Bring troops home

Return To Article
Add a comment
    Feb. 26, 2013 1:50 a.m.

    The US military is the greatest force for peace the world has known. Having the US be the lone super power keeps the world a safer place. Look at the situation that led to WWI and WWII. The multi power states couldn't agree and led to incredible bloodshed. If the US wasn't the super power it became after WWII, we probably would have had a third world war by now.

    Also, military spending is not the part of the budget that is growing out of control. If we eliminate all military spending we still would have massive deficits. Everyone likes to point out the billions "wasted" on the military, but what about the trillions spent on entitlements? Which program is even constitutional?

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    Feb. 25, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    @Open Minded Mormon:
    "Wouldn't it just be better (and cheaper too!) to just go ahead and feed and cloth them..."

    We do that as well. We send billions of $upport to other countries around the world... including the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt! Are we nuts? Yes!

    "Al Qaeda only attack us because we've been stealing their resources..."

    Not true. If you mean oil, we've been BUYING their resources. And, by the way we wouldn't be buying it if their leaders weren't willing to sell. So, don't blame us.

    "Hillary Clinton was right you know -- they were no different than America's Revolutionary forces attacking the repressive, exploiting, and occupying forces in their homelands too."

    Not true. They attacked (9/11) us because they don't the infedel on their soil because being there would disrupt their religion... Islam. Being there gives their people a contrast between the Muslim life and the West where they see the West means freedom and the Muslims mean captivity and death to the infidel.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 3:38 p.m.

    To "Open Minded Mormon" what weapons, other than nukes, have sat around for 70 years? The equipment that the military uses has seen combat action over the past 30 years.

    Do you even know what Al Qaeda is? They are a terrorist organization that the CIA built up to irritate Russia when the Russians were in Afghanistan. They are not interested in global trade or business. They are dedicated to converting the world to their version of Islam. That conversion is to come by force, either you join or you die.

    Hillary Clinton is wrong. Al Qaeda is nothing like the US Revolutionary forces. The primary difference is that the US Revolution was about freedom, Al Qaeda is about control. They don't want freedom, if they did, they would be fighting along side the US. They are more like Brittish troops, trying to maintain control over people who want freedom.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 25, 2013 2:22 p.m.

    Waltham, MA
    What is the matter with you people??? The military is a CHOICE... every one that is in the military right now, made the choice to be there, it is their JOB, you bring every one home and disband the military you have unemployment over the top!!
    8:25 a.m. Feb. 25, 2013


    Unemployment for vererans is about $400 a week.
    The cost of deployment per person (DoD annual budget/military personel) = $10,000 per week.

    Bring them home, give them a college education, and tell them to keep the change.

    FYI - I'm a veteran, and you're welcome.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 25, 2013 1:56 p.m.

    USS Enterprise, UT

    What most people don't realize is that by having the US military stationed around the world we are indirectly helping to fund their welfare states.


    Wouldn't it just be better (and cheaper too!) to just go ahead and feed and cloth them,
    rather than spending it on weapons we hope and pray we never have to use (i.e, sitting around wasting away on nothing but an empty threat for 70 years now)?

    Only a fool would bite the hand that feeds them.

    Al Queda only attack us because we've been stealing their resources, starving and controling their global trading, and controlling their governments for the last 50 years.

    Hillary Clinton was right you know -- they were no different than America's Revolutionary forces attacking the repressive,exploiting and occupying forces in their homelands too.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 1:43 p.m.

    For once I agree with Redshirt. Bringing all the troops home from overseas bases could create a huge surplus of troops stateside (unless they were used to secure the borders), and result in a significant increase in unemployment and accompanying problems for the military personnel that would be released. I say prioritize the overseas bases and bring the troops home from the lower-priority bases in phases that would not have as drastic an impact on security, the economy, or the troops as a massive recall would. And for those countries that want a U.S. military presence, let them pay for it. That way we could treat our military protective services as an export and maybe turn a little profit to help reduce the deficit--or at least make the venture revenue neutral. If we can hire mercenaries (and we have), why can't other countries?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    To "James C. Green" while the desire to pull our troops out is commendable, you are wrong about Korea. The war is ongoing there. Korea is under a cease fire, the war was never ended.

    What most people don't realize is that by having the US military stationed around the world we are indirectly helping to fund their welfare states. Think of it this way. If we were not in eastern Europe, would those countries be able to afford their large social welfare programs and pay for an equivalent military force?

    I am fine with keeping the troops overseas, if those nations that host them for protection would pay the actual cost for upkeep.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 25, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    68 years after WWII there is no reason to station US troops all over the planet. Bring them home. Update our warfighting capability with high tech. You could cut defense budget in half and increase our power at the same time! This is what a good businessman would do.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    Feb. 25, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    I agree with this letter. 22 soldiers on average kill themselves per day. They are getting past the propoganda and are realizing that we are not the saviors but the occupiers. We can only defend our boarders. We can't police the world and policing is exactly what we are doing over there. So if china decided we are a threat to their freedom would we support their military being over here and policing us? Probably not. You can't blame the people over there for hating us. I understand why they feel the way they do. It's because their economy is being hi-jacked and put under UN control.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 25, 2013 10:20 a.m.


    "Its' not an "R", or "D" issue. Defense lobbyists aren't particular who they give their money to; as long as it "pays off"."

    I knew we would eventually agree on something.

    Maybe even this?

    Until we find a way to get the big money out of politics (yes, even union money) we will get leadership that has to cater to those with the money. As Fitness says, it's not an R or D issue.

    Get all the R and D money out. Most other issues will then work themselves out.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 10:20 a.m.

    The reasons nations have foreign armies is to establish and protect their nations commercial business interests. America is no different. We bribe foreign governments by giving them the tools to oppress their own citizens. The root motivation is not much different for the desire to keep Hill field and the troops in Saudi Arabia. If the lose of Hill field would do harm to Utah’s economy, think of how much harm would be felt by a third world country at the lose of an American military base.

    When we were in Hong Kong, we were told that there were several price levels. The first level was for the Chinese residents, the next was for non-Chinese residents, the next was for tourists and the highest was for American sailors.

  • UT Brit London, England
    Feb. 25, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    "war and defense spending are the GOP's baby."
    Really, Obama has not dispatched any troops to new conflicts since being in office?
    Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership.
    He overthrew the Libyan dictator.
    He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan from one every 43 days to one every 3-4 days,
    Waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia
    authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan.
    ordered and oversaw the Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
    ordered more than 250 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2009, during which at least 1,400 lives were lost.
    And two years into his presidency, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning president was engaged in conflicts in six Muslim countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya.
    Since that time troops have been dispatched to Jordan, Obama dispatched 100 troops to Uganda, support actions in a U.N. sponsored fight in Mali, promised a US military presence in Afghanistan .far past the 2014 draw down.
    Ranch hand how is that left liberal war machine working for you. Excuse by the president, Democracy,.

  • Ett Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    I too, think we need to bring troops home, but from the middle east and Africa first. I'm a Republican by register but I don't support wanton deployment of our troops. Also, it's Obama who has gotten us into the last five conflicts, not the Republicans. After leaving Mali, Afghanistan, Lebanon, etc., then we should leave the smaller nations and then Bosnia, Korea and Germany.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 9:38 a.m.

    Its' called the "military industrial complex" lobby.

    Eisenhower warned us about it 70 yrs. ago.

    Its' not an "R", or "D" issue. Defense lobbyists aren't particular who they give their money to; as long as it "pays off".

    If we're going to be the worlds policeman, we should bill those countries. Especially the europeans. They can afford it, but WHY should they pay for their own protection from the "dreaded menace",(Russia) when we will do it for them?

    As for defense contractor employees being laid off; think how far that money would go to provide affordable housing, healthcare, job training for the poor, etc. Certainly some of the defense employees would need to be re-trained, but can we base our economy on "not upsetting anyone"?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Superb letter. Absolutely right.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 9:00 a.m.


    So in your world it is okay to invade and occupy simply to supply jobs?

  • Betcha Waltham, MA
    Feb. 25, 2013 8:25 a.m.

    What is the matter with you people??? The military is a CHOICE... every one that is in the military right now, made the choice to be there, it is their JOB, you bring every one home and disband the military you have unemployment over the top!! Come on... There are so many young men and women that look forward to being in the military, as soon as they can they enlist, and I say 'Way to Go, Thank You" It would be great if we could live in a world where people would not want to kill us, but the fact of the matter is , We Don"t , I thank every one in the military, that are helping people in other countries fill a measure of safety and security, what a blessing.. Thank you

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    We can't simultaneously be a republic and an empire, and we are coming uncomfortably close to being an empire.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Feb. 25, 2013 7:18 a.m.

    Many countries insist our troops stay there to protect them and help them. Can't be everywere but some countries want our help. If we have interest do what we can to help them. People hate us? hmmm. People hate oppresive governments and the US military has freed many people from oppressive govrenments.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 25, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    These are excellent points you make, James. I too have wondered why we need over 700 military bases around the world. Especially when we are overspending our own bank account by more than a trillion dollars every year. But I think there are a lot of issues involved in this question.

    First, I think that we think, and some people in other countries think, that we should be the policeman of the world. I like to think that we have earned that honor because, despite certain lapses on our part throughout our history, for the most part the US has stood for truth and justice and has been a symbol of freedom in the world.

    I also think about the economic issues that would be created if we suddenly stopped spending "a trillion dollars" a year. Unemployment among the veterans left without a job and all the defense industry jobs in the private sector that would be suddenly without funding. As much as I hate to admit it, a good portion of our economy, both public and private, is tied to military spending.

    So, what to do? How about a gradual reduction in military spending over the next several decades.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 25, 2013 5:59 a.m.

    "It is time to bring all our troops home from all over the world"

    While I mostly agree, I dislike the all or nothing approach.
    How about we determine where troops are needed and pull out the rest?

    While we are at it, how about we better utilize our weaponry dollars. The military leader
    will always ask for more more more.

    There are many programs (osprey - perfect example) that suck up billions of dollars but are more of a pork project and a jobs program than anything else.

    And, along side these military cuts, lets look at SS and Medicare.

    After those have been fixed then maybe you can target Obamas vacation costs (as that seems to be a major concern to some).

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 25, 2013 5:55 a.m.

    Great letter and totally true. The harsh reality is that we can no longer pay for these wars. Sorry repubs but it's true. We can no longer pay for repub "charity" of "spreading democracy" around anymore.

    Be prepared though, war and defense spending are the GOP's baby. I have a feeling hat many repubs are going to blindly attack you without any regard for the reality we currently face.

    We can no longer afford to spend 4 times as much as china and 8 times as much as Russia. Sorry repubs! Cuts must be made. Our level of defense spending is just unsustainable. So much bloat, pork, and unaccountability.