Should Other Countries Help Pay for US Military?

Sorry, but I have the feeling you are getting into deep sh**t waters with this question, as there are MANY people around the world (even in the US) thinking that US soldiers should stay at home!

I was hoping not to get in sh**t waters. It did immediately get pulled from the front page....................Maybe too controversial.

There is a lot of talk of cuts to US defense spending. The problem is, that we defend a lot more of the world than just the US.

There are people that would make the argument that we should just protect our own borders and people. The defense budget could probably be cut by 75%.

There are also lots of bad players in the world, and I think that US military strength and presence helps keep them at bay.

I was just wondering what some of the various opinions might be. If it's too touchy, admin should just pull it. I have no problem with that.

CR4 does offer the chance to get differing perspectives from around the world. If people think the US should butt out, I'd like to know about it. No need for anyone to get nasty.

Well, okay.

From your OP: "I don't think that isolationism and disengagement from world events by the US is a viable option." This is at odds with your comment in #3, which you seem to support: "There are people that would make the argument that we should just protect our own borders and people. The defense budget could probably be cut by 75%." Are you one on these people?

"Should we ask countries that expect our help to help with costs?" There are people in the USA who hire a private security patrol for their homes. This, in addition to the regular patrols of the local authorities. If this military support is expected, then they should pay for it, just like the private security. But then, what if this military support is in the best interest of the United States, and they don't want to pay? When can we turn it off? How do we turn it off?

If a nation is being bullied around, let them go to the UN. I sure wouldn't want to risk the ire of the UN. (I just sort of threw this in for a laugh)

No, I'm not one of those people, but I have heard the argument being made.

Personally, I think the world would be a more dangerous place without our presence around the globe. That said, I think that if the US was to go that route, withdraw, downsize, and concentrate on our own defense, many countries in the world would have to drastically increase military spending to compensate for our absence.

Good one! If the UN had any teeth at all, I wouldn't have started the thread. We could just downsize and let the UN police the world.

Sorry Kramarat, but I disagree when you say: " Personally, I think the world would be a more dangerous place without our presence around the globe" The history of the US as a mighty military force is (in times of history) very recent. This means that your country did NOT participate in a 99,9% of the wars held in the world ... and here we are, still doing quite well!

No need to apologize. I don't get mad when people provide information to me so that I can form a clearer picture of what's going on.

I didn't start the thread as a proud, chest thumping American. I started it as a US taxpayer that's looking for answers to some of our..............and the worlds, current problems.

Don't we pat for most of the UN too?

We pay the most. Not much though compared to our defense spending.

Your question just gave me the answer though.................and I mistitled my thread.

In a perfect world the UN would be a fully funded, (honest), international fighting force. The US could cut our defense spending in half, or more, and the UN would be the world's only international police force.

A classic example.

According to the article, going in was, "UN endorsed". The problem is, while the UN endorsed the idea, it's primarily US money and resources that are doing the work.

Things like this should be entirely UN operations, not US operations.

Before anyone jumps in to tell me............................I already know.............Don't hold your breath for that to happen.

Humanitarian Aid is just that: Aid, assistance, helping someone in trouble. Say, an elderly woman with a flat tire on the highway. Some will stop to help, some will not.

We can choose to ignore a crisis (let 'er call the auto garage), but the USA generally will assist with whatever resources are available. I have always considered this aid as a gift. We can choose to ignore our friends in need, but we shouldn't, and we don't.

[edit] r&ddoc: Oh, I don't know. Please review the missions of the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy. I'll wager these US Navy vessels are welcomed everywhere they go.

I think the humanitarian aid probably takes up a very small percentage of that massive budget. And I agree, providing help to people is doing the right thing.

With that kind of money being spent........................I don't even know who, exactly, we are protecting from whom. That's a lot of money!

Doorman: you know... this discussion is about a very HOT issue that can lead to misunderstandings or posts that unwillingly hurt the feelings of other people. I agree with the humanitarian aid the US offered to other countries in countless opportunities. That is really great! My country, being much poorer than yours also participated in humanitarian missions ie: sending food to Spain during Civil War, to Germany after WWII, to Haiti, Japan and Chili after the tremendous earthquakes they had... and so on. This kind of help is not under discussion. BUT the US have been involved in many military conflicts (besides WWI and WWII) that did no good to the peoples intended to be helped NOR the US

what's more important? hurt the feelings of a few people or tell the truth. there's too many people in this country that are being spoon fed government propaganda on an hourly basis. all you have to do do is turn on the tv. wake up america and smell the B.S.

I believe in a strong military, but I also believe the U.S. should keep its military nose out of other countries' business. Just one example: the mess the U.S. put itself in when it supported, then suddenly stopped supporting, the Shah of Iran during the Carter Administration. We're still suffering from the poor decisions made back then. And no matter who the U.S. decides to support, it always seems to put itself into a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation with both sides. (Or like in Iraq, where there are multiple sides.)

As regards other countries supporting the U.S. military, many countries cede land for U.S. Military bases in their countries. That's quite a commitment to make, not just to give up the land but to have some other country's military -- with all of that destructive might -- sitting there. I couldn't imagine having, say, a French Air Base sitting in Ohio with cruise-missile carrying bombers and fighter jets and thousands of soldiers.

Agreed, we should not get involved in things without a clear mission, and good reason for doing it. Libya is the latest place where we probably shouldn't be...............................no clear objective that I know of.

Other countries do cede land.........................or do we lease it from them? It looks like it's not all free.

Germany, for example, probably feels pretty safe from outside threats, with our large presence there. Because of that, they probably don't feel the need to have a large, powerful military of their own. I wouldn't. Us being there, not only saves them a lot of money on defense spending, but I would imagine that our military personnel contribute a substantial amount of money to the local economies over there.

I'll be honest. I don't know enough about what we're doing around the world to say if countries should pay us or not.

As a US citizen though, I can say, it would be nice if we got some help with that amount of spending.

Well Kram, you certainly opened up a big can of worms with this OP didn't you?! LOL

There is always 2 sides of a coin, and this issue truly fits that scenario...

In some ways we should par back the military funding to certain countries like Pakistan, who purportedly have lied to us about the true whereabouts of Bin Laden before we caught wind of his hiding place and ultimately nailed the FM. this should be applied right across the board unilaterally. But then again, if we do that, the extremists including Al Queda and the Taliban will gain a stronger foothold inside that country, and other countries. Then there is the ever present corruption that is running rampant in many countries that receive US military aid.....however, the big question is just how much US military aid really reaches the country's military and how much lines the pockets of corrupt leaders and generals? That's what our country's leaders, Congress, the Pentagon and the State Dept. should be addressing. How much is really getting to where it needs to go and how much is wasted, then ultimately pair down the aid accordingly?

Then, we should look at those far flung civilian defense contractors and security contractors like Hiliburton (sp?), etc. who are operating like pigs at the trough and a huge waste of money....mainly duplicating the operations and efforts of US military personnel, including advisors, at many times the cost. I say we cut them off and you save a ton of money. They're not absolutely needed in this country's ultimate defense scheme IMO, just money generating machines.

Our NATO friends, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, etc should ante up the bucks in regard to UN missions and other humanitarian assistance worldwide. Why should we be the ultimate last avenue of approach? They need to pony up in a big way.

Lastly, we can no longer be the world's policeman. All countries need to chip in. It's expensive for us and a limited amount of friendly countries like the UK, Canada, Oz and a few others to continue down this Yellow Brick Road. Just look at what it has cost this nation in the past 10 years following 9-11 in regard to the war of terror and the two long wars in SW Asia.....those two wars alone cost the US Taxpayer in excess of 1 Trillion Dollars adding to our ever growing national debt that's already topped almost 14.4 Trillion Dollars. And let us not forget the KIAs and WIAs resulting from the wars! That's not sustainable. I'm not saying we should stop going after the Tangos worldwide. Sure, going into Iraq alone to topple Saddam wasn't the best of ideas, but we ultimately got the Mother and a the rest of the deck of cards, but at what price. Not being political here, but it's been pretty evident for some time now that the citizens of this country where sold on George Jr's and Chaney's song and dance routine regarding WMDs, thus the need to wage a war with Iraq and send in the combat troops. I think ultimately we could have nailed Saddam's coffin down tightly by other, more covert means.

Back to the War on Terror: In fact, I'm all for it, but done in a much smarter way and without putting US Troops on the ground every time and every where a hot spot pops up.....yes, go after the Al Queda network by all means and eliminate them with prejudice... in retribution for the 9-11 attacks...and yes, go after all other extremists too, but other NATO and other countries need to pony up on those actions as well. Special Ops, drone attacks and cruise missiles have taken a huge hunk out of the Tangos thus far and IMO the far better option.

I'm not saying we need to be isolationists, but we need to pare back the extra cost of doing business.

I fully understand that I'll be ganged up on for my views herein, but it's my opinion, which the OP asked for. *** thumbing my nose and sticking out my tongue at ya gangsters*** LOL

It may get someone mad, but it makes sense to me. GA.

CaptMoosie, I do agree with most of your opinions, but please let us not forget that we (as citizens) are only told HALF of the story. Wars are mainly due to economical reasons as there is a BIIIG money making industry behind any conflict and a couple of guys sitting at a desk who wok for governments are those who decide if buying an airplane that costs 1.1 billion U$ a piece or not!

CaptMoosie, some good points in your comment.

You said "Then, we should look at those far flung ....mainly duplicating the operations and efforts of US military personnel, including advisors, at many times the cost."

While this is, in general, a sound observation, the US military is volunteer, and volunteerism is down these days. I have not investigated recruitment numbers, but if recent trends are still applicable, recruit rates are down, as are retention levels. I believe the military need as many boots as they can get on the ground. The noncombat roles must be filled to support the troops, and this is being done with contractors. This makes more sense to me than a boot, after having spent several tens of thousands of dollars making him into a battle machine, being relegated to the laundry or cook tent.

Regarding "...at many times the cost.": These people (the contractors) are not in the service, and they can leave if they desire. How much money do you suppose the average Joe or Jane wants if the job is to stand in the desert sun in a foreign country, living with the hardships as the troops do, not far from the sound of unfriendly fire, and wash pots and pans? Brother, show me the money, or I'm leavin'! The equipment and vehicles are not government owned. If destroyed or otherwise lost, these must be replaced at the expense of the company.

I don't think boots on the ground, even with contractors, explains the fact that we spend over $500,000,000,000 more than China. _{I think I got the zeroes right.}

See US vs Chinese soldiers here.

I was justing looking at the list, and I never realised that Vietnam had the largest army on the planet.

If your are talking cost; the active per-head of population, rather than number, is a better measure.

What you may notice in that table is countries that have compulsory national service rate very high due to 'reserves', which then distorts subsequent statistics.

But of course reserves are an initial training cost and presumably are an up-keep if 'active'.

If a country regards all those who have ever served as 'active reserves', a further distortion occurs. E.g. Vietnam.

You may also note the countries with the higher %/pop, tend to be those in conflict with, or expecting a visit from, the 'ideology police'.

I find it encouraging 'knowledge wise' at least two posters are alluding to the roots of that 'past policing' in the cost of present expenditure.

The sheer amount of dollars that the US spends, compared to any other country on the planet just boggles my mind.

the lobbying effort for the military/industrial complex Eisenhower spoke of helps keep it all rolling along

And we've just got to borrow more money to keep going.

I just have to increase my beer intake until none of this stuff matters anymore. Doesn't look like anything's going to change any time soon.

I think the present debt ceiling thing is a political crisis, the financial dysfunction has been underlying for a couple of decades or so.

The more the dollar is devalued on the world market, the more competitive USA manufacturing becomes, the more valuable our agricultural products become. Our foreign debt also is devalued

As a political entity the Tea Party had some promise, but has been co-opted by various extremists

Grover Norquist & the christian fanatics

will the moderates break off from both parties?

Term limits sound good

but you end up with even more temps running things

I want people who have experience & know what they are doing!!!!

I want some one who will make sure my district gets it's share & doesn't cut off our collective noses to spite our faces

I'm an independent & generally vote 3rd party if all things are equal

fiscally conservative, socially progressive [your life, your business]

It sure has been going on for a long time. Devaluing the dollar to make our products more competitive and devalue our debt, sounds like a very dangerous game to play. In terms of our defense budget, it's just going to make the existing number much larger, since each dollar will purchase less.

I guess I got lost when the politicians started talking about billions as chump change, and are now talking in trillions. Trillions, and US debt in the same sentence makes me nervous.

I'm assuming they're talking about the same kind of dollars that I have in my wallet.

why would george w.bush [halliburton] want mercenaries doing protective services that our milatary are trained to do. possibly to evade human rights policies. we all know about the military using foreign soil to [torture?] gather information from so called enemy combatants many who were later found found innocent after spending years in prison.

I would say no given their track record.

U.S. has lost sight of cash from $70 billion sent to Afghanistan

$32 Billion Lost to Army Weapons Programs

U.S. Army $2.7 Billion Computer System "Doesn't Work"

US Military Has Lost $1 Billion In Miltary Equipment

US 'Loses' $18 billion of Iraq's money

Oh, no - Pentagon loses $2.3 trillion

Pentagon loses $285 billion to fraud in 3 years

etc, etc.

Let them find the 'lost' funds to fund their military while the rest of us put our money to better use rather than funding someones elses sticky fingers or incompentance shall we.

Harsh, yes but don't forget - in the end it is all tax payer money - your money!

_{Jack - Didn't mention the Iraq war example once.}

What's harsh is the amount of money that went missing in your examples.

It certainly wouldn't seem right to ask other countries to help cover our costs, if we just lose the money.

I have to say, given those examples, if I was another country, and the US asked me to pony up money, my attitude would be the same as yours.

I love my country, but as a taxpayer, sitting here listen to our leaders insist that we have to borrow more money to get by, doesn't make me too happy either.

I have found a way of cutting down these figures by 2/3: you need to gather all bad boys of the world (yes, all of them!) and distribute 1 trillion among them under the promise of "behaving good". I am pretty sure all problems will be solved overnight, and the US taxpayer will feel a great relief! Just in case: I cannot become president of the US for many reasons, one is that at the moment I´m quite busy repairing my bike

We've tried something like that...................those darned bad guys never keep their word.

Look here for the answer, Grasshopper!

Can Money Buy Love? What do You Think?

Yeah, yeah....................................after I started this thread, I read through the bombing in Mumbai thread. Yikes!

On the other hand, I'd like to think we can have rational discussions about different things, and not have to pretend we're at a chicken banquet.

We're all just a bunch of worker bee civilians. We should be able to talk about what the world powers do, without getting personal.

Or are you talking about, "Can money buy love?" We've tried that, and nobody seems to love us. We keep trying though.

i think they should, but many countries disagree with what our state department considers to be diplomancy. there attitude appears to be, "let's bribe them first, if that does'nt work, let's try some other unethical solution. when i discovered that the usa was sending billions of dollars to middle east dictators, i was'nt shocked, just sick to my stomach. we sometimes even send these dictators billions of dollars in weapons only to see the used against us. does anyone remember when the usa was sending the taliban arms in the early eighties when they were fighting the russians. the state department referred to them as "freedom fighters" at the time.

Yes, I remember when we (the CIA) provided weapons to the Mujahidin after the USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. I was in the Active Army (Rangers) at the time, as a COIN adviser on overseas duty assignment.. I cannot divulge exactly where, as those duty assignment may be still classified...but I can say that my duty did not find me in Afghanistan per see, but rather I and my fellow soldiers where facing Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops across some border, several times...it was a very dangerous world back then, where any international incidence between the Super Powers could have initiated Armageddon. It was a scary time to be in the service, as this period of time was the height of the Cold War, especially after Reagan came to office.....and throughout the 80's until fall of the Berlin Wall and the ultimate demise of the USSR.

A lot of US citizens don't know, or don't care to remember, how close we actually came to a showdown with the Ruskies over their invasion of Afghanistan duty. Fingers were poised over the missile launch buttons in a war of wills....the Russians were proceeding on a course of expansionism while we were digging our heals in to prevent that Communist expansion dogma, especially into the Middle East counties such as Saudi Arabia Iraq and Iran, with their huge oil reserves. The Soviets could have easily cut off our economic and military oil-based lifeline if we had not stood our ground back then. It was the closest we ever came to doomsday since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

We (the USA) provided, at US Taxpayer expense of course, former Russian (and Warsaw Pact) weapons and ammo of all types, plus US made Stinger Surface-to-Air Missiles to the Mujahidin to help them shoot down Russian helicopters and fighter-bombers. These very same assault rifles and machine guns as still being used to this day by the Taliban and Al Queda against our troops there, with the exception of the Stingers. Thank goodness the batteries in the Stingers had a limited shelf life, otherwise our chopper, fighters and bomber crews would be facing that threat.

thanks for serving captain.

Why pay for something that is free?

Exactly.

When a country voluntarily hires military combatants who are not its citizens to do its fighting, the combatants are called mercenaries.

When a country involuntarily pays to support another country's military the payment is known as 'tribute'.

Are you advocating tribute payments or guns for hire?

Neither one. Here's my assessment.

I think the US needs to stop pretending that it is the UN. I think the UN needs to either be the UN, or stop pretending it is anything. All the UN has become, is an international body that gives the US permission to go into a particular country..................................the US pays the tab.

There were some good points made in this thread. I appreciate PWSlack's honesty.

I believe it's true that there are a lot of people in the world that don't care for the constant looming presence of the US in and around their territories, and quite frankly, I don't blame them.

Since this is really a thread about money. I feel as if the US should stop feeling as if we have to constantly patrol the entire planet...............we can't afford it. We should be at the ready to help any of our friends at a moments notice, and give them everything they need in terms of support. When the dust has settled, and the crisis is over....................I don't think it would be unfair to send them a bill for the US money expended on the endeavor.