Why is U.S. military so damn expensive?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Why aren't there any military bases in Israel then? Israel is smack dab in the middle of the Middle East,

is our most staunch ally and recipient of billions of dollars in military aid.

Because we have them in a much less volatile and vunerable location, Saudi Arabia. Of course that pisses off Messers Bin Laden et al., but that's besides the point.

It's a good thing the Saudis have their ruthless, oppressive regime in place. Gives us some stability from which we can make sure the Shiites don't connect all their oil into the East Asian grid!

Geography 001: Iran borders upon Afghanistan, which (at Wakhan, quite short, but...) borders on China's Xingjang region; it also borders on Pakistan which (through FANA, one of two Pak-administered parts of disputed Kashmir region) has a longer border (than Afghanistan) with Xingjang. Of course, these do depend on how friendly the locals are with Iran (but hey, the Ayatollahs haven't exactly been organising major protests about Lakshar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahiba which have murdered lots of Shi'ites in Multan, Kohat, etc.)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why aren't there any military bases in Israel then? Israel is smack dab in the middle of the Middle East,

is our most staunch ally and recipient of billions of dollars in military aid.

Because we have them in a much less volatile and vunerable location, Saudi Arabia. Of course that pisses off Messers Bin Laden et al., but that's besides the point.

It's a good thing the Saudis have their ruthless, oppressive regime in place. Gives us some stability from which we can make sure the Shiites don't connect all their oil into the East Asian grid!

Geography 001: Iran borders upon Afghanistan, which (at Wakhan, quite short, but...) borders on China's Xingjang region; it also borders on Pakistan which (through FANA, one of two Pak-administered parts of disputed Kashmir region) has a longer border (than Afghanistan) with Xingjang. Of course, these do depend on how friendly the locals are with Iran (but hey, the Ayatollahs haven't exactly been organising major protests about Lakshar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Sahiba which have murdered lots of Shi'ites in Multan, Kohat, etc.)

When I was working for BP in the UK, some of the guys in my group - who did field audits of loading/discharge operations said that corruption on the part of the local authorities was a constant problem - the point where they have to factor that into potential cargo losses. For example, out in Azerbaijan way tanker trains would turn up at the discharge point with several less containers than they started with. Sometimes entire road shipments would disappear - and we're not talking about war-torn, disputed territories here.

Edited April 25, 2007 by erekose

[Portlander 0]

Why do we need 70,000 people in Germany, 12,000 people in Italy and 11,000 people in the UK?

To protect America from the Queen of England?

Seems like a huge waste of money to me.

Depends on who you talk to. If you are a military contractor there is no better use for the money! Thats who we have in power.

Incidentally, no major military contractor has NOT been convicted in US courts for bribing Senators + Representatives. Kickbacks are the way into a (congress)man's heart!

As far as policy goes, read the policy papers. The idea, I ###### you not, is that the military becomes the US's #1 export. If we have major bases everywhere in the world, then nobody will bother spending money on militaries of their own. Thus the US becomes the sole global superpower, and is able to enforce a "Pax Americana" (from Caesar Augustus' Pax Romana) No country will bother with their own military because why bother? The US's is so powerful, and it is against business interests to spend so much on the military.

Thats the idea. its insane, but it makes PERFECT SENSE to the military contractors.

Incidentally, historically, Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers were dead set AGAINST having a standing army. The influence the army has, as well as the constant threat of a coup (they read their history!) has no place in Democracy, they reasoned. It was only after WWII that the US maintained a standing army. The military contractors had more than a little influence in this, naturally.

[Portlander 0]

Clark AB Philippines is a great example. That base has been closed since the beginning of the 90s i believe. But we are still there! Thats why i find all this political talk about "pullout deadlines" for Iraq quite humorous. Because even if we pullout, and the American public breaths a sigh of relief, we will still be going there for many years to come! They are actually just starting to build hard building barracks in Iraq bases.

Exactly right - The word BushCo uses repeatedly for a major ground force in Iraq is "Permanent" This terminology, with some ratehr detailed plans naming Iraq as good place for a permanent installation of US ground forces stretchs back at least to the mid 90s (google PNAC for details if interested - in particular document called Rebuilding America's Defenses, signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others in the current admin )

[Portlander 0]

BTW - I don't mean to give everyone the impression that i am anti-military - I'm not. I do believe that a strong military, and particularly strong on technology, is important. But on the other hand, mortaging the country to China to hand billions in graft to Halliburton, Lockheed, Bechtel et al, is more than a little beyond the pale.

BTW - a lot of the extra money is currently being funnelled into covert ops in IRAN, a la the old Iran-Contra techniques. Yup. We're already in Iran. The plans I mentioned above talk about spreading out from the initial bases in Iraq. I guess we'll see if Bush has the "political capital" to see the plan through!

[Portlander 0]

When I was working for BP in the UK, some of the guys in my group - who did field audits of loading/discharge operations said that corruption on the part of the local authorities was a constant problem - the point where they have to factor that into potential cargo losses. For example, out in Azerbaijan way tanker trains would turn up at the discharge point with several less containers than they started with. Sometimes entire road shipments would disappear - and we're not talking about war-torn, disputed territories here.

Thats just human nature. Nothing special about the US here - the US actually does better than most, although at the moment I believe we are setting the world's record for graft volume.... (just wait for the coming rescription drug mess!)

[mawilson 2,133]

As far as policy goes, read the policy papers. The idea, I ###### you not, is that the military becomes the US's #1 export. If we have major bases everywhere in the world, then nobody will bother spending money on militaries of their own. Thus the US becomes the sole global superpower, and is able to enforce a "Pax Americana" (from Caesar Augustus' Pax Romana) No country will bother with their own military because why bother? The US's is so powerful, and it is against business interests to spend so much on the military.

Thats the idea. its insane, but it makes PERFECT SENSE to the military contractors.

Ah... makes perfect sense to me too.

BTW - I don't mean to give everyone the impression that i am anti-military - I'm not. I do believe that a strong military, and particularly strong on technology, is important. But on the other hand, mortaging the country to China to hand billions in graft to Halliburton, Lockheed, Bechtel et al, is more than a little beyond the pale.

Indeed.