2008 Woodie Awards
US troops play crucial role in global interests
David Fetters
Issue date: 3/7/08 Section: OpEd Page
In the face of an ever worsening economy and continued terrorist attacks, why should the United States maintain these vestiges of wars long since fought?
It is a reasonable question, but one that is not without an answer. The United States is treaty-bound to protect both Japan and Korea in case of aggression, and the defense policies of these countries have developed around this concept. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) continues to pursue weapons that could threaten South Korea or Japan.
Our relatively small detachment of 28,000 troops poses little direct threat to the more than one million soldiers in the DPRK's army, and in recent years has served mainly as the tripwire in our defense of DPRK. Since 2004, the United States has decreased its number of troops based in South Korea from 37,000, and is in the process of relocating the almost 17,000 soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division from along the DMZ to Camp Humphries, 35 miles south of Seoul.
Maintaining foreign military bases across the globe also provides the U.S. government and military with a range of unique advantages. Politically, the deployments serve as a continued source of soft power within their regions. They serve as the foundation for positive working relationships with the nations' governments and occasionally neighboring governments. As Russia and China continue to look for regional allies and economic partners, the value of having permanent alliances in Asia will only increase.
The regional bases will serve critical roles in the event of a new major conflict. The smart bombs that brought the Iraqi military to its knees in weeks were dropped from U.S. stealth bombers based in Turkey. Almost all of the refueling and resupply flights that support operations in Iraq fly out of Germany. Soldiers with serious wounds or injuries are evacuated to Germany for surgery in state-of-the-art U.S. facilities located there. Maintaining a network of military bases in allied nations throughout the world is something that the United States pays for now in case we should ever need it in the future. Our ability to rapidly respond to a conflict before it grows out of hand depends on our ability to funnel troops and resources into the region in a timely fashion.
So even as the Iraq war incessantly grinds on, we mustn't reel at the thought of keeping troops there. Isolationism is not a viable national strategy, and to advocate it because of war-weariness is irresponsible at best and a fatal, last mistake at worst. A long-term troop presence in Iraq can eventually help stabilize the region, and serve as a valuable strategic resource in case of future conflict with Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria.
Our soldiers have fought hard and made many incalculable sacrifices to secure a long-term base of operations in Iraq, and it makes no sense to forfeit those assets now. If the United States does pick up and leave, rest assured that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not let our barracks remain empty for long.
It is a reasonable question, but one that is not without an answer. The United States is treaty-bound to protect both Japan and Korea in case of aggression, and the defense policies of these countries have developed around this concept. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, North Korea) continues to pursue weapons that could threaten South Korea or Japan.
Our relatively small detachment of 28,000 troops poses little direct threat to the more than one million soldiers in the DPRK's army, and in recent years has served mainly as the tripwire in our defense of DPRK. Since 2004, the United States has decreased its number of troops based in South Korea from 37,000, and is in the process of relocating the almost 17,000 soldiers of the 2nd Infantry Division from along the DMZ to Camp Humphries, 35 miles south of Seoul.
Maintaining foreign military bases across the globe also provides the U.S. government and military with a range of unique advantages. Politically, the deployments serve as a continued source of soft power within their regions. They serve as the foundation for positive working relationships with the nations' governments and occasionally neighboring governments. As Russia and China continue to look for regional allies and economic partners, the value of having permanent alliances in Asia will only increase.
The regional bases will serve critical roles in the event of a new major conflict. The smart bombs that brought the Iraqi military to its knees in weeks were dropped from U.S. stealth bombers based in Turkey. Almost all of the refueling and resupply flights that support operations in Iraq fly out of Germany. Soldiers with serious wounds or injuries are evacuated to Germany for surgery in state-of-the-art U.S. facilities located there. Maintaining a network of military bases in allied nations throughout the world is something that the United States pays for now in case we should ever need it in the future. Our ability to rapidly respond to a conflict before it grows out of hand depends on our ability to funnel troops and resources into the region in a timely fashion.
So even as the Iraq war incessantly grinds on, we mustn't reel at the thought of keeping troops there. Isolationism is not a viable national strategy, and to advocate it because of war-weariness is irresponsible at best and a fatal, last mistake at worst. A long-term troop presence in Iraq can eventually help stabilize the region, and serve as a valuable strategic resource in case of future conflict with Iran, Saudi Arabia or Syria.
Our soldiers have fought hard and made many incalculable sacrifices to secure a long-term base of operations in Iraq, and it makes no sense to forfeit those assets now. If the United States does pick up and leave, rest assured that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will not let our barracks remain empty for long.
Be the first to comment on this story