Will Trump Bring the Troops Home From Syria and Afghanistan?
by John Lawrence, February 7, 2019
Short answer: NO! It's a meaningless question. The troops have never come home from any war the US has fought. There are still 35,116 military troops in Germany, 54,281 troops in Japan, 25,813 troops in Korea and 5,200 in Iraq. More importantly, the US has invested billions in real estate in these and other countries in the form of military bases such as Bagram AFB in Iraq and al-Asad base in Syria. There are also 36 bases in Germany, 23 in Japan, 15 bases in Korea and 12 bases in Iraq. The US has invested billions in infrastructure in other countries while neglecting its own infrastructure. It doesn't want to just abandon these bases so there will never be a complete troop withdrawal from any of these countries. The US has effectively colonized certain parts of every country it has ever been at war with in addition to the hundreds of other military bases in countries which are considered our allies.
Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad—from giant “Little Americas” to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined as of 2015. Maintaining bases and troops overseas cost $85 to $100 billion in fiscal year 2014; the total with bases and troops in war zones is $160 to $200 billion. These hundreds of billions of dollars could be spent on building and maintaining US infrastructure, converting to renewable energy, subsidizing electric vehicles and ameliorating climate change.
On the other hand China is investing in infrastructure in other countries with its Belt and Road initiative. Instead of investing in military bases, China is investing in ports, railroads, shipping infrastructure, airports and raw materials. This is not a giveaway. China is loaning these nations who are the recipients the money while building with Chinese expertise and manpower. While China will reap the rewards of increased trade with these countries, they will also have an income stream of repayments on their loans coming back to them. It's a win-win for China and the recipient countries and a lose-lose for the money drain that US bases in foreign countries represents.
Case in point: Over the past decade, Venezuela received over $62 billion from China, which is 53 percent of all money lent by China to Latin America. China currently owns $23 billion worth of Venezuela's foreign debt, making it the country's biggest creditor. China needs Venezuela's oil and is willing to pay for it. But here's the rub. The US wants the current Venezuelan President Maduro out, but China wants him to stay in. The US wants a regime in Venezuela that is not "socialist." It doesn't have a problem with the socialist regimes in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, however. Basically, it doesn't want regimes around the world that shout "Death to America" and "Yanqui Go Home." Maybe if these countries changed their rhetoric, we could all get along. But privatizing Venezuela's oil industry would leave China out in the cold with a potential loss of its sizable investment.
So will the US confront China over Venezuela? Will a US backed Venezuelan regime privatize Venezuela's oil industry? Will China fight to retain its $62 billion investment in Venezuela's nationalized oil industry? God only knows. Let's see how this plays out.