Topic: War
America's Military Empire (UPDATED) Hard facts. 150 countries. 380,000+ soldiers abroad. Over 46,000 veteran suicides and 5,100+ combat troops dead during the War of Terror.by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
(libertarian)
Monday, September 28, 2009
As I wrote earlier this year, one of the sticking points I encounter in conversation is when someone challenges me that America does not have, as I allege, a military empire. However, they never seem to be able to rattle off any facts or statistics to the contrary. This updated article is my attempt to document those facts. The Department of Defense last issued information on troop deployment in March 2009. (photo)
There are 194 states in the world, so therefore we have troops in 77% of all countries on the planet.
The size of America's armed forces is 1,412,529 soldiers.
380,011 of these troops, or 27% are stationed on land overseas. (Included in this figure is an estimate 25,000 in South Korea.) 16% of our troops are engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan.
54,043 soldiers are based in Germany, although WWII ended 64 years ago.
34,544 soldiers are based in Japan, although WWII ended 64 years ago.
Although figures were not available (and reported as zero), 24,655 soldiers were reported last quarter as based in South Korea as technically this "police action" that resulted in the deaths of 36,516 Americans and the wounding of 92,134. In my opinion, the greatest barrier to peace with North Korea is the presence of these soldiers.
We have only 15 troops and 0 bases in Vietnam, and get along with their nation fairly well, considering 58,159 were killed and 303,635 wounded during that "police action."
America's DoD is "one of the world's largest "landlords" possessing 545,714 buildings, 5,429 bases, spanning 29.8 million acres of land. (p3/205)
761 bases, or 14%, are located on foreign soil. (p23/205)
12 of the 111 bases designated as "large" are located on foreign soil. (p33/205)
However, reading the remainder of the report reveals that bases in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel are not listed, so both number of bases and "large" bases are too low.
Over 5,100 soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan for the War of Terror. (source)
Furthermore, CBS and the military revealed that 18 veterans commit suicide per day during the 8-year Global War on Terror, resulting in an estimated 46,000 deaths. (source)
The DoD stated its total spending in 2009 will be $620 Billion. (p7/26) The data put together by War Resisters League appears to be closer to reality. They demonstrate that America will spend $1,449 Billion on our military during 2009. They estimate the War of Terror has cost $990 Billion.
Keep these facts in mind when "supporting our troops." My conclusion is the best way to do this is for all major deployments should return to US soil as soon as possible. There is absolutely no reason not to immediately begin returning the troops from Germany, Japan, and even South Korea. Without a state of war declared, there is no constitutional reason to have these troops based abroad, other than to support the military empire.
Restore the Republic or Pay for a Bankrupt Military Empire, this is the current generation's choice.
Jake Towne isrunning for U.S. Congress in Pennsylvania's 15th District in the 2010 election as a citizen unaffiliated with any political parties. Jake also writes at www.LibertyMaven.com and www.CampaignForLiberty.com. A novel campaign website where you can comment on articles and start discussions, TowneForCongress.com has recently opened. [Reach the Author Here!]
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
As always, unlike the NFL, the author grants full permission to allow any accounts of, rebroadcasts, retransmissions, repostings of this article to your blog or anywhere else in order to promote the Restoration of our Republic.
Veritas numquam perit. Veritas odit moras. Veritas vincit. Truth never perishes. Truth hates delay. Truth conquers.
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito. Do not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it.
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Voice of Reason, Defender of America, The World's
Date: 2009-09-28 23:25:04
I thoroughly disagree with this Mr. Towne's mindset on the matter of American "Imperialism." Has he ever stopped to think that this is not the late 1700's anymore when America only had 2 naval ships to its name? Times change, and so do foreign affairs. Whether pacifists of America like it or not, America is the World Power today, and the only country keeping the third world from blowing up like a powder keg due to the absence of the British, French and Dutch government during the last sixty years. Does the UN really have any teeth? No it doesn't! We have to maintain order in the world. We are policemen of the world, not an empire.
Besides, America is nowhere near the Empire that it should be. The word imperialism gains such a bad connotation these days, but if a mutual agreement keeps a third world country stable, well fed, and they get rising development, protection, and economic growth, while the father country gets resources, new markets, and cooperation, what isn't there to like about imperialism for both countries?
In the future, I would like to see an article where instead of attacking one's home country solely on the connotation of a word, maybe we should discuss what it is these troops are doing for both America and the rest of the world!!!!!
Posted By: The Voice of Reason...again
Date: 2009-09-28 23:32:05
Besides, for all the impressive numbers Mr. Towne has presented, there is not one argument in the whole lot telling us how this is a defence of the Constitution (which allows the government to do all things necessary and proper) and how those number truly indicate "imperialism" as much as it indicates the UN teachers pet. May I remind all of us amateur statisticians that number alone are not enough, and that correlation does not indicate causation.
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-09-29 05:25:40
Dear Voice of Reason -
Thanks for your reply. On your second comment, in reference to the Constitution, I am referring to the congressional authority to declare war, which has not been done since Dec 7, 1941. "Necessary and proper" certainly does NOT apply since this is an enumerated (listed) power of Congress in Article I, Section 8. The War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional since it conflicts with the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.
On your first comment, "keeping the third world from blowing up like a powder keg" as much as I disliked Saddam Hussein, Iraq did not blow up until the 2003 invasion. Same with the Taleban and Afghanistan. American troops in these countries did not prevent violence, they caused it.
The UN is a supranational body and I oppose ceding of sovereignty to it, even if its "benign."
You wrote "We are policemen of the world, not an empire. Besides, America is nowhere near the Empire that it should be. The word imperialism gains such a bad connotation these days, but if a mutual agreement keeps a third world country stable, well fed, and they get rising development, protection, and economic growth, while the father country gets resources, new markets, and cooperation, what isn't there to like about imperialism for both countries?"
The American empire is unlike the Roman or British empires, which acted more or less like your description below, profiting Rome or London at the expense of its colonies.
No, our empire is that of debt. With our paper money, we consume goods from the third world in exchange for a lot less goods on the way back. We have abused the reserve currency status (as could be humanly expected). Instead of holding countries in thrall by demanding tribute or taxes, we demand goods and are falling more and more into debt.
What are these troops overseas doing for America? I have given you my answer - nothing good. We need to support them by removing them from harm's way.
Some references on this is a book by Bill Bonner called The New Empire of Debt and also The People's Pottage, which can be read here.
Jake, yes interesting article. However, Empire- which is usually used in the context of geo-poltical, I guess could be extended to include "military" empire- in the generic sense that our military is large incomparison with many other countries and its spread around the world. "Empire" would denote that we "control" "dominate" the countries which are hosting our military. So you would say then that we are "dominating" those 194 countries that host the U.S. military ? I think ofcourse, by virture of our economic-business-investment size- with a 14 trillion dollar economy- by far the largest (China and Japan in 2nd place with a mere 4 trillion) and the dominance of the English language for business, along with a large and capable military with great potential for power projection, ofcourse we "dominate" in different ways by the weight of all those factors. Also include American dominance in culture, technology, education (we are the number one location for foreign students and university education is one of our largest "exports" ). However, most US military deployments in those 194 countries are tiny, liaison soldiers, operating communication or logistic facilities. The main reason we are located in many locations is because those are trading choke points, which for us, the largest exporter in the world, we need those choke points- like the straights of Malacca, Gibralter, etc. to be safeguarded. then ofcourse, we need to secure the delivery of all our imported oil, lest a major disruption cause another economic shock to our economy. These things seem quite reasonable and logical when operating such an interdependent economy as the US, and being the largest exporter.
I think another major point would be, despite the numbers you quote, you should recognize that our "military" empire by how you largely define it- by size- is actually alot smaller than 15-20 years ago, so in fact, our military has shrunk quite a bit. Just off the top of my head I can tell you that we experienced a large military conversion- swords to plowshares in the Clinton years. We downsized from 2 million troops to the current numbers of 1.2-1.4million, we closed "hundreds" of bases around the US and the world, and our defense industry has experienced an enormous consolidation, thousands- not hundreds, of defense contractors and their subcontractors have either gone out of business or have converted to civilian industry. thus, from the view point of the large numbers you present, the evidence would show that our "military" establishment- I think is a more appropriate term, has downsized radically. As you mention Germany and South Korea, well just a decade ago there were over 250,000 US troops in Germany and until a few years ago there were over 42,000 US troops in South Korea, whereas now you cite 24,000. So actually, the case is of a dramatically shrinking military "empire." - so thats goood isn't it ? seems things are going in the direction you wish.
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-09-29 07:51:14
Dear James Luko -
Thanks for writing back, you make some great points - all of them correct - in your second paragraph. However, this all happened circa 1990-1994 with the fall of Communism, but I do agree with your point being it is all relative.
We have a difference in philosophy, which is fine. Our Navy is perfectly capable of maintaining trade routes without land-based forces of any kind. No, we aren't militarily dominant at this very moment in many of those countries, but flip the query around - would you like 55,000 Russian troops in the USA? 35,000 Chinese troops? Even 600 Saudi troops? Here we are likely in agreement.
What other nation has sliced the globe into military sectors - CENTCOM, PACOM, etc.? These terms are still in operation, 20 years after the end of the Cold War.
Now concerning the flow of oil and an economic shock, surely there are far more actions we can take domestically without the need to use military forces. Rather than a first resort, this should be a last resort.
The very presence of these troops in 150 countries implies empire, but as I wrote above, yes, it is a different kind of empire since Alexander and Attila, and it can't be treated as such.
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-09-29 08:13:15
One further point on military dominance - you can dominate also by replying quickly to unrest or be able to "project" power into an area, not necessarily to dominate it at any given time - to dominate the world in the manner you suggest would require millions upon millions troops.
However, if one takes a closer look at a map, one sees that , for instance, our bases in Okinawa are very close to Taiwan and China, and likewise with the rest of our strategic garrisoning across the world.
Jake, in any case, good food for thought and certainly as the global geopolitical landscape changes, we must also, remaining flexible and responsive to those changes. I would say of course wouldn't want those russian soldiers here in the USA- but it would be good for vodka sales right ? :) but in all seriousness, I think most of those US troops stationed around the world are there with consent of the host country and in fact, they enjoy the "security umbrella" we provide them which allows them to spend much less on defense. In addition, I think the semi-permanent stationing of larger groupings of US forces, as in Europe and Asia, is called "deterrence." In this case, creating regional stability has fostered stable economic growth and for the most part, prevented regional arms races. I agree, we have a very mobile force, yet the stationing of troops is not for lack of our ability to draw forces quickly, but rather as I say, deterrence so we don't even have to send our forces to fight in the first place, their mere presence prevents a fight.
Here are a couple of facts you left out. Most of the "bases" at which we have troops in those 150 countries are embassies with a few dozen marines stationed at them. And that large number of overseas "bases" you cite includes such "bases" as golf courses, PX stores, R&R facilities, schools for the kids of our soldiers and various listening posts and radar installations. In fact, the definition of a "base" is so broad that most of those included in the classification would not be recognized as a base by most people.
Posted By: Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
Date: 2009-09-29 16:28:13
Dave -
Thanks, but where did you get this information? (That a base could be a golf course.) The bases are listed in pages 37-95 of the linked Pentagon report. Which of those are golf courses/etc?
While some of the functions you mentioned would definitely still count as "buildings" or "structures", they would not be "bases."
Again, my reference is the Pentagon report linked in the above for the first 50 pages or so.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
As I wrote 