From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 18:27:57 MST
Fabio writes
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of estropico@virgilio.it
> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 6:46 AM
> A number of reasons. None sufficient by itself to explain
> "why does the USA still have troops in rich Europe", but
> together they could begin to shed some light...
Thanks for the extensive response. I'll number your
reasons and amend them for brevity, and include Kai's
and Christian's as I go along (thanks to them also).
1. Because maintaining bases that allow global military
deployment is in the interest of American foreign policy.
(Christian)
2. Europeans save money on defense that way
(Fabio)
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.
(Fabio) --- see below for his extended comments
4. The bases exist; it would be costly to rebuild them somewhere else
(Kai)
5. The political landscape here is rather stable and reliable
(Kai)
6. To fulfill their duties according to the NATO treaties
(Kai)
7. To maintain their NSA and CIA posts, the Echelon network, etc.
(Kai)
8. To keep a foot in the door for everything that happens here
(Kai)
which is as Fabio also says below.
> Europeans save money on defense that way (significantly smaller % of
> GDP is spent on the military than in the US). That way we can go on
> pouring cash into our expensive welfare state...
Being from a penny-pinching political tradition myself,
I had always suspected that the U.S. bases were profitable
things to have around economically. Surely it was true
right after the war. Is it still true?
> The troubled and oil rich Middle East and Central Asia
> are more easily reached by US troops from a German base
> than from an American one.
> I'm sure there's more!
Well, perhaps someone will think of something, though
the above list is pretty good!
We can, however, take the question posed by the subject
of this thread and ask it the other way around: why do
the Europeans permit American bases there? (Yes, there
is some overlap with the answers above, I guess.)
Lee
> PS: The Roman empire grew out of violent conquest, but had
> also win-win aspects: subject to roman control, pay your
> taxes and you'll have the stability and access to markets
> necessary to prosper. It worked for centuries.
Yes, I think that it was a great improvement on what
had gone on before, in most places, and was better
than what went on after it fell too. Of course, quite
a number of other nations, like Carthage, would very
strongly disagree!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST