“A couple ideas about bases in foreign countries,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 9 - 15, 2011, 21

MILITARY COSTUMER SERVICE

When Republican presidential candidates agree with a fellow candidate, you can bet that he has no chance of winning the nomination. That’s where Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) finds himself, especially with some comments he makes about foreign military bases. If only 10% of what he says makes sense, it’s a much higher percentage compared to other politicians’ statements.

According to Dr. Paul, in his CBS’s “Face the Nation” interview, “This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases…is an old fashioned idea…It makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt - we can't afford it any longer." The libertarian republican can’t get even his own party to agree to this idea that troops should be withdrawn from around the globe.

Perhaps there is an ideological obstacle here: the meaning of patriotism. It used to be the slogan “Support Our Troops” with yellow ribbons. As William Deresiewicz tells us, it’s now the “cult of the uniform.” We respect soldiers in uniform for risking their lives within the only institution in America that hasn’t turned into a political football.

Focusing on soldiers without considering the wars themselves, whether they are just or unjust, affordable or not, yield our intended results, is like asking if wine is sacred. Of course the troops deserve respect and wine as a sacrament is sacred, but does this resolve the tough questions about involvement in foreign wars (or drunk driving)?

President Obama apparently ignores his own declarations about troop reduction overseas. While our presence in Iraq will “end” by 2012, he has announced establishing a new base in Darwin, Australia. Will we close all our bases in Iraq? What about support teams around other Arab nations?

The latest reports suggest we are spending about $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. A month’s worth of expenditure, just to put things in perspective, amounts to the entire state of Colorado’s annual budget. Is this buying us any goodwill there? Or in Pakistan? Reports suggest that opium is at its lowest street price in Los Angeles. Forget about the Taliban; we can’t even stop the drug trade. Why do we believe that we can succeed where the Russians failed?

Since Republicans and Democrats alike are not interested in making any cuts to the military budget, and since the general public would rather increase defense budget than welfare benefits, perhaps we should rethink Dr. Paul’s suggestion in one of two ways.

The first is audacious and will go nowhere: for every base we have in a foreign country—presumably with that country’s consent—we should have a foreign military base in the US. This reciprocity would bring a financial bonanza with it, since those foreign bases on American soil would be paid for by the country of origin, the way we pay for our bases abroad. 

The second, and perhaps more reasonable, idea is to retain our bases abroad but have them paid for by the hosting country. Theoretically, Americans are on German or South Korean soil in order to protect the Germans or South Koreans, respectively. Why not pay for your own protection? These are wealthy countries that can afford to pay our bills to protect them against potential enemies. In fact, this is not an outlandish idea.

When Papa Bush declared war on Iraq, “Desert Storm”, in 1991, he gained the support of many allies around the globe. Thinking like a rich man who never likes to spend his own money when dining with others, he asked and received financial support from the 34 coalition partners, minimizing American financial exposure.

Some sources claim that the war cost over $60 billion. About $52 billion of that amount was paid by different countries: $36 billion by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states of the Persian Gulf, and $16 billion by Germany and Japan (which sent no combat forces due to their constitutions). Why didn’t his son do the same? Can Obama do the same in Afghanistan?

Once we get over the false dichotomy of being for or against military spending in general and become more responsible citizens, we don’t need to turn to Ron Paul for advice. His libertarian ideals make sense in a world of responsible individuals that need no government, or responsible nations that need no international forces. When these ideals are pragmatically applied, we can ask a simple question: who is the beneficiary of American defense spending?

Let the beneficiaries pay! And while we are at it, let them also pay veterans for PTSD, retrain them for integration into civilian life, and ensure that whatever physical or mental ailment they suffer can be treated well enough to maintain their dignity and honor.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who pays for his own meals. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com