How many would support a one-issue party--no foreign military involvement

[tall73]

I am curious how much interest there would be in a one issue political party aimed at massively scaling back US military presence overseas. We cannot afford to maintain the current empire, and we have a doubtful moral rationale for such a large military presence. There seems to be little interest from either the Democratic or Republican establishment to scale back our overseas presence, which would provide the rationale for such a one issue party.

In the following thread I found documentation of active US fighting in

Afghanistan
Algeria
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
Cote d'Ivoire
Ghana
Iraq
Kenya
Libya
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Niger
Nigeria
Pakistan
Somalia
Syria
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Yemen

The current administration is also considering action in Venezuela.

Community project: Let's find out how many countries the US is fighting in!

The platform could include:

- Only send troops overseas if we are directly attacked or there is direct evidence of imminent attack forthcoming. We would not be involved in policing, but only defending ourselves.
- Divest the US of the various bases and military presence around the world. (We currently have a military presence in some 70 percent of the world's countries, or thereabouts). We may still need to maintain some intelligence and surveillance systems to assess threats.
- Reduce the military budget
- Focus on homeland defense
- Still allow for quick strikes in the form of nukes, including continuing supersonic programs, etc. Still maintain our carrier fleet to deploy to various regions and support airstrikes if needed. We have far more carriers than any other nation. If need be we could build further carriers to allow us to still act in our national interests around the world if needed in lieu of bases. These could be positioned to respond to threats. Allocate funds to cyber warfare and space initiatives as needed to protect American infrastructure.
- End AFRICOMS widespread anti-terrorist initiatives now that most of the countries have properly trained forces
- Elect representatives to congress who will not abdicate their responsibility to declare war or allow the executive branch to conduct endless wars under existing authorizations of military force aimed at terrorism. Quick executive action may still be needed for addressing immediate threats, but representatives should then evaluate carefully any engagement of troops, and spell out clear goals.

Please share any further suggestions or critiques.

 

[morse86]

 

[Sketcher]

- Only send troops overseas if we are directly attacked or there is direct evidence of imminent attack forthcoming. We would not be involved in policing, but only defending ourselves.

We claimed to have that going into Iraq.

- Divest the US of the various bases and military presence around the world. (We currently have a military presence in some 70 percent of the world's countries, or thereabouts). We may still need to maintain some intelligence and surveillance systems to assess threats.

Since you also said this:

- Still allow for quick strikes in the form of nukes, including continuing supersonic programs, etc. Still maintain our carrier fleet to deploy to various regions and support airstrikes if needed. We have far more carriers than any other nation. If need be we could build further carriers to allow us to still act in our national interests around the world if needed in lieu of bases. These could be positioned to respond to threats. Allocate funds to cyber warfare and space initiatives as needed to protect American infrastructure.

My understanding is that we would need to maintain quite a few Navy bases to keep our fleets supplied. Food, fresh water, waste disposal, munitions, jet fuel, etc. Candidates for executive or legislative offices are all cut from the same cloth.

- Elect representatives to congress who will not abdicate their responsibility to declare war or allow the executive branch to conduct endless wars under existing authorizations of military force aimed at terrorism. Quick executive action may still be needed for addressing immediate threats, but representatives should then evaluate carefully any engagement of troops, and spell out clear goals.

How would you ensure that? Presidential candidates run on peace, and take executive action to militarily intervene in foreign affairs. Trump, Obama, and Bush all did it. I don't remember if Clinton ran on peace, but he authorized missile strikes. Candidates for Congress are cut from the same cloth as candidates for President.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I am curious how much interest there would be in a one issue political party aimed at massively scaling back US military presence overseas.

I'm in favor of scaling back, but making it a one issue party means sacrificing issues that I consider more important. In all likelihood, I would be supporting immoral candidates who oppose me more often than not on moral issues of other kinds.

We cannot afford to maintain the current empire, and we have a doubtful moral rationale for such a large military presence.

How do you know we can't afford it? At the end of the first World War, we scaled back to peacetime levels of military might, and the primary consequence of that was another World War. The popular notion at the end of the Second World War was that if we were to have a Third World War it would mean the end of life on this planet. Hence, by keeping our military in perpetual readiness we might get things under control before they escalate again.

- Only send troops overseas if we are directly attacked or there is direct evidence of imminent attack forthcoming. We would not be involved in policing, but only defending ourselves.

A well-defined and highly predictable plan of response would make us easy to manipulate. It also means that our friends could get picked off one by one.

- Divest the US of the various bases and military presence around the world. (We currently have a military presence in some 70 percent of the world's countries, or thereabouts). We may still need to maintain some intelligence and surveillance systems to assess threats.

Without bases around the world we would have much greater difficulty positioning troops where needed in a time of war. Surveillance doesn't help much if we can't do anything about it.

- Still allow for quick strikes in the form of nukes,

By eliminating the first and second resorts you make the last resort come too easily. Why would you want to strip the country of conventional forces and rely more heavily on nuclear warfare? I don't want to use nukes.

Still maintain our carrier fleet to deploy to various regions and support airstrikes if needed.

It's not good enough. We wouldn't win that way.

We have far more carriers than any other nation.

Carriers aren't enough, no matter how many we have.

- Elect representatives to congress who will not abdicate their responsibility to declare war or allow the executive branch to conduct endless wars under existing authorizations of military force aimed at terrorism.

I'm all in favor of that, but I have a feeling nothing would change.

 

[Tanj]

Where would the saved money be spent?

 

[MariaJLM]

I would jump all over that, especially if I was American. That money could be spent on healthcare, education, etc. instead of bombing brown people whose only crime was being born in the Middle East.

 

[tall73]

We claimed to have that going into Iraq.

Well, we did not have direct information of an immanent attack, but claimed the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the loose intent to sell it to terrorists.

My understanding is that we would need to maintain quite a few Navy bases to keep our fleets supplied. Food, fresh water, waste disposal, munitions, jet fuel, etc.

Good point. That might be interesting to research. Getting insights into what is needed is part of my trying to understand the whole process. There would need to be some supply line, certainly if we were to fight an extended campaign. However, what extended campaigns would we be likely to have if we are not policing other areas?

How would you ensure that? Presidential candidates run on peace, and take executive action to militarily intervene in foreign affairs. Trump, Obama, and Bush all did it. I don't remember if Clinton ran on peace, but he authorized missile strikes. Candidates for Congress are cut from the same cloth as candidates for President.

I think that is where the one issue party comes in handy. Many presidents break campaign pledges. If that was literally the only pledge it might be easier to apply pressure. But yes, there is no guarantee of anything, which is certainly a flaw with the system in general. This would just give you more pressure.

 

[tall73]

I'm in favor of scaling back, but making it a one issue party means sacrificing issues that I consider more important. In all likelihood, I would be supporting immoral candidates who oppose me more often than not on moral issues of other kinds.

I can understand that concern.

How do you know we can't afford it?

The 22 Trillion dollar debt to start with. Now certainly there are other cuts that need to be made. But There has been a high cost associated with some of these actions. Estimates vary but a Reuters study put the Iraq war at around 2 trillion dollars.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study - Reuters

The proposed budget for military spending is 750 Billion, a 5 percent increase:

Trump would pump up Pentagon war-fighting account in bid to fund defense over domestic programs

At the end of the first World War, we scaled back to peacetime levels of military might, and the primary consequence of that was another World War.

I am not sure we can attribute WWII to the US not keeping war-ready. Especially since the war was going on quite some time before we became involved, and then only when we were attacked.

The popular notion at the end of the Second World War was that if we were to have a Third World War it would mean the end of life on this planet. Hence, by keeping our military in perpetual readiness we might get things under control before they escalate again.

Except now a number of nations have the ability to escalate to the nth degree with nukes. And it is that mutual destruction deterrent which has more to do with limiting the end of the world in WWIII. And if they launched, we could do nothing about it even with all our military. Especially since Russia is making multi-warhead and supersonic nukes to circumvent our missile defense system. They went that route because it was cheaper to develop. Putin also decided to downplay conventional weaponry and indicated they would use tactical nukes to repel invasion.

Subscribe to read | Financial Times

And in the meantime we helped out the Saudis with their war in Yemen, destabilized Libya, got involved in Iraq on false pretenses, etc. It seems when we have a standing army the temptation is too strong to use it.

A well-defined and highly predictable plan of response would make us easy to manipulate. It also means that our friends could get picked off one by one.

Attacking countries when not attacked is predictable, but it is also moral. Fighting endless wars is not so easy to defend.

Now your second point is true, however, It might need to be extended to include close allies, similar to how NATO is structured.

Without bases around the world we would have much greater difficulty positioning troops where needed in a time of war. Surveillance doesn't help much if we can't do anything about it.

That might make us less eager to go to war. We have several now we can't seem to get out of. And most nations have very few foreign bases, so that would not put us at a huge disadvantage.

By eliminating the first and second resorts you make the last resort come too easily. Why would you want to strip the country of conventional forces and rely more heavily on nuclear warfare? I don't want to use nukes.

I don't want to use them either. And that is why we were very careful in how we pursued the Syria issue once Russia got involved. Nukes are there to assure mutual destruction. Therefore there is less incentive for powers to attack when they know how it could escalate. Unless you have a way to put the cat back in the bag I don't think there is a solution to the possibility of Nukes. That is why Russia has been so keen on maintaining parity in that regard, because they know it keeps the American empire at bay.

And more and more we are moving away from conventional troops on the ground anyway. Most of the wars now are proxy wars fought with drones and air strikes, mercenaries and special forces to conduct operations and train others.

The following indicates our reliance on mercenaries in recent times. That allows us to conduct wars without raising so much fuss from the American public, due to high troop casualties.

America's Addiction to Mercenaries

It's not good enough. We wouldn't win that way.

Wouldn't win against which nation? We already far outspend all other nations. What do all those other nations in the world do without bases in 70 percent of the world? This is about wanting to impose our will more than readiness.

Carriers aren't enough, no matter how many we have.

In what way are they not enough? Other nations have far less capability than us. So where is the threat?

I'm all in favor of that, but I have a feeling nothing would change.

The hope would be that the single issue aspect would put pressure. But it will be hard to change the perpetual war issue because we want to extend power, and of course weapons are huge industry with lots of lobbyists.

 

[Nithavela]

Sounds impossible. You got any idea how many jobs this would destroy?

 

[tall73]

Where would the saved money be spent?

There is no saved money to be spent. We already run a deficit. We pay for war by borrowing. And of course we already cannot fund entitlements.

 

[tall73]

Sounds impossible. You got any idea how many jobs this would destroy?

According to this article, 800,000 and 10 percent of US manufacturing.

Defense Jobs Make up 10 Percent of U.S. Manufacturing Demand

You are correct it would be very difficult to implement. There is a lot of moneyed interests who would not want to see things change.

But then some jobs might not be lost. Some would go to friendly nation exports. Perhaps you Euro allies will see the need to spend if we don't.

It is a pity that the profit off supplying the foreign wars and weapons sales would come to an end. But at some point you cannot keep funding things by going into deeper debt.

As it is we have an insatiable hunger for more weapons. We can't keep up with current demand. We were running out of bomb parts from bombing so much. Might be good to take a break.

The US is running out of bombs — and it may soon struggle to make more

 

[Nithavela]

But then some jobs might not be lost. Some would go to friendly nation exports. Perhaps you Euro allies will see the need to spend if we don't.

Most european nations also make a pretty penny selling weapons. We're not going to import yours.

 

[cow451]

There is no saved money to be spent. We already run a deficit. We pay for war by borrowing. And of course we already cannot fund entitlements.

And a million people would be out of work, conservatively speaking.

 

[tall73]

Most european nations also make a pretty penny selling weapons. We're not going to import yours.

While the numbers back that to a degree, apparently some still buy a fair amount from us:

Countries Buying the Most Weapons From the US Government

13. United Kingdom
> 2016 arms imports from U.S.: $217 million
> 2016 total arms imports: $260 million
> U.S. as % total arms imports: 83.5%
> 2015 GDP: $2.7 trillion

7. Italy
> 2016 arms imports from U.S.: $511 million
> 2016 total arms imports: $868 million
> U.S. as % total arms imports: 58.9%
> 2015 GDP: $2.2 trillion


Apart from Europe, Australia, etc. also buy from us. And as mentioned, if we scale back, they may have to scale up.

 

[Albion]

* I am curious how much interest there would be in a one issue political party aimed at massively scaling back US military presence overseas. *

We already have the Libertarian Party, so although it is not a one-issue party, it might be possible to judge by this.

 

[tall73]

And a million people would be out of work, conservatively speaking.

It would likely scale down over time. I think most of the engineers, etc. could find something to do other than construct instruments of death.

Besides, the proposal is not eliminating all munitions or weapons, but reducing the overall footprint over seas and focusing on those items most needed.

If we are dependent on war to create jobs we are doing something wrong.

 

[tall73]

* I am curious how much interest there would be in a one issue political party aimed at massively scaling back US military presence overseas. *

We already have the Libertarian Party, so although it is not a one-issue party, it might be possible to judge by this.

This would attempt to unify some among libertarians, progressives, etc. who would like to scale back. Part of the reason for a one issue party is that it is easier to explain the purpose and hold people accountable.

 

[Albion]

I see the thinking, but I would say that it is certain that a one-issue party in which the opinions about public policy concerning everything else were as sharply split as you suggest could not survive.

For one thing, hardly anyone who is interested in government or politics would be content with doing nothing about all the other issues.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I am curious how much interest there would be in a one issue political party aimed at massively scaling back US military presence overseas. We cannot afford to maintain the current empire, and we have a doubtful moral rationale for such a large military presence. There seems to be little interest from either the Democratic or Republican establishment to scale back our overseas presence, which would provide the rationale for such a one issue party.

In the following thread I found documentation of active US fighting in

Afghanistan
Algeria
Benin
Burkina Faso
Cameroon
Chad
Cote d'Ivoire
Ghana
Iraq
Kenya
Libya
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Niger
Nigeria
Pakistan
Somalia
Syria
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Yemen

The current administration is also considering action in Venezuela.

Community project: Let's find out how many countries the US is fighting in!

The platform could include:

- Only send troops overseas if we are directly attacked or there is direct evidence of imminent attack forthcoming. We would not be involved in policing, but only defending ourselves.
- Divest the US of the various bases and military presence around the world. (We currently have a military presence in some 70 percent of the world's countries, or thereabouts). We may still need to maintain some intelligence and surveillance systems to assess threats.
- Reduce the military budget
- Focus on homeland defense
- Still allow for quick strikes in the form of nukes, including continuing supersonic programs, etc. Still maintain our carrier fleet to deploy to various regions and support airstrikes if needed. We have far more carriers than any other nation. If need be we could build further carriers to allow us to still act in our national interests around the world if needed in lieu of bases. These could be positioned to respond to threats. Allocate funds to cyber warfare and space initiatives as needed to protect American infrastructure.
- End AFRICOMS widespread anti-terrorist initiatives now that most of the countries have properly trained forces
- Elect representatives to congress who will not abdicate their responsibility to declare war or allow the executive branch to conduct endless wars under existing authorizations of military force aimed at terrorism. Quick executive action may still be needed for addressing immediate threats, but representatives should then evaluate carefully any engagement of troops, and spell out clear goals.

Please share any further suggestions or critiques.

I could support the stance but a party that had only one issue could not function if it
gained governmental power. How does such a party propose a budget? Deal with interstate commerce? the environment? tax policy? immigration? What about basic rights? If I do not know the stand of a party on free speech or gun control or the role of the federal government in local issues such as welfare or education how can I confidently support it? Not that I would be likely to support any political party as I find political parties to be counter productive to the idea of good government since they place party loyalty above the general welfare.To me the way to gain support on a particular issue is to either get the parties to agree ( something that happens rarely as it is not in the interest of the political parties to be seen as agreeing on controversial issues so they will take contrary positions out of political expediency even if the party leaders do actually want to move in the same direction) or the better course that is to ignore political parties altogether and support the side of the issue one finds preferable.

 

[Albion]

To be completely fair, it is possible to have a third party simply to press for a particular issue without any expectation of gaining enough power to actually govern. We have had such as that earlier in our history.