One could also ask “The Federal Reserve has banks scattered across the nation. To what end?” Perhaps because it makes sense, just as having naval forces deployed worldwide makes military sense.
Maybe a better question is, “Why does the US still have 35,000 troops in Germany more than 3/4 century after WWII ended?” Shouldn’t Europe, with a larger population than the US, provide from its own security?” Of course that would mean having to divert a portion of their budgets from social programs (free this and that) to defense spending (which is so mean).
But with regard to the original question:
“The U.S. maintains fleets around the world to protect national interests, reassure allies, and deter potential threats. These deployments help maintain global stability and support international commerce.”
— defensepriorities.org
I can imagine a certain party’s snarkiness coming to the surface about “maintain global security and support international commerce”. Let’s put it this way:
Senator John Fetterman https://x.com/SenFettermanPA/status/2028482183065653587
“Every member in the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why so many are unwilling to support the only action to achieve that. Empty sloganeering vs. commitment to global security — which is it?”
Fram oil filters, actually, Bruce. And, as one might expect, you’re wrong about everything else, too.
Working from the bottom up: Every member of the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Syria to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why…
Every member of the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow the Kurdish separatists to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why…
Every member of the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why…
Iran was nowhere near being able to make 11 nuclear bombs in weeks, months, or even years, and they weren’t even trying. Major alarmist stupid from the well-known looney tunes people at the Times of India. You and that fool Fetterman are both baffled, sheesh. Complete lack of critical thinking skills, I suspect.
The reason the U.S. has 35,000 troops in Germany has always been as a SIGNAL to the USSR / Russia that we were going to go to war with them if they invaded. I thought everybody knew that, apparently not. The extra cost is pretty much paid for by Germany (over $1 billion over the last 10 years) so it won’t really save us any significant $ to bring them home, and it will save Germany a lot of $ if we do. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-cutting-american-forces-in-germany-will-harm-this-alliance/ for more information.
And as for the “original question” – blanket pablum from defensepriorities hardly explains why we have a carrier group north of the Falklands or near Sumatra. Maybe to prep for attacking Argentina and Indonesia so they don’t get 11 nuclear weapons each in June? There’s about as much actual evidence of that as there was of Iran getting 11 nuclear weapons “in weeks”, after all, so let’s go!!!
“And as for the “original question” – blanket pablum from defensepriorities hardly explains why we have a carrier group north of the Falklands or near Sumatra.”
Ah, you’ve highlighted the difference between analysis and rhetoric, between understanding and apologetics. Menzie asks questions and Brucie links to whatever is handy, pretending he has made the question go away. It’s pretty much all Brucie ever does.
Analysis, real analysis, is what it seems to be. Rhetorical trickery always pretends to be something other than what it is. That’s why it’s so easy to knock Brucie’s arguments down.
One thing Bruce does, is to provide a summary of the right wing idiocies that float around at Faux news sites. That way we don’t have to give them the clicks in order to figure out what the Trump cult members are being feed at any given moment.
Bruce Hall You don’t know what you’re talking about. The US does not have any permanently stationed divisions in Germany. Those 35K troops are mostly part of the forward deployed support activities as well as brigade level units that use Germany as part of regular rotational training. We also have FSAs in Poland, the Baltics and Romania. In other words, these are mostly logistical support troops, not to mention medical and air bases. We also have a logistics hub at Livorno, Italy that supports war reserve stocks and prepositioned ship afloat. Those troops in Europe also logistically support warfighters in the Middle East. As far as rotational units go, the 173rd Airborne Brigade is a good example of how those troops are used for lots of missions. The 173rd was the “go to” unit for joint training with the Baltic countries, but it also fought in the Iraq and Afghanistan. It was one of those units that the US Army liked to highlight in issues of Army Times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Airborne_Brigade
Bottom line: those 35K troops not only serve to deter Putin, but primarily they are used to provide logistical support for troops in the Middle East. Fun Fact: In the Army’s logistics system Iraq was coded “ED” for European Desert.
of course Europe should provide for its own security. and they do. they also serve as a first line of defense against unstable nations such as russia. but if russia overruns europe then the usa has a problem on its hands. isn’t it better to let the battle occur overseas rather than at our doorstep, bruce? i am not sure how a weaker nato is beneficial to the usa.
and if you want to stop iran from having nuclear weapons, i am not opposed. but it seems as though the usa went into this war without a plan. we seem to have some very poor decision making coming from the top of command. or do you believe trump is playing three dimensional chess? snarkiness intended.
nukesWe had stoped Iran from gaving nukes. Obama signed on to the deal, and the ar-criminal-in-chief abrogated the deal because overturning Obama’s accomplishments was his only real plan in his first term. His excuse for attacking Iran now is that his ego-driven effort to belittle out black president backfired.
USS Nimitz covering Milei for the Falklands/Malvinas?
One could also ask “The Federal Reserve has banks scattered across the nation. To what end?” Perhaps because it makes sense, just as having naval forces deployed worldwide makes military sense.
Maybe a better question is, “Why does the US still have 35,000 troops in Germany more than 3/4 century after WWII ended?” Shouldn’t Europe, with a larger population than the US, provide from its own security?” Of course that would mean having to divert a portion of their budgets from social programs (free this and that) to defense spending (which is so mean).
But with regard to the original question:
“The U.S. maintains fleets around the world to protect national interests, reassure allies, and deter potential threats. These deployments help maintain global stability and support international commerce.”
— defensepriorities.org
I can imagine a certain party’s snarkiness coming to the surface about “maintain global security and support international commerce”. Let’s put it this way:
Senator John Fetterman
https://x.com/SenFettermanPA/status/2028482183065653587
“Every member in the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why so many are unwilling to support the only action to achieve that. Empty sloganeering vs. commitment to global security — which is it?”
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/iran-can-make-11-nuclear-bombs-in-weeks-trump-weighs-ground-strike-to-confiscate-uranium/vi-AA1XM3lo
Like the very old Maytag commercial: You can pay me now or pay me later.
Fram oil filters, actually, Bruce. And, as one might expect, you’re wrong about everything else, too.
Working from the bottom up: Every member of the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow Syria to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why…
Every member of the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow the Kurdish separatists to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why…
Every member of the U.S. Senate agrees we cannot allow the Rapid Support Forces in Sudan to acquire a nuclear weapon. I’m baffled why…
Iran was nowhere near being able to make 11 nuclear bombs in weeks, months, or even years, and they weren’t even trying. Major alarmist stupid from the well-known looney tunes people at the Times of India. You and that fool Fetterman are both baffled, sheesh. Complete lack of critical thinking skills, I suspect.
The reason the U.S. has 35,000 troops in Germany has always been as a SIGNAL to the USSR / Russia that we were going to go to war with them if they invaded. I thought everybody knew that, apparently not. The extra cost is pretty much paid for by Germany (over $1 billion over the last 10 years) so it won’t really save us any significant $ to bring them home, and it will save Germany a lot of $ if we do. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-cutting-american-forces-in-germany-will-harm-this-alliance/ for more information.
And as for the “original question” – blanket pablum from defensepriorities hardly explains why we have a carrier group north of the Falklands or near Sumatra. Maybe to prep for attacking Argentina and Indonesia so they don’t get 11 nuclear weapons each in June? There’s about as much actual evidence of that as there was of Iran getting 11 nuclear weapons “in weeks”, after all, so let’s go!!!
Thanks for handling this. Have to maintain standards, after all.
“And as for the “original question” – blanket pablum from defensepriorities hardly explains why we have a carrier group north of the Falklands or near Sumatra.”
Ah, you’ve highlighted the difference between analysis and rhetoric, between understanding and apologetics. Menzie asks questions and Brucie links to whatever is handy, pretending he has made the question go away. It’s pretty much all Brucie ever does.
Analysis, real analysis, is what it seems to be. Rhetorical trickery always pretends to be something other than what it is. That’s why it’s so easy to knock Brucie’s arguments down.
One thing Bruce does, is to provide a summary of the right wing idiocies that float around at Faux news sites. That way we don’t have to give them the clicks in order to figure out what the Trump cult members are being feed at any given moment.
Bruce Hall You don’t know what you’re talking about. The US does not have any permanently stationed divisions in Germany. Those 35K troops are mostly part of the forward deployed support activities as well as brigade level units that use Germany as part of regular rotational training. We also have FSAs in Poland, the Baltics and Romania. In other words, these are mostly logistical support troops, not to mention medical and air bases. We also have a logistics hub at Livorno, Italy that supports war reserve stocks and prepositioned ship afloat. Those troops in Europe also logistically support warfighters in the Middle East. As far as rotational units go, the 173rd Airborne Brigade is a good example of how those troops are used for lots of missions. The 173rd was the “go to” unit for joint training with the Baltic countries, but it also fought in the Iraq and Afghanistan. It was one of those units that the US Army liked to highlight in issues of Army Times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/173rd_Airborne_Brigade
Bottom line: those 35K troops not only serve to deter Putin, but primarily they are used to provide logistical support for troops in the Middle East. Fun Fact: In the Army’s logistics system Iraq was coded “ED” for European Desert.
of course Europe should provide for its own security. and they do. they also serve as a first line of defense against unstable nations such as russia. but if russia overruns europe then the usa has a problem on its hands. isn’t it better to let the battle occur overseas rather than at our doorstep, bruce? i am not sure how a weaker nato is beneficial to the usa.
and if you want to stop iran from having nuclear weapons, i am not opposed. but it seems as though the usa went into this war without a plan. we seem to have some very poor decision making coming from the top of command. or do you believe trump is playing three dimensional chess? snarkiness intended.
nukesWe had stoped Iran from gaving nukes. Obama signed on to the deal, and the ar-criminal-in-chief abrogated the deal because overturning Obama’s accomplishments was his only real plan in his first term. His excuse for attacking Iran now is that his ego-driven effort to belittle out black president backfired.