From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jan 25 2003 - 13:03:11 MST
Dan writes
> why should the US taxpayer foot the bill for [maintaining
> troops in Europe]? What would those negative consequences
> [of withdrawing] be? Perhaps also it would be nice for the
> Europeans to fend for themselves.
Writers to the thread "Why does the USA still have
troops in rich Europe" came up with quite a few
reasons---perhaps you missed that discussion. See
>> Behalf Of Lee Corbin
>> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 5:28 PM
>> Subject: RE: Why does the USA still have troops in rich Europe?
The contributors to the thread came up with
>> 1. Maintaining bases allows global military deployment
>> in the interest of American foreign policy.
[2. American defense contractors want to maximize sales to NATO.]
>>
>> 3. A military ally that was as strong as the US (or anywhere
>> near) would rise a whole set of problems neither side
>> really wish to confront.
>>
>> 4. The bases exist; it would be costly to rebuild them somewhere else
>>
>> 5. The political landscape here is rather stable and reliable
>>
>> 6. To fulfill their duties according to the NATO treaties
>>
>> 7. To maintain their NSA and CIA posts, the Echelon network, etc.
>>
>> 8. To keep a foot in the door for everything that happens [in Europe].
> I don't think one has to divine motives or just one motive to US troops
> being in Europe. I think mostly they're there now, when the original
> reason for them being there (the Soviet threat) is long gone just
> because of institutional inertia.
So I nominate "institutional inertia" as reason number 9
on our list.
> Some of the biggest proponents of NATO expansion are from the Halls of
> that "Axis of Corporate Evil" -- to use Justin Raimondo's term --
> Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon. For example, the US Committee to
> Expand NATO was cofounded by Bruce P. Jackson and Randy Scheunemann.
> Following the money: Jackson is a VP at Lockheed Martin and Scheeunemann
> is a registered agent for the same. The rub here is that new NATO
> members have to upgrade their militaries, which means business for --
> you guessed it! -- defense contractors. (Perhaps to call this "evil" is
> a bit much. After all, one would expect merchants of death, by nature,
> to want to sell weapons and other military systems. So, in a mixed
> economy, they would lobby for whatever it takes to sell their wares.)
And this can replace our old "reason number 2", which had
been "Europeans save money on defense that way", which properly
belongs on the list of why the Europeans don't kick the Americans
out.
2. American defense contractors want to maximize sales to NATO.
9. Institutional inertia.
Thanks,
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST