The US Military should Stop Competing with Contractors

[Accountable]

I recently found out that Japan pays the lion's share of the costs of our military presence. That makes us nothing more than mercenaries. That's not the job of the US military. That's not the oath that soldiers take.


We are depriving private industry of revenue streams by maintaining military posts outside of US borders. As I understand it, we routinely contract combatants now to fight in the ME. If the industry is strong (and it appears that it is) then we should let them protect all these countries we currently provide protection to - Japan, S Korea, countries throughout Europe, etc.

[Saint_]

Ok, you lost me. If the military is the largest expenditure of our government...why not let other countries pay for protection? Just that much less American taxpayers have to pay, right?

[SnoozeAgain]

Every single contractor I've ever met in the 30 years I've been affiliated with the military got paid a lot more money than either military or civil service. If the US government/taxpayer is going to continue paying for these military posts, it's cheaper to continue using their own employees.

[Accountable]

Ok, you lost me. If the military is the largest expenditure of our government...why not let other countries pay for protection? Just that much less American taxpayers have to pay, right?

But why are we asking our most precious assets to swear to defend our Constitution, and then rent them out as mercenaries. We don't need to have all these outlying bases in Europe and Asia, if we ever really did. Closing them would save us a ton.

[Accountable]

Every single contractor I've ever met in the 30 years I've been affiliated with the military got paid a lot more money than either military or civil service. If the US government/taxpayer is going to continue paying for these military posts, it's cheaper to continue using their own employees.

I think that's true. That's why I'm advocating that those nations should pay for their own defense contractors out of their own pockets, and we should pull out.

[SnoozeAgain]

We must be getting some benefits from it. Strategic location near North Korea in the case of Okinawa, for one.

[Accountable]

We must be getting some benefits from it. Strategic location near North Korea in the case of Okinawa, for one.

No doubt, but nobody's asking the question of why we need strategic location near North Korea. We need to "why" it down until we find some kind of threat to the USA; otherwise, we should pack up and go home.

[Saint_]

We don't need to have all these outlying bases in Europe and Asia, if we ever really did. Closing them would save us a ton.

Boy, I really agree with you there. I saw a guy on the news today (Rethuglican) screeching about how America will be less secure if we cut defense spending by a single dollar and how millions would be put out of work. I was thinking, "If war is your work, then it's good to be unemployed."

[Accountable]

Look at where we are. Japan? Germany?? Closing these huge bases will increase unemployment. That's what's keeping them open. The military is a jobs program first, national defense somewhere far lower on the list.

[Wandrin]

The reason the US needs 40+ military bases in Germany is... maybe we're worried about zombie Nazis rising from the grave?

Add that to the bases we have in Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Italy, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Spain, and that is a lot of US troops unavailable for actual defense. And that's just Europe.

I'm sure that these bases are good for the local economies in those countries, but how many are actually needed? Does the US ever close a military base on foreign soil or just those in the US?