First, some facts, based on U.S. Department of Defense
statistics as of June 30, 2019. The data
are by region, identifying the most important countries.
Europe: (NATO): 64,702
Germany: 35,232
(20 U.S. military bases in Germany)
Italy: 12,843
East Asia (Excluding Hawaii and Guam): 84,593
Japan: 55,327
South
Korea: 26,086
West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, Africa, and Indian
Ocean: 10,683
Bahrain: 4,371
Unspecified: 9,076
Afghanistan (Q4 2017):
11,100
Iraq (Q1 2012):
11,445
U.S. troops have been in post-war Europe for 74 years,
providing stability and preventing Soviet (Russian) expansion into Western Europe. U.S. troops have been in Japan for 74 years
and in South Korea for 59 years, protecting Japan from Russian encroachment and
helping to secure stability and prosperity in South Korea. Since 2001, U.S. troops have fought wars in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, and are stationed in bases in Bahrain and
Qatar.
The annual cost of maintaining U.S. troops in Europe, Japan,
and South Korea is relatively modest compared with the past two decades of
“hot” wars in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
An official estimate of the cost of the war in Afghanistan between
2001-19 is $975 billion in overseas contingency operations dedicated
specifically to the war. During 2001-14,
Operation Iraqi Freedom cost $815 billion.
In addition, the base budget for the Department of Defense increased about
$250 billion and the Veterans Affairs budget increased by more than $50 billion
since 2001.
A Brown University study estimated the direct cost of the
wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Syria between 2001 and 2016 at about
$3.6 trillion. Adding in money
appropriated for war spending and on homeland security for 2017-19, the total surpasses
$5 trillion (includes future obligations of $1 trillion through 2053 for
veterans medical and disability costs, as well as interest on borrowing for wars).
Should the United States continue to deploy over 100,000 troops and spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stabilize Europe and East Asia? A case can be made that the U.S. has benefitted from a stable global economic order. A case can also be made that fewer troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea could also do the job.
In contrast, the Middle East and Afghanistan lack the
stability of Europe, Japan, and South Korea.
Without a major U.S. presence, the Taliban might be able to take over
Afghanistan, an aggressive Iran could threaten Iraq and other Arab countries,
and ISIS could resurface.
But it can also be asked if thousands of casualties and the
expenditure of trillions of dollars since 2001 have brought security,
stability, democracy, and prosperity to these countries. Those who served in political, diplomatic, or
military office in the Bush and Obama years are generally opposed to even minor
withdrawals of U.S. troops. Apart from
President Trump, antiwar activists, and those who believe the money should be spent on
domestic programs, there are few influential interests advocating a significant
withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Middle East and Afghanistan. They are no match for the Diplomatic,
Military, Industrial, Political Complex.
The Diplomatic, Military,
Industrial, Political Complex
Before naming names, let’s start with an overview. The Project on Government Oversight has
documented that as many as 380 high-ranking Defense Department Officials and
officers over the past decade have left government to become lobbyists,
corporate board members, and defense contractor consultants. The list includes 25 four-star generals, 9
admirals, 43 three-star lieutenant generals and 23 vice admirals. A quarter went to work for the top five defense
contractors (Boeing, General Dynamics, United Technologies, Lockheed Martin,
Northrop Grumman).
Former Defense Department officials and officers are only a
part of the DMIPC. Prominent consulting
groups generally support continued involvement in the Middle East and
Afghanistan.
Let’s take a look.
(Rather than list all the important names affiliated with each group, I
think you would benefit from the research exercise of looking up each group, examining
the scope of their global operations and personnel, and letting the information
sink in. I’m not being lazy.)
Albright Stonebridge
Group. ASG was founded by former Secretary
of State Madeline Albright and merged with Stonebridge international. Its heavy hitters include the former U.S.
Commerce Secretary, former foreign ministers from Spain, Germany, and Portugal,
and a former Swedish Minister of Finance.
Kissinger Associates,
Inc. It’s a Who’s Who of the
powerful and influential.
The Cohen Group. TCG was founded by former U.S. Secretary of
Defense William S. Cohen. Its staff and
counselors come from the White House, the departments of State, Defense, and
Commerce, and Congress.
Rice Hadley Gates. RHG was founded by former U.S. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and former
Assistant to the President for National Security Stephen Hadley.
The Clinton
Foundation.
Members of Congress generally support large defense
appropriations and military bases in their districts to provide jobs and income
for their constituents.
Several important think tanks concentrate on defense and
foreign affairs. The majority of their
experts do not support withdrawing troops from Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Several of my military and diplomatic Hoover colleagues
serve on the boards of directors of top defense contractors and are principals
and counselors of global consulting groups.
Do not construe this post as criticism of their activities. These individuals can bring their vast
experience and expertise to bear upon important matters of foreign policy and
national security.
My point is that they and their employers have little
incentive to support reduced military expenditure and involvement in
Afghanistan, the Middle East, Europe, East Asia, and other real and potential
trouble spots.
It takes a major shock (e.g., Kent State) to reverse
military policy. Any major shock that
occurs in the near future is likely to strengthen the argument for continued or
even increased U.S. military involvement in geostrategically important regions.
Iran, Russia, and China loom on the horizon.