. In the final, grand analysis, that's what all those foreign bases amount to: the tangible reminder to the world of the United States Government's ability to enforce its will through bombs and bullets.

As we head into a recession that Washington is loathe to admit exists, the Federal budget must be cut. Reductions in expensive foreign military bases are a vital first step. Ron Paul is right, bringing the troops home will usher in peace, liberty and prosperity.

December 22, 2007

The Best of John Keller