2008 Woodie Awards
US troops play crucial role in global interests
David Fetters
Issue date: 3/7/08 Section: OpEd Page
In the race to the White House, every time that one of the political candidates opens his or her mouth there is a risk that something stupid will slip out. The most innocent and innocuous of comments can quickly be turned into a 30-second sound bite of unreasonable proportions. At a town hall meeting Jan. 3, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ruffled a few feathers when he answered a question about whether U.S. troops might remain in Iraq for another 50 years.
"Maybe a hundred," he said. "We've been in Japan for 60 years and South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me as long as Americans aren't being hurt or killed."
At first glance, the idea of maintaining a presence in Iraq for the next 100 years seems absurd. A few of the major news media outlets picked up on this reaction and proceeded to blow the story not just out of proportion, but blow it clear out of the ballpark.
My question is: What's so bad about keeping troops in Iraq?
The United States has a long history of maintaining foreign troop deployments. Immediately after World War II, the United States built military bases in Germany and Japan while stationing several hundred thousand troops there-mainly to serve as a deterrent to Communist ambitions in those regions. We left a significant deployment of troops and landmines behind to protect the Demilitarized Zone after the Korean War as well. With the end of the Cold War, the United States removed around 50 percent of its foreign based troops, leaving more than 200,000 located in Germany, Japan and South Korea.
There are certainly costs and risks associated with maintaining such a sizable contingent of troops abroad. The first cost of keeping our foreign bases stocked with American soldiers and war machines is purely fiscal. Paired with a dollar that continues to lose strength abroad, the cost of maintaining permanent military presences must be weighed against the value that the presence provides. Additionally, U.S. troop deployments are increasingly the targets of terrorist attacks. Terrorists will seize any opportunity to strike at America, and our troops abroad make convenient targets for local and regional terrorist groups.
"Maybe a hundred," he said. "We've been in Japan for 60 years and South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me as long as Americans aren't being hurt or killed."
At first glance, the idea of maintaining a presence in Iraq for the next 100 years seems absurd. A few of the major news media outlets picked up on this reaction and proceeded to blow the story not just out of proportion, but blow it clear out of the ballpark.
My question is: What's so bad about keeping troops in Iraq?
The United States has a long history of maintaining foreign troop deployments. Immediately after World War II, the United States built military bases in Germany and Japan while stationing several hundred thousand troops there-mainly to serve as a deterrent to Communist ambitions in those regions. We left a significant deployment of troops and landmines behind to protect the Demilitarized Zone after the Korean War as well. With the end of the Cold War, the United States removed around 50 percent of its foreign based troops, leaving more than 200,000 located in Germany, Japan and South Korea.
There are certainly costs and risks associated with maintaining such a sizable contingent of troops abroad. The first cost of keeping our foreign bases stocked with American soldiers and war machines is purely fiscal. Paired with a dollar that continues to lose strength abroad, the cost of maintaining permanent military presences must be weighed against the value that the presence provides. Additionally, U.S. troop deployments are increasingly the targets of terrorist attacks. Terrorists will seize any opportunity to strike at America, and our troops abroad make convenient targets for local and regional terrorist groups.
Be the first to comment on this story