September 5, 2010
National Defense
Edward Gonzalez advocates closing most of our military bases in foreign countries while strengthening our domestic reserve forces.
Problem: The United States of America exists in a dangerous world with enemies who have access to incredibly dangerous and powerful weapons. These enemies pose a direct threat to the natural and unalienable rights of the American people
Goal: A free and secure people with the most powerful military in the world.
Method: National Defense is within the realm of the federal government. However, the military strength of a nation builds off the foundation of economic strength. From that foundation the free men of a free society are then better equipped with the intellect, creativity, and technology to defeat any adversary. Therefore, the military should have a national defense plan that puts the least strain on our economy possible.
Currently the United States military has over 700 bases in 130 foreign countries that require billions of dollars a year to maintain. This is an inefficient use of resources and tax dollars. A large standing military in peace time, while certainly a point of great national pride for many Americans, is also an inefficient use of tax dollars. A military plan focused on defending our nation could be executed at a fraction of the current cost.
If we were to close 75% of our foreign bases, our military would still have 175 bases outside the United States. This would be a good first step. The next step would be to refocus our energy on protecting America from attack and invasion.
A large group of citizens, well-trained in the art of war, is the superior deterrent against attack and invasion. Therefore, the best and most effective way to accomplish this is a much smaller active duty military with focus on a much larger and decentralized reserve force. One of the main reasons Japan did not invade the Continental United States after the Pearl Harbor attack was the fact that the majority of American citizens were armed.
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” -Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Harvard Graduate and Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Japanese Naval Fleet in World War II
Currently, young men and woman who wish to serve our country with military service must sign four year contracts and be willing to deploy anywhere in the world in case of war or emergency as defined by the politicians in power. Many young men and women who would be willing to serve in case of attack do not wish to sign their lives away to the political party in power.
The solution is to have the option of a domestic reserve force with a training program in basic war fighting skills. Once basic training was received, no further obligation would be required other than to report to the local National Guard or reserve commander in case of attack. Without years of commitment or potential deployment to a foreign war more young people would be willing to sign up and receive basic training.
In addition, once this basic training is received there is no reason to prohibit the trained soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines from owning their personal weapon. For example, a Marine trained as either a sniper or automatic rifleman should be able to buy and own his weapon and practice on his own time and expense should he so choose. Removing the prohibitions of trained individuals to own personal military small arms would go a long way in securing our nation from attack. The objection to this usually comes from gun control advocates who claim that guns cause crime. Unfortunately, this claim is not backed by facts. Switzerland allows their young men and woman to own and keep their assault rifles once they have completed military training and Switzerland has the lowest gun related violent crime rate in the world.
There would still need to be a highly elite group of active duty military personnel ready to lead and command in case of invasion, but this could be maintained at a fraction of the current cost. Also, with this much smaller and elite force of active duty leaders, the salaries they earn could be competitive with the salaries of senior managers and CEOs in large businesses, thereby insuring only the best of the best would be in command in case of attack.
I want to be clear that I am not recommending having no standing Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Air Force. We still will need strong bases here in the United States, ship and submarine patrols of our shores, and fighter jets patrolling our airspace. But our permanent support of hundreds of American bases in foreign countries puts an unnecessary strain on our economy and indirectly weakens our true military power.
For more thoughts on the problems of foreign intervention and foreign wars read two-time Medal of Honor recipient, Marine Corps Major General Smedley D. Butler’s short book, War is a Racket. It can be read in its entirety online at:
Printer-friendly version