We have troops in 130 countries

Loading

By Scott Malensek 9/8/08

Whether it’s Democratic Presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, or Republican candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, or Osama Bin Laden…millions-perhaps billions of people around the globe believe that the United States military is occupying the 130 of the 193 nations on the planet. America has one of the largest militaries in the world, arguably the most powerful, and this one nation-we’re led to believe-has occupation forces in almost every country. From Angola to Zimbabwe, American legions are everywhere.

 This claim is grossly misleading-so much so that that those who make it are either complete idiots, or propagandists pushing personal political agendas rather than truth and reality. Yes, it’s technically true that the United States has military forces in 130 nations, but to suggest that these forces are:

  1. Deployed without the permission and support of the local population is false-even in Iraq and Afghanistan where locals want the U.S. to leave, but don’t want the U.S. to leave until there is security (i.e, they want the U.S. forces to */_stay_/* until there is security). If most Iraqis wanted the US out, then 28,000,000 Iraqis would make the 150,000 Americans look like Custer’s Last Stand.
  2. American military units are almost always token forces numbering (no joke here), between 1 and 100 total personnel in a nation. Seriously, the misleading suggestion that America’s 4 soldiers are occupying Mongolia, or that the 24 Americans in Russia are imposing America’s political will upon the millions of people there…these are purely stupid ideas, and yet supporters of political leaders like Kucinich, Ron Paul, or Osama Bin Laden readily believe the idea that both American soldiers in Antigua are an occupying force that costs the nation an unbearable expense in blood, treasure, and respect. Are the 9 Americans stationed in Mali are somehow creating enemies by their presence there?
  3. Presenting this grossly incorrect idea can only be done via complete ignorance of reality, OR the claims are nothing more than information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation (i.e., the definition of “propaganda”).

Does that mean that Kucinich, Paul, or Bin Laden seek to harm a group, movement, or institution? YES. In the case of Kucinich, Paul and too many others since the subject in almost every sentence (or at least every paragraph) seems to always be “this administration” or “neocons” etc. The target of their propaganda is their political opposition, and thus it can be said that their deliberate misleading is likely designed to support their own political efforts. Even Osama Bin Laden has changed the subject of his criticism from “America” to “major corporations” and the “neocon” politicians who are allegedly under their control (though, like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, Bin Laden apparently sees boogeymen “neocons” as the root of all imperialist evil in the world-including the 6 American servicemen doing the bidding of those major corporations as they occupy Mozambique).

“Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.”

-Dr Ron Paul, 2008 campaign website, “War and Foreign Policy” section

That’s partially true (though the US didn’t arm or train UBL, and Kosovo was a NATO gig not a US one), but it’s also a complete distortion of the reality to pretend or suggest that by having US forces in 130 nations that this is even remotely the case in 130 different places. It just isn’t true all the time or even a majority of the time. In fact, American military support of despots is the exception-not the norm.

If it were the norm, then that ONE American serviceman stationed in Suriname must be Haliburton’s version of Superman. Perhaps he’s Darth Vader incarnate. One American serviceman (controlled by neocons who are controlled by major corporations) is oppressing the entire nation of Suriname, and creating enemies of the United States by his/her oppression of the nation.

Is that what they mean when they say an Army of 1?

If someone has taken the time to make the claim that there’s 130 nations being occupied, then they’ve either seen the whole list and know it’s not a realistic claim, or their a mindless lemming who parrots political propaganda without questioning even the most insane of claims.

LIST of American forces (controlled by major corporations, led by neocons) “occupying” 130 different nations.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

General Analysis on
US Military Expansion and Intervention
The United States has over 700 bases in 130 countries. As of April 2007, 146,000 US troops were actively serving in Iraq, and thousands of special forces were fighting in the “war on terrorism” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Africa and other regions. Back at home, the US government openly threatens Syria and Iran while covertly supporting coups, protests and uprisings in other countries, such as Venezuela and Kyrgyzstan. Washington defends its military expansion and interventions in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. However, as critics often point out, these interventions probably increase the threat of terrorism. The pattern of US interventions does not show support for democracy either. Instead, as a prominent study by the Library of Congress has shown, US interventions tend to have undemocratic results. Often they install tough military regimes that pay little heed to their people, privileging cozy relations with Washington and support for its economic and geostrategic interests.

Ahhhh, the Global Policy Forum. Nice try.

Sadly, I have but to ask, “as critics often point out, these interventions probably increase the threat of terrorism”

critics? Count Osama Bin Laden among them. Sources? nada. points to a Library of Congress report, but then…doesn’t list it.

Again, as I said earlier, and as the list of US forces abroad CLEARLY shows, almost all of the nations that have a US presence do not have a presence of more than 100 “troops”. In most cases it’s a soldier here, a Marine there. Half dozen troops here, a dozen there. All of a sudden that list of 130 countries drops down to a handful of sizable deployments, and in those cases (again) the governments have requested US troops to be there, and the people do not want Americans to leave (see OP re Iraq and Afghanistan).

So please, PLEASE look at the link in the original post and list out the 130 countries that GPF claims are examples of the US propping up non-democratic regimes. It’s a conundrum since (if the US were in fact garrisoning 130/192 other nations, and the majority of those garrisons were examples of the US propping up non-democratic governments, then the majority of governments on the planet would have to be non-democratic, “tough military regimes that pay little heed to their people, privileging cozy relations with Washington and support for its economic and geostrategic interests”

Curious, do you even KNOW who the GPF is? It’s hardly a non-biased source. Might as well go to an international socialist website for a source. Ironic that a Republican candidate is basing their platform on false claims from a near-socialist/globalist group. Interesting.

FREE BALI!
END THE US OCCUPATION OF RUSSIA (all 24 American troops)
AMERICA OUT OF MONGOLIA!
NO BLOOD FOR MALDIVES FISH!
US OUT OF VIRGIN ISLANDS! Oh wait, are they counting that one? (rofl!)

Score: Scott Malensek ‘1’ Flo who evidently has a high level degree from some left wing college that makes the degree worth less (and downgrades anyone with a degree) than the ink used to print it, the paper is overkill ‘0’.

“supporters of political leaders like Kucinich, Ron Paul, or Osama Bin Laden”

There does seem to be a link between them in rhetoric and worldview.

“Is that what they mean when they say an Army of 1”

Great line!

A Ron Paul supporter quoting from a socialist site, classic!

What I don’t get is how this guy is representing a district in Texas. I understand that he has some very conservative positions in other areas which be attractive, but when it comes to foreign policy he is emerging as an outspoken nut. A “Blame America First” icon who flirts with Troofers.

I wonder how the support is holding up in his district.

You forgot to mention the 24 Russians “Occupying” the US!!!

http://www.russianembassy.org/

Although most of the deployments are insignificant or related to our Middle East presence, some are significant. Notably we still have tens of thousands of troops deployed from our post-WWII commitments – Japan, Germany, Korea. Why do we still need such a high troop level in those countries? The Cold War is over. Japan, I might understand – they’re constitutionally forbidden to have any army of their own – although 30,000 troops still seems excessive. But Germany? Korea? Both of them have capable militaries of their own, and no significant threats (the North Korean army is a pathetic joke, staffed with soldiers suffering from malnourishment). So why the US troop presence? Makes no sense.

As to US troop presence being a cause of rancor, in at least some instances this is the case. Until recently there was a high US troop presence in Saudi Arabia – they were withdrawn when the Iraq War made it possible to station troops in the Middle East without a Saudi presence. This was definitely a source of ill-will in the Middle East – and, yes, Osama bin Laden is a notable and relevant example.

So, I don’t think it’s true that we’re occupying 130 countries, as you’ve rightly pointed out. But at the same time I don’t think our deployments make a lot of sense, and they’re not necessarily always politically well-advised.

While definitely not an equal to us in terms of technology, I’m not sure I would discount the North Korean army a joke, solely due to its sheer numbers. Don’t you think that if the 30,000 American soldiers would leave Korea, the massive North Korean horde would flood the DMZ and head straight for Seoul. And what about its nukes?

I think part of the problems made by people such as Kucinich, Edwards, et al. is two fold: 1.) they are completely disingenuous; 2.) they are merely pandering to the very dangerous anti-war movement.

The bottom line is that they are consumed with their hatred for all-things Bush, they are willing to sell this country down the river, purely to advance their progressive agenda (which for some reason, includes Islam, which abhors everything the Left stand for).

One more thing: this sort of rhetoric from the Left certainly epitomizes their collective opinion of our military. Naturally, they assume they rather HELPING the local population to which they are stationed, they are instead raping, pillaging, plundering, etc. (see John Murtha: Haditha, or recent comments from certain Democratic presidential candidates stating unequivocally that the our military has failed in Iraq).

It seems to me that in most cases the token forces that are in 9/10 of these countries listed in the OP’s link are forces not occupying (c’mon, 1 guy is not an occupation force), but more likely liaison units and/or facility maintenance units. This goes directly to the comments about Japan, Germany, etc. During the half-century plus that the US has been in these places extensive facilities have been built. Ramstein is still one of the premier hospitals in the world. Japan has some of the best port facilities and airfields critically useful to the region. And that leads me to DPRK, North Korea. I’m not at all sold on the idea that they’re a weak force. Not at all. In fact, quite the contrary. They have more special forces troops than we do. They have a 48-hr, 5 MILLION man reserve force; i.e. North Korea can field largest army in the world in two days. Remember, that country has NOTHING to export except military hardware. They’ve more ballistic missiles than most of the nations in the world combined (if you remove the top 5 ballistic missile nations). They are a serious threat….thankfully, the ROK troops are tough as nails too, and the entire nation of South Korea is designed to be a killing field. I’ll never forget seeing pics of large concrete blocks hanging on pillars on the sides of a road. What are they for? All over South Korea there are these blocks, and the idea is that if invaded, engineers can come, blow up the small blocks holding them up, and they’ll fall down blocking roads. It’s amazing. That place is one giant killing machine waiting to be invaded by a giant killing machine. It’s a powderkeg imo (hence my first book and first series of books on the threat of a North Korean conventional war).

Yes, sometimes US military presence is ill-advised, but not in 130 cases. A close examination of that list shows in almost NO CASES-including Iraq and Afghanistan where America’s enemy, Al Queda, are being slaughtered en masse in a way that law enforcement alone could never come close to accomplishing.

The problem is not that we’re occupying the countries, it’s that our military force is too stretched. It’s also principle. The American military should defend America, not be used as “tokens.”

Julian, to pretend the US military isn’t defending America is naive. Even when there’s a soldier here and a Marine there, those people are in place not as tokens, but ready to support US forces at a moment’s notice if the US ever needs to send forces to Bali, Indonesia, etc. Do you think they’re just sitting around doing nothing, or perhaps one believes that the American occupation of Mongolia is a token gesture?

Best of all the idea that “The American military should defend America” is in complete opposition to the idea that the US has no business in Iraq or Afghanistan as Al Queda is in both places, and the US military is fighting them there; “defend[ing] America.” Where would you prefer the US military fight Al Queda? Perhaps we could send a messenger to Al Queda and ask them to change the location of the fight to…(where)? Al Queda’s lost tens of thousands of terrorists to the US military fighting in Iraq. Would it be better to send more forces to the Graveyard of Empires, or would it be better to fight AQ on ground of the US military’s choosing? Or maybe if we just ended the huge occupation of 130 countries (choke/laugh) then Osama Bin Laden and all of the rest of the world’s Islamic Holy Warriors would take off their bomb vests and open florists?

Julian’s comment (an echo of Ron Paul and all Paulbot’s position really) got me thinking. If having 1, 6, 12, 24 soldiers in 100+ countries is too much, if it’s not worth the money, and the perception is that they’re not defending the US, then perhaps we should scuttle the US Navy as well since a 5000-man carrier (and the 5000-10000 sailors and Marines on ships supporting and escorting it) could easily be replaced by ten thousand bassmaster assault craft to patrol the 12 miles of US waters. Anything beyond that apparently isn’t worth having army or Marine forces positioned, so why would it be ok or reasonable to have carriers on the other side of the planet? Nah, scuttle the USN. Bring the troops home. No blood for tuna!

Have things really gotten so bad that the U.S. military is now “arguably” the strongest in the world? The U.S. could not invade, say, China, or Russia at this point, but then it likely never could have even at the post-Soviet peak of U.S. military manpower strength. Who at this point is more qualitatively outfitted and more capable of projecting power globally?

Whether it’s Democratic Presidential candidate, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, or Republican candidate, Dr. Ron Paul, or Osama Bin Laden…millions-perhaps billions of people around the globe believe that the United States military is occupying the 130 of the 193 nations on the planet.

Got any links handy?

I don’t care about bin Laden, but I am curious to see the actual terms that Paul and Kucinich use. Do they really use words like “occupy” or “occupation”? Or do they use terms like “bases” and “installations”?

Some links would be nice.

Grace,

You can listen to Kucinich use the word several times in this recent trip.

As for Ron Paul, just Google the word “occupation” and “Ron Paul”. I’ve seen and heard it used by him, and it shouldn’t be so hard to find.

That was easy: Here’s one.

I bet you can find him using the word if you go to his website; maybe even in the recent surge of anti-RP posts we did here over the weekend. Really, what’s the big deal with the word, “occupation”? RP uses it freely, without reservation.

Excellent point Scott, if we should only protect this country then why in the world do we need this large Navy for? Or Marines for that matter since they are an expeditionary force primarily. Navy lands them and they secure the area for the larger Army to come in. We could mothball the whole Navy and just grow the Coast Guard to patrol our waters.

It’s scary how these guys think actually. Completely insane.

How many of those “occupying” troops in foreign countries consist of the security personnel in our embassies? Marines provide that kind of security. The Global Security list does not make that distinction.

Grace, throughout this thread-and including in the OP, I’ve cited Ron Paul’s claims from his website. For Rep Kucinich, Is suggest watching that oh-so-patriotic interview he did in Syria a week or two ago. Surely you’ll see similar claims in it.

Best,
Scott
🙂

Scott,

I am a vet and have two daughters, a son-in-law and brother-in-law in active duty. We are and will always be, a pro-military family. I think that this country has need of a standing army and greater need of a large, forceful Navy. Of course, with all that as a lead-in you will be waiting for the “but” so here it is. If we are to have a strong military to defend our country why should we not have a military strong enough to defend this country against any and every threat? Why should we not spend whatever money is necessary to build systems that could take out any satellite, incoming missle, computer threats, etc and deploy them as close to our enemies as we can? Why should we not forceably disarm our enemies? Where do we draw the line and who do you think has the right and authority draw it?

Scott, I assume you also agree with giving so much foreign aid to countries, esp. Israel?

Scott, you seem to have completely missed the point. I guess we wouldn’t want people entertaining ideas just a smidgen outside the beltway mainstream. I suppose there’s just no fat to be trimmed from those military budgets. We’d better have some guys in a base in Mongolia just in case we to need to invade repel a nearby country before they overrun us with their huge army.

Ever look into the military procurement process? I’m so glad these guys are “defending” us.

Sweet logic. Cue a “Paultard” bomb in 3…2…1…