Reply #168: It all depends what you want? [View All]

During the 90s, the US cut European troop strength by about a third. What is left in Europe gives us a forward base that is not under threat and centralized. But far more than that, Germany and other European bases keep, us in close contact with our oldest allies, and provide the never talked about but very important, exchange program. Those bases serve American families...not just troops. As for the cost: because Germany pays part of the cost for those bases, it will be much more expensive if we move to an alternative.

The alternative that the bush-regime has in mind will not be a military of friends or families. The families will be stateside with frequent and long separations being the norm. We will still have to position the large hardware some place, and the empire-builders are looking to reward those who came went along with bush's war. bushes love revenge.

The eventual plan is for more special units strung from Peru, across SA, Africa, and the ME. IOW, an army of empire...

Anyway, in four years, the deed will be done...the deal has been made with that devil of devils: greed. Buchanan has never struck me as a foreign interventionist, and he may be sorry when he gets what he wished for. We all will sorry when this comes to pass.

Foreign policy elite. If you mean by that, people who are considered professionals, have experienced a high degree of success with representing the US, and are respected in the world...well, I'm all for them. There is nothing with which to compare the Dem team in the bush-regime....they don't "do" diplomacy. Both parties do not promote the same foreign policy at all. Not at all.

The last time the world has witnessed the ridicule of diplomats and favored war to solve all problems would be the last time we played the "Great Game." And yes, it brought us war.