Jump to content

387,920 US troops were deployed in foreign countries in 2003


Recommended Posts

Please bare with me here, I don’t have a single link I can give you for this because I cant find an article actually talks about this so it is basically just my ides and some compiled statistics…

according to a Pentagon report: 150,000 are currently in Iraq, with another 20,000 in Afghanistan. Also acording to the Pentagon we have 1,418,731 solders in the regular ared forces (497,584 in the Army, 372,112 in the Navy, 177,193 in the Marines, and 371,842 in the Air Force). So what I’m asking is, where are they? If there are only 170,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan why do we need the National Guard to be over there? Well one explanation is that they are trying to rotate troops, so that no unit stays there too long. But that still doesn’t explain how over 650, 000 troops (the combined army and marines) wouldn’t be enough. But as I was thinking I realize something, we are still have military bases on just about every continent. In fact, in 2003, there were 1,000 or more troops in 14 countries, totaling 387,920 troops (more than double the amount in Iraq and Afghanistan)

You may at this point be asking yourself, why are all those troops stationed arrowed the world? The fact is that there left over from the Cold War. Before the collapse of the USSR the idea was that you had to station American troops abroad in places like Germany and Japan to prevent the communist from attacking and giving us a base to retaliate from if they did. Buy why they are still there is something that I cant explain to you.

Some will tell you that it is so that we can transport American troops anywhere at a moments notice, but that is pointless because it takes longer for our government to approve troop movements than it does for us to transport troops.

So the only explanation that I can offer is that our government doesn’t relies that the Cold War is over. They can’t see the fact that there is no need to defend against a threat that no longer exists. And unfortunately I can’t see it changing until either we become truly desperate for troops or until the older generation dies off…

My question to you all is, do you think these troops are necessary or a waste of resources?

Link to comment

They're nessecary if we want to maintain control of the world and stay the sole Superower. I guess it depends on what you value.

I think we should maintain a certain amount of control over certain countries, but we definitely don't need as many troops out of the country as there are now. Not to mention, if huge natural disasters strike (again) we'll be screwed, because a large percentage of the National Guard is in Iraq.

Link to comment

So the only explanation that I can offer is that our government doesn’t relies that the Cold War is over. They can’t see the fact that there is no need to defend against a threat that no longer exists. And unfortunately I can’t see it changing until either we become truly desperate for troops or until the older generation dies off…

Or until the thrill of being world police wears off.

As far as im concerned its all a waste of resources. However, i do believe that our government feels that there is a 3rd world war that is starting to brew in the earliest stages.

The best reason for the troops being stationed everywhere is just the fact that , we have the bases and the soldiers to occupy and staff them why give them up if we dont have too?

Link to comment

Jarhead~

I believe the numbers for the Marines are right. I read around the same amount in the Time earlier this morning about the incident in Haditha.

The best reason for the troops being stationed everywhere is just the fact that , we have the bases and the soldiers to occupy and staff them why give them up if we dont have too?

I think there are military bases in Asia & the Pacific that are unoccupied.

The possibility that the troops are deplyed for rotation is probable or, they're just off in other conflicts that don't recieve as much media attention as Iraq.

There are troops in Haiti to deal with the US indecision to what Aristide means to them. They're still there to help rebuild the country after the civil wars.

And as of 2004, there's the Indian Ocean Earthquake and the one that followed the year after. Also the mudslides that have been happening in the Philippines.

Sooo...it still doesn't account for all the troops. Personally I think there should be less deployed since it would be easier to manage and much more efficient.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...