Military Deployment
Over the last 50 years the federal government has deployed the various branches of the U.S. military in many countries for one reason or another. But once they deploy them, they find reasons to leave them deployed. As we look back at the last few decades and then consider our military deployment today, it has definitely gotten out of hand. In 2006 we have between 250,000 and 350,000 of our military personnel deployed in over 120 countries! [See Global Security.org for exact figures.]
It is my opinion that our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they knew this. They knew that it was not wise to get entangled with foreign countries because their problems become yours. Did you hear me? Our founding fathers thought that it was in the best interest of the American people to mind their own business and stay out of meddling in the affairs of other nations. These men wisely understood that there are enough problems in our own country. You don't have to go looking for problems to solve in other countries.
Some claim that our founding fathers were "isolationists", which they may have been to some degree. Their thinking was that it wouldn't be wise to send U.S. military personnel to other countries to intervene in their problems. They also understood that when you get involved in the internal affairs of other nations, you can surely kiss a lot of tax money goodbye. However, they always allowed trade with certain countries because they knew it would be to their advantage and in the best interest of the American people to do so. In my opinion they were smart about their involvement in international affairs. Smarter than we are today.
The United States of America is now so entangled in international affairs that it is common for countries to come to us with their problems, often expecting financial support along with any other help that we might offer (as if we have all of the answers, and money to throw away). You and I pay for the great generosity that our leaders display with our hard earned tax money. Our national budget is like a big slop trough for all nations to feed from. Everyone seems to forget that because of our humongous national debt we are almost bankrupt. Due to our entanglement in international affairs how much tax money do you suppose our leaders have wasted over the last 40 or 50 years trying to fix the world's problems? I hate to think of it - and the hard work of the American Taxpayers that it represents.
In the real world we all know that we can't just back out of the international scene completely, and we wouldn't want to. Various agreements, the United Nations, and the globalism that has been forced on the American Taxpayers over the last four decades will not allow us to - not all at once anyway. Besides there are some countries that we do want to do business with and be trade partners with. But how many of those need our troops on their soil? Does Japan, Great Britain or South Korea need our troops? I say no! These nations, along with others like Germany are wealthy enough and are stable enough to protect themselves. Do we really think that if we leave Japan they will quickly run back to emperor worship? Or do we really think that if we leave Germany they'll all start goose stepping again? I say nonsense. The whole earth can be monitored with satellites anyway. We don't need to be there in person. Aren't we constantly watching world affairs from the sky?
What about other stable nations that we trade with, do they need our troops? Each nation has to be looked at as an individual case, but generally speaking I would say no. The American Taxpayers don't need to pay for protecting these stable nations. Even leaders that we deem unstable have brains enough to figure out their own problems if we would just leave them alone. And this is part of the problem here. Our leaders think they have all of the answers for all of the world's problems when they don't at all. They assume that those from lesser nations are half wits and that they need all-knowing Americans to step in and save them. This is how we get tangled up in the internal affairs of other nations.
Here's a conversation between our Secretary of State and the leader of Stupidistan who feels the need to run to us for help. President Idiotica of Stupidistan, "Can you please come and help us? We love America! We are stupid and we need your American dollars - I mean your great American wisdom!" Secretary of State Generouski, "Of course we will come and run your country for you since we know all things. We will be glad to bring our military and many American tax dollars too, and don't worry about paying us back. The American Taxpayers want you to have their tax money. By the way, we will probably stay there in your country for the next 10 years at no expense to you."
Here's the same conversation when I answer the phone. President Idiotica of Stupidistan, "President Tony would you please come and help us? We love America! We are stupid and we must have your American dollars - I mean your great American wisdom!" Me, "No." See how easy that was? I just saved the American Taxpayers many American tax dollars and a 10 year occupation! That's how things are going to be during my administration if I am elected as president in 2008. The American Taxpayers have been funding the rehabilitation of failed societies and have been protecting people from each other for long enough. And it's cost us dearly. We've paid our dues.
I might feel different if the world had turned into a Shangri-La after 50 years of American intervention in everybody's affairs. But the world is crazier now than it was 50 years ago. So what have we accomplished with all of those billions of tax dollars that we have spent through the years trying to save the world? I say let the rest of the world take notice. We don't have all of the answers for your problems and the American Taxpayers have decided that it's time for their tax money to be used in America. [Of course I'm being a little harsh for the sake of effect, but you understand my point.]
The option has always been held open to help our smaller allies defend themselves against superior powers if they are attacked. The whole world understands that. But that doesn't mean that we need to have our troops stationed on their land or our ships in their ports. And it also doesn't mean that we can't help them in other ways - like providing them with military hardware.
It is my opinion that American troops are serving their country best when they stand ready to defend their homeland - on American soil. When they're overseas somewhere they are not defending American soil. This is my point - Bring home as many military personnel as we can! Maybe it won't be or can't be 100% of our military, but bring home as many military personnel as we can. That's my policy. That was also the policy of our founding fathers.
Please allow me to give you three more reasons why it is important that we keep our military on American soil. All three of these reasons are not typically taken into account. But they are just as important as the billions of dollars of tax money (and the lives of American military personnel) that we will save by minding our own business.
Reason #1 - In the U.S. we want to maintain an all volunteer military because the draft just puts a foul taste in the mouths of the American public. That's reality. Therefore it is important for the federal government to tell potential recruits the truth about how their services are going to be used (or abused). They accept these young men and women knowing that they are joining the military to protect mom, dad and their fellow Americans. Then they ship them off to Iraq or some other foreign country to act as policemen or to do the government's dirty work. Most young men who join the military really do love their country. However, their idea of protecting the U.S. does not mean being shipped off to Baghdad to die for mediating feuds between Muslims.
If we are honest with potential recruits and make sure that they understand that joining the military means defending America on American soil, I am sure that we will get enough recruits without having to spend taxpayer money for slick television advertising and catchy phrases designed to lure young men to the military. However, if our government continues to abuse the volunteer military that we have and misuse the National Guard like they have, we can plan on seeing less interest by potential recruits. Therefore, reason #1 is: So we always have plenty of recruits to maintain an all volunteer military (allowing us to stay away from the draft). This is very important.
Reason #2 - Those in the military understand the affect that separation from family and friends has on family life and morale. Having our military personnel stationed all over the world causes lots of divorce, interpersonal relationship problems and general family separation. Holidays are especially hard on our troops. Strong families and emotionally stable military personnel are essential for national security. Therefore, reason #2 is: Obvious.
Reason #3 - This is the most overlooked reason which the average American Taxpayer doesn't consider. Young military men are very good at blowing their paychecks. I remember it well. I think it's a combination of the excitement of being away from home for the first time, the strange feeling that you actually have plenty of money to blow off steam with and the thought in the back of your mind that your next paycheck is a sure thing. Knowing that you have a roof over your head, and plenty of food to eat until your next paycheck doesn't hurt either. There are always plenty of businesses around military bases that are in business to accommodate the rich American soldiers, sailors, Marines, Coastguardsmen and Airmen. Those who live around a military base know what I'm talking about.
So the average enlisted man has a couple thousand bucks a month to blow and where do you think he is going to spend all of this (American Taxpayer tax) money? Since he is stationed in Backwardistan he will be spending it in businesses in Backwardistan. That money goes into the economy of Backwardistan. Consider that we have 200,000 or so of these young men stationed in the Backwardistan's of the world. That amounts to many millions of dollars each year. And it would be going into the pockets of American businesses if our military personnel were stationed in the U.S.! Bringing our military back home would do great things for our economy. Every tax dollar that is spent in America is good for America. Every tax dollar spent outside of America is good - for foreigners. Reason #3 is: To keep massive amounts of tax money paid as salaries to military personnel here in America. Capiche?
Now you know my views on military deployment. However, I am going to give the American Taxpayers the opportunity to make the decision concerning important issues like military deployment using the "Meet and Vote" program. This is part of my pledge to allow the will of the people to be done in Washington. As usual, we will "Meet" via the nationally televised meetings to discuss this issue. The whole country will observe the proceedings via TV. Radio stations will probably also be broadcasting it. We will talk about it. Your elected leaders will talk about it. The experts they call will talk about it. The live audience and viewers at home will ask questions about it. I will act as the moderator, as usual.
Once everybody is clear on the issue, options will be given by your elected representatives. The American Taxpayers will then go to the polls the next day (or the day after the last meeting if there are multiple meetings required to inform the American Taxpayers properly) and "vote" their conscience. The majority will rule as always. Your elected legislators will then enact the will of the majority into law. Simple enough?
Most, if not all, of the issues listed in Index 2 will be decided in this manner by the voters using the "Meet and Vote" program. [Issues that need to be voted on, that is.] This is how we will change the course of our nation to better reflect what the people want. Issues that the people want settled can and will be settled very quickly (in a matter of several days to a couple of weeks) instead of dragging on for years. The "Meet and Vote" program will bring about real change in a swift and efficient manner, which is what the American Taxpayers have been wanting for a long time.
Allow me to conclude this section on "Military Deployment" by talking about military spending. There are always those who raise this issue during the months before a presidential election because the people in fact do want to know where the presidential candidate stands. Since I don't have a separate page set up in Index 2 devoted to military spending, I will go ahead and address it here.
If you have read the various issues on this website that mention government waste you know by now that I abhor government waste of tax dollars - and I plan on doing a lot to stop it. I am a self described "cheap skate" and am planning on giving the American Taxpayers the opportunity to have a say in where a lot of the tax money should and should not go. However, I am against cutting government spending concerning the defense budget (unless it is something so obviously stupid). [See also "Taxes", "Economy", "Globalism", "Jobs" in Index 2 for more information.]
The world is getting more dangerous, not less. This is not the time to slack off on the strength of our military. Nevertheless, there are a couple of steps that can be taken to maximize the use of the American Taxpayer tax money used in the defense budget. I can't believe that these steps have not been taken by previous presidents, but I am giving you, the American Taxpayer, my word that I will take these steps in an effort to stretch the tax dollar a little further.
Step #1 - The first thing that I will do to stretch the tax money allocated for military spending is to work with Congress to make it illegal for the United States government to buy anything for the military that is made outside of the U.S. All products used by the military must be "Made in U.S.A.". We want every tax dollar spent for the military to go right back into the U.S. economy. This will mean more jobs and more money for Americans - and more tax money.
Step #2 - The second step that I will take to stretch tax dollars designated to be used for military spending is to set up a (civilian) non-governmental watchdog group who will monitor all spending by the military. When I was in the Navy I was designated to be the "Supply Petty Officer" for "M" division on one of the ships that I was stationed on. That lasted about 6 months (or less, I can't remember exactly). The reason that I lost that job was because I was constantly asking my superiors why we were paying so much money for this or that. The prices on those supplies were not only high but unbelievable in many cases. One example that still sticks in my mind 30 years later was a casing (housing) for a fire pump. As I remember it was made of monel because it was used to pump salt water. The price for this case which was about 3 foot by 3 foot was something like $100,000.00 - back in the 1970's. I thought that a little bit excessive
The military pays very high prices for a lot of their goods. This needs to be checked by a volunteer civilian group so that there isn't a conflict of interest. I will personally hand pick some real cheap skates who will be a constant thorn in the sides of those who are blowing military tax money left and right. They will have executive access to any and all books and records concerning military expenditures. This watchdog group will report to me monthly and the meetings will all be televised and unedited so that the American Taxpayers can feel confident that their government is taking steps to make sure that their tax money is being used properly. This process is long overdue, and promises to yield good results for the American Taxpayers.
One other step that could save a lot of taxpayer money is to make sure that all contracts for goods sold to the military are up for bid. When companies bid for contracts the prices for the products or services always end up costing less. However, when a company knows that they don't have to bid for the contract the price will naturally be higher. Nationwide internet bidding for contracts will mean less tax money spent for products that the military must have.
Note: Late addition to this page.
I would like to cover one other topic here. This will be the third one covered on this page. The first and main issue is "Military Deployment". The second issue that I was planning on ending this page with is "Military Spending". The third issue that I would like to touch on is "My Military Philosophy". I want to address this a little bit because my philosophy is a tad different than what we are used to, but more in line with our nations leaders during World War II.
As you know from other issues covered on this website (and my presidential pledges), I have no intention of attacking anyone with our military. In fact I plan on putting the world on notice that the U.S. is officially out of the "Offensive Shock and Awe" business. We will not be attacking anyone unless the people demand it and Congress approves it. Since I keep at the forefront of my mind that many innocent children die when adults decide to blow each other up, I will do anything to keep from going to war. Almost anything.
Having said that, my attitude will change completely if any nation purposely chooses to attack us first. Current popular thought on this these days is to send American troops over "there" to kick the enemies butt. My thinking is different, and I think my way is better for our military. In my opinion American military personnel are not pawns to be used carelessly.
My thoughts go back to World War II and how it was ended. President Truman had a decision to make. Either attack Japan with conventional weapons and thousands of troops (Operation Downfall) or use the new atomic weapon a time or two and force the surrender of the Japanese much quicker. It was estimated that a million Allied troops would die if they were to go ahead with Operation Downfall. On the other hand no American troops would die if the atomic bombs were dropped from the sky. Looking back, it was a brutal decision for one man to make. But I think he made the right choice by using the nukes. Though many thousands of Japanese were killed, including thousands of innocent children, the bombings actually saved more lives than if Operation Downfall would have been activated. Most importantly, it saved a couple hundred thousand American lives.
My attitude will be the same as President Truman's if we are attacked by another country. As president I am sworn to protect American lives. This includes the lives of our military men and women. As for the nation who attacks us, their blood is on their own head. I have no responsibility to them. Heaven help the nation(s) that attacks the U.S. if I am president. I have no intention of playing around and worrying what the world will say about our response to being attacked. And I will not be rushed into sending our troops over "there". Though military experts say that you can't win a war from the air (only), I will do my best to prove them wrong in an effort to keep from deploying U.S. troops.
Though nuclear weapons will be used as a last resort, they will be put on standby - ready for use at quick notice. But everything else that can be dropped from the sky will be. This includes every kind of bomb that is in our arsenal. And when we run out of bombs we'll drop anything else we can find. I'm thinking that barrels full of pig, cow, and horse manure might be appropriate for those who attack us. Or maybe this would be the opportunity that we've been looking for to empty our garbage dumps. Whatever we drop, it will continue until the job is done. This will save the lives of many of our military personnel.
When we firebombed Tokyo and Dresden in World War II a combined 130,000 souls were destroyed, mostly civilians. Though these bombings were considered to be war crimes by some, it is important to remember that we didn't start the war. We just needed to make sure that we ended it, whatever it took. This too will be my attitude if the U.S. is attacked on my watch. Lots of people dieing is a consequence of war. That's why it's best to solve problems by talking before it comes to war. I will have the same attitude as our military leaders of World War II, make no mistake. I realize that it sounds brutal, but those nations who do not attack us will have nothing to worry about. It's only the nations that attack us who will need to duck for cover.
We have such sophisticated bombs these days, and some which cause the same destruction as a small nuclear weapon, we will probably never need to use our nuclear weapons. But I will use them if it means a decision between American lives and the lives of those who attacked us. I will make this very clear to the world when I take the White House in 2008. But I will also make it clear that the U.S. will not be going on any offensive war campaigns during my administration. Our military campaigns will be reserved only for those who attack us first. This is the best I can do to deter war. Decisions made by leaders of nations who choose to attack us are out of my control.
| INDEX 1 - AGENDA | INDEX 2 - ISSUES |
