There is a lot of discussion, debate, and disagreement about our U.S. military troops being deployed around the world. Both sides have premises and conclusions that have merit. Here is a possible solution to the whole, controversial, military, political mess.
Table of Contents
1. The Way It Is.
2. The Way It Could Be.
3. The Net Result of Implementation.
The US Defense Budget and a Broke America – The Way It IsOur current methodology is as follows:
We go hat-in-hand, to the country where we think our military troops need to be. Most of the time the potential host country knows darn well it would be a good idea to have those troops there. However, under current practice, the potential host country knows that the smart thing to do is to initially say no.
The following results then ensue: In short, it turns into a major bargaining extravaganza.
The potential host country does everything in its power to extract as much money, one-sided trade agreements, and other perks as possible.
Never mind that our presence there is of more benefit to the host country than it is to us.
Never mind that we will be spending billions of dollars there that go into the local economy.
Never mind that the troops in the new or existing base will be spending millions more doing the same.
Never mind that the major purpose of the troops being there in the first place is to help protect the host country.
As far as the potential host country is concerned, they want those extra billions of dollars in land-lease fees. They want those one-sided trade agreements. They want it all.
And we meekly comply. Why is that?
The US Defense Budget and a Broke America – The Way It Could BeThis is the methodology we could use: We contact the potential host country where we think it would be a good idea for troops to be present. We then present in great detail why we think this is so. We show them the threats that we have discovered and that they need to be concerned about. We freely share with the potential host country all evidence and documentation substantiating our conclusions. We remind them of the billions of dollars that will be injected into the host country's local economy by our government and troops if we locate there. We remind them of the inevitable, mutually prosperous trade agreements that will evolve from our countries working together for the common good.
We then inquire as to how much the potential host country is willing to contribute to make this all possible. For starters, all land-lease agreements will be for the sum of $1 a year. This serves the dual purpose of saving the U.S. Taxpayer billions of dollars a year and also conclusively shows the world that the U.S. is there as an invited guest and for the purpose of helping the host country. Any contributions that the host country makes beyond that would of course be greatly dependent on the host country's situation. The potential host country's refusal of the $1-a-year lease agreement, however, would be a deal-breaker.
Once we have presented our information to the potential host country, we then leave and await their decision.
The Net Result of ImplementationThe methodology in Part Two could be implemented worldwide as current base lease agreements expire. If the host country declines the new lease agreement, then it probably isn't that necessary for us to be there in the first place. Either way, hundreds of billions will be saved. And it will pretty much put an end to the political aspect of it all.
Just a thought.
Have more thoughts? Feel free to post them in the comments section below. Debate and differing opinions are welcome.