You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
The Hill Poll: Majority says military involved in too many places
2011-06-20
An overwhelming number of voters believe the United States is involved in too many foreign conflicts and should pull back its troops, according to a new poll conducted for The Hill.

Seventy-two percent of those polled said the United States is fighting in too many places, with only 16 percent saying the current level of engagement represented an appropriate level. Twelve percent said they weren't sure.

Voters also do not think having U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has made the country safer, according to the poll.

Thirty-seven percent said the continued presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan makes no impact on national security, while another 17 percent said it makes the United States less safe. By contrast, 36 percent said the United States is safer because forces are in Afghanistan.

The findings reflect a fatigue with war after a decade dominated by U.S. invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan that are now unwinding. War fatigue was also highlighted by House votes last month on Afghanistan in which more Republicans than ever before supported withdrawing U.S. troops immediately.
Not surprising and I saw this predicted here and on other blog sites. America will become more isolationist as it is broke and tired of a decade of constant war. A "fix our own home first" attitude is starting to take hold.
I think that's right. The real issue is where in this world does the U.S. need to be, and how do we help those who will help themselves to be free? It's in the long-term interest of the U.S. to promote freedom and personal liberty, but I'm a neo-con. We can't do everything but we can't retreat into our shell, either. The next president has to make clear what his/her ideas are in striking the right balance.
Posted by:DarthVader

#5  but the question is wthether they are essential, or just handy?

And thus we see why I'll never be made a general. :-). Good point, Anonymoose.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-06-20 22:31  

#4  tw: There are about 80 more deployments beyond that, that are not active, but either passive, unlikely "trigger" roles, support activities, foreign force training liaisons, or there for foreign policy reasons.

Like in Germany, with some 52,000 (77,917 military personnel are located in Europe); Japan with 35,700; 28,500 in SKor. We even have over 150 in Russia.

(All data decidedly open source.)

They do make an effort to have *some* involvement of these forces in ongoing conflicts, but the question is whether they are essential, or just handy?
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-06-20 18:56  

#3  Except for Iraq, Afghanistan, and that Libya nonsense, all the other places our people (Marines and Special Forces, I believe) have been -- the Maghreb, various quiet corners of the Middle East and Asia -- have enabled us to keep situations from becoming full-blown wars. I don't know,of course, but at a guess I'd say we have troops or CIA not-spies in about 20 countries, whether training, interdicting, or quietly tracking down people who fondly think themselves invisible.

If you know the answer, please do not tell me. Thank you. If you are the answer, just thank you for whatever you're doing, wherever you are doing it.



Posted by: trailing wife   2011-06-20 18:43  

#2  How many wars, mr president?

Fore!
Posted by: swksvolFF   2011-06-20 17:35  

#1   The next president has to make clear what his/her ideas are in striking the right balance.

Funny thing is, this president was supposed by 50%+ to have done that.
Posted by: Pollyandrew   2011-06-20 17:05  

00:00