We have several military installations around the world. I could understand although disagree with the argument that we should not have permanent bases overseas.

When I see the NYT refuse to run McCain's editorial on the grounds that it doesn't set a specific date for withdrawl of our troops from Iraq it demonstrates obvious bias. It says, essentially, "we won't run your editorial, although we will run your opponent's, unless and until you agree with us."

But, as much as I dislike McCain and refuse to vote for him, I remember hearing him say in the past that just as we have bases in South Korea, Japan, and Germany, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of maintaining a permanent military base in Iraq.

So I ask you, do you think we should close down all of our bases across the planet? If not, why not?

I would argue that the rest of the world has abdicated its responsibility toward keeping the world peacefull, and left the job in America's hands, whether we wanted it or not. Incidentally, it is enjoyable to be lectured about taxes and healthcare by our allies during times when they can hardly balance their own budgets without the unfortunate and pesky national defense tab that we have elected to take on for them.

I can see more and more clearly in fact, as I get older, the argument that we should indeed become more isolationist and have no permanent bases overseas. The only thing that makes me continue to disagree with that statement is that there is nothing in human history that should lead us to expect peace to hold. If we leave those bases war will break out in various regions of the world. Do you not agree?

If war does break out in various regions of the world, could it be all that long before it reaches our shore? We could probably defend against any conventional attack. But it is arguable that the desperate financial recession and the danger of nukes, not to mention that even if we should not be the "world's policeman," we cannot stomach standing aside for unprecedented, systematic genocide for long ... all adds up to the world requiring U.S. military presence in strategic locations across the globe.

So, what is this "be 'concrete' and 'mirror Obama'" nonsense? I will not vote for McCain, but his editorial was perfectly valid, and scored a precise and objective set of points in contrast with the nation's other candidate for highest office.

No timetable is necessary or even desirable in Iraq, and if our troops maintain a permanent and very powerful base there in perpetuity the world may be better for it.

your lying thread a thumbs up, because in it you revealed that your stupidity is real, not contrived.

The idea that America maintains overseas bases (by the way, don't forget Cuba) on some sort of humanitarian grounds is, well again, could easily be taken as a joke or a troll. But you're serious, I'm sure. So I'll try for a serious answer.

Here's one way to think about it. A guarantee of worldwide peace would devastate America. The collapse of the defense industry would absolutely dwarf the current round of NAFTA and outsourcing job losses. And America's losses would be other people's gains.

The bases exist not for peace, but to protect America's interests (the main of which is its economic engine and thre resources which feed it and the markets it serves). And it's not the same thing, any fucking moron (not you, you've got to grow some to get there .. not an insult) that reads news coming out of Africa any day of the week can figure that out.

And yes, there is evil out there. Save that post 'cause I don't think you're up to it.

Any newspaper may reject any editorial for any reason that they see fit. McCain chose to immediately make an issue of the rejection rather than engage in the typical negotiation that occurs with an agreement to publish an editorial.

That was probably a good move on his part -- but it won't impress anyone but the Republican base. Still, having his editorial published would have probably been less effective on that score.

I think both candidates are terrible. I have no dog in this hunt. The New York Times demonstrated its obvious bias, not just in the rejection, but in the reasons they stated for it.

OMG!!!

A newspaper with a bias!

What is the world coming to?

But as long as I'm not supposed to be insulted...(sheesh!)

If you want to put a base in Darfur, propose it. If you don't then please try to make your point. Genocide raises serious dilemas that cause liberals and conservatives to contradict their previous stances. Should we be the world's policeman? Well, no, but should we stand aside while the innocent are slaughtered? Well, no. What do you propose we do in Darfur? What would be your "timetable?" What would happen between the factions that hate each other after we "withdraw?"

Obviously we have bases in Germany, Korea and Japan because we waged war there. It is in our national interests to promote peace in those regions so we don't have to go back again and again. Do you think each of our bases in each of those regions of the world have NOT had a major stabilizing impact upon the cultures there?

But you and the modern day Noam Chomskys can argue about the absence of a peace dividend and the evil primacy of our military industrial complex vs. the corporate industrial complex vs. the media industrial complex, while the rest of the world just think you have complexes.

Furthermore, if you want to hear me get really out there, I think that if we ever do get to the day we can stop worrying quite so much about enemies here at home on planet earth then we'll be able to substitute the same energy and investment into the space program. Not that I'm in love with government spending, but peace is and has always been in our best interest, and we as a nation have long recognized that. We don't go to war unless we think it is necessary.

Yes, I admit to being SHOCKED! But other posts had covered the bias issue, I was trying to move onto something a bit apart from the other threads.

Yes, we should get our troops out of Germany and Japan. Their presence in each country is a relic of the Cold War, and the threats they were supposed to protect against are essentially gone. What's more, the evolution of our military has left us with the capability to project power in a much longer-range fashion than we had forty years ago, meaning that we don't necessarily need to have soldiers on the ground in a location to possess a meaningful deterrence capability.

Korea is a somewhat different case, as we're protecting an ally whose hostile neighbor has a large army commanded by an unstable leader, and its land space is limited enough that an invasion by North Korea could be over before we had a chance to do much about it. But even in this case, we ought to pose a specific timeline for our gradual withdrawal of troops, giving South Korea a chance to ramp up its own military spending to provide its own defense.

Nope, the only bases I could really see a justification for would be, ironically enough, in Iraq or nearby. As daveto said, it's not about peace - it's about protecting our economic interests, and oil is high on that list. Come to think of it, the utility of bases even in Iraq is debatable given that we have Diego Garcia not far away in the Indian Ocean.

As for us being the world's peacemaker, just go ahead and admit that you really don't want that. It's a lot like Republicans who want to talk about the U.S. as a Christian nation - a nice soundbite for the folks at home, but whose reality involves more dirty work than voters or politicians can really stomach. You know as well as I do that Americans aren't going to sign on for U.S. soldiers going into every Rwanda, Burma and East Bumfuckesia to stop people from acting like savages. Ain't gonna happen. Americans want to see us kicking some yellow- or brown-skinned ass every ten years or so, then getting the hell back home.

As for the "no" in my article, it is the reason you can pretty much disregard everything I wrote above. Not because it isn't right, but because we can't afford to get out. In the post above, daveto alluded to the "collapse of the defense industry," and this is a very real concern - it's one of the few industries the United States still has that produces things the rest of the world wants. So like it or not, we are stuck with a paradigm of huge defense budgets and worldwide deployments, because too much of our economic lifeblood is tied up in the industry that supports the war machine. Eisenhower warned us about it; too bad we were too busy seeing communists under every bed to listen.

Well, you guys are being a bit funny. Obviously it IS about peace inasmuch as the vast majority of us actually do recognize the obvious: peace is far preferable to war for hosts of reasons ranging from the moral to the economic.

I keep hearing people say that we seem to get into wars because of a bloodthirsty nature on our part, but I reject that claim. You'll need something more than post hoc reasoning to be able to support it.

Furthermore, we are not a nation that is beholden to that old cliche "the military industrial complex". But even if we were, even if in part, it would be a logic transition to take these technologies and apply them to our next great challenge: the exploration and exploitation of space. Oh and boy won't that be a fun one once the environmentalists sink their teeth into it.

I do see a lot to many of the other points you were making. The last thing I want to contend, however, is the flip throwaway line "seeing communists under every bed." Too many people have that which they constantly deride: a totally non-nuanced "black and white" view of this nation's recent history and the Cold War against the USSR.

Serious question for ya, KrazyKaz.

Why do you think that the novelist John Le Carre, who was actually a "soldier" in the "Cold War" on "our" side, come to have the kind of politics you despise?

The kind of politics he exhibits in his post-ColdWar books such as "The Constant Gardener" and "The Mission Song".

and end the US military role in the Balkans as well.

Garrisoning Europe, Japan, and Korea are a waste of resources.

In addition, such failed paramilitary boondoggles as the "War on Drugs should be terminated, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 repealed, and the DEA abolished.

Time start acting like a constituional republic instead of an empire.

... that Thomas Sowell was once a marxist but became a follower of Milton Friedman? Maybe for the same reason Dennis Miller was once a leftist who is now stumping for Rudy Guiliani and sounds more right wing than most Republicans?

Could it be for similar reasons that Reagan was a Democrat but believed the party left him rather than the other way around?

In other words, hell, I don't know, but it's not unprecedented.

Seriously. I do feel the same way often. Maybe that is the way to go.

But honestly, I truly believe that there are old hostilities boiling right under the surface in each of these places. I think if we leave they come to the surface and do so quickly, bloodily, and with access to technology that did not exist that last time they let their hatred guide their actions.

I could be wrong, but I'll put it this way, I'm not one of those who wants American military dominance to be so high that the rest of the world just relies on us to keep the peace. I would prefer Europe to begin funding its own national defense again. Obviously you can see some military presence with the UK and even France, but it seems to me they are insanely weak when still compared with Russia and now China.

are only our concern if they threaten the security of the United States (and I don't mean US business interests, either. They can hire their own security, and include it in their costs)

If that happens, we have aircraft carrier groups and Marines to do punitive expeditions.

There's too much collateral mischief that comes with the Pax Americana Bullshit, like phony wars leading to "unitary executives," who get to decide which laws they'll follow and which not.

What I was trying in my own muddled way to say was that while as individuals we value peace for moral reasons, our national interest in peace is primarily economic - at least it's the economics that drive the decision-making. Otherwise, you'd see American troops in Eritrea, Darfur, and three dozen other places around the globe. The moral value we place on peace, especially peace for other people, isn't strong enough to motivate us to put American troops in danger unless there's also a critical economic interest involved.

As for whether we have a bloodthirsty nature, I think you have to let the historical record speak for itself. We've been involved in a hell of a lot more conflicts over the past fifty years than any other country in the world. You could argue that some of those were "humanitarian" wars, but the fact remains that we end up shooting at people an awful lot. And we appear to kinda like it. There's a reason why "we'll put a boot in your ass, it's the American way" is a core lyric in one of the most popular songs in recent memory.

As for the military-industrial complex, I can't help but laugh at your airy dismissal of the idea that we are enslaved to it. That is a much longer side topic than I have the energy for right now, but the fact that we still spend as much on "defense" as the rest of the world combined (even after the breakup of our superpower rival from the Cold War) speaks volumes.

As for your last line, I don't have a black-and-white view of the Cold War, but I do recognize in history the parallels between our hysteria now and then. There are real dangers, and there are the bogeymen that we create from those real dangers. The former need to be faced, while the latter must be dismantled piece by piece - because more often than not, they are instruments for the expansion of state control and authority and the advancement of the economic interests of the very few. Any believer in "small government" who is worth his salt can see that.