|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
US troops and bases are almost everywhere. Its excessive.
We only need a few major anchors in Europe and on the Pacific Rim. |
Where are US bases outside of Germany, Japan, S. Korea?
These are the major hubs (granted we do have bases in Italy, Turkey and the UK). Base consolidation and elimination has been going on under BRAC for more than a decade and BRAC doesn't just cover CONUS bases.
Most bases in Iraq will be vacated by next summer and the timeline for the Afghan withdrawal starts next summer.
So where is 'everywhere'?
Sounds very 'Cold War'-ish |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
US troops and bases are almost everywhere. Its excessive.
We only need a few major anchors in Europe and on the Pacific Rim. |
Where are US bases outside of Germany, Japan, S. Korea?
These are the major hubs (granted we do have bases in Italy, Turkey and the UK). Base consolidation and elimination has been going on under BRAC for more than a decade and BRAC doesn't just cover CONUS bases.
Most bases in Iraq will be vacated by next summer and the timeline for the Afghan withdrawal starts next summer.
So where is 'everywhere'?
Sounds very 'Cold War'-ish |
You're military right? It could explain why when you think of U.S. involvement you immediately thought of troops. We are very involved in aid, both military and humanitarian, trying to act as peace keepers, sanctions, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
US troops and bases are almost everywhere. Its excessive.
We only need a few major anchors in Europe and on the Pacific Rim. |
Where are US bases outside of Germany, Japan, S. Korea?
These are the major hubs (granted we do have bases in Italy, Turkey and the UK). Base consolidation and elimination has been going on under BRAC for more than a decade and BRAC doesn't just cover CONUS bases.
Most bases in Iraq will be vacated by next summer and the timeline for the Afghan withdrawal starts next summer.
So where is 'everywhere'?
Sounds very 'Cold War'-ish |
For someone that works for DoD, your knowledge of US bases is a little surprising.
How about two other essential bases:
1. Home of the 5th fleet in Bahrain
2. A massive air base in Qatar
We also have (or had until very recently) military "advisors" in Colombia, the Phillipines, Georgia, and I'm sure a few other countries. In fact I believe the US military can be found in over 100 countries (someone posted that stat some time ago). I will see if I can dig it up again.
| Quote: |
| You're military right? It could explain why when you think of U.S. involvement you immediately thought of troops. We are very involved in aid, both military and humanitarian, trying to act as peace keepers, sanctions, etc. |
In mc_jc's defense (god help me), I think THW was referring to personnel and not financial assistance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1. Home of the 5th fleet in Bahrain
2. A massive air base in Qatar
|
The base in Bahrain is only for one unit and it is relative in size compared to the naval bases in Japan or Greece.
The airbase in Qatar is a joint facility that is used by both the US and Qatari militaries, not exclusively the US alone.
| Quote: |
| We also have (or had until very recently) military "advisors" in Colombia, the Phillipines, Georgia, and I'm sure a few other countries. |
Yes, the DoD has advisors in over 100 countries training foreign soldiers and officers. But in many cases, it is part of a joint effort with other allied nations who also send trainers, such as Britain, France, Germany, Neatherlands, Canada, South Africa...and a few more that I can't name right off the top of my head.
| Quote: |
| We are very involved in aid, both military and humanitarian, trying to act as peace keepers, sanctions, etc. |
So we shouldn't be involved in humanitarian programs?
The UN has a good track record of squandering relief supplies by diverting large portions of them to the black market. At least when the US gets involved it is given directly to the people who need it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
| We are very involved in aid, both military and humanitarian, trying to act as peace keepers, sanctions, etc. |
So we shouldn't be involved in humanitarian programs?
The UN has a good track record of squandering relief supplies by diverting large portions of them to the black market. At least when the US gets involved it is given directly to the people who need it. |
Never said that. In fact I think that we should be. I was just commenting on how many people they think of American involvement as purely military involvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mc_jc wrote: |
| Quote: |
1. Home of the 5th fleet in Bahrain
2. A massive air base in Qatar
|
The base in Bahrain is only for one unit and it is relative in size compared to the naval bases in Japan or Greece.
The airbase in Qatar is a joint facility that is used by both the US and Qatari militaries, not exclusively the US alone. |
You simply asked where else we had bases, you didn't put qualifiers on it. I was merely pointing them out.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| We also have (or had until very recently) military "advisors" in Colombia, the Phillipines, Georgia, and I'm sure a few other countries. |
Yes, the DoD has advisors in over 100 countries training foreign soldiers and officers. But in many cases, it is part of a joint effort with other allied nations who also send trainers, such as Britain, France, Germany, Neatherlands, Canada, South Africa...and a few more that I can't name right off the top of my head. |
Right. And I (and others) are arguing we need not be involved as much.
| Quote: |
| diverting large portions of them to the black market. At least when the US gets involved it is given directly to the people who need it. |
Riiiiight. Come on, don't give me this BS. You obviously are not too familiar with US AID and other us gov't development programs. While perhaps better than UN programs (I honestly don't know), they are far from ideal and pale in comparison to a number of other developed countries' operations in the development world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Come on, don't give me this BS. You obviously are not too familiar with US AID and other us gov't development programs. |
Because I direct logistics, both humanitarian and military, I am accountable for supplies that land in JFC-Kandahar. I work directly with USAID as well as WHO and WFP. Both WHO and WFP are under investigative probes here for directly paying off Afghan employees and officials to provide security to dangerous areas in the country instead of going through NATO/ISAF for escorts into these areas (many of these aid workers account for many of the civilian deaths here). They are also approached by Afghan officials who pay them for non-essential supplies (IE, alcohol) to be shipped with humanitarian supplies into the country.
Pakistani officials also approached WHO and Doctors Without Borders to buy large stocks of their supplies to sell on the blackmarket- so medical supplies that should've been given to flood victims in Pakistan for free, have to pay for them.
Yes, the American logistical supply chain is not perfect, but there is at least more accountability than what is found in UN agencies and most of the supplies do go to those who need them.
Should I mention Haiti?
| Quote: |
| You simply asked where else we had bases, you didn't put qualifiers on it. I was merely pointing them out. |
But aside from a few posts outside the main hubs in the countries I mentioned, where does the US have a huge military presence? (Besides Iraq and Afghanistan) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wiki's List of US Bases
Global Deployment of US Military Personnel (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5564)
Plenty of data showing the Empire b/w those two links.
Basically, I call a balanced geostrategic position having a few bases in: the UK, Germany, RoK, Japan, and the Phillipines. We might have small bases on atolls within the Indian and Pacific oceans, such as the base at Diego Garcia, to reinforce our Mahan geostrategic position as global guarantor.
I would call for a five-year period of withdrawal from all these locations, to assure that important material and US assets are returned safely to the United States.
| Quote: |
| In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide. |
That's roughly 200,000 too many. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mc_jc
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Location: C4B- Cp Red Cloud, Area-I
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Most of those "bases" are either logistic centers and depots or airstrips- most personnel are TDY, not PCS and there is a steady rotation of soldiers in and out of these places. Permanent personnel presence in many of the small installations is small and usually amounts to administrative personnel. Egypt is both a logistics depot and has a training battalion to assist AfriCOM. Since 2007, the DoD has been consolidating troops and assets onto strategic hubs rather than have them spread out like they did during the Cold War- it goes back to the BRAC program. Also, the US is moving away from traditional host nations like Germany and moving troops to consolidated joint facilities in Eastern Europe so they could be closer to the Middle East.
Also, they have it wrong- it is not 200,000 'troops', but 'personnel'. The number includes DoD civilians like myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
