Initiate plans to phase out the presence of a standing army in foreign lands. In terms of overseas deployments, there were over 228,390 U.S. military personnel stationed in foreign countries as of September 2023, 168,571 of which were active-duty troops. The perils of prolonged military occupation and the presence of a standing army in foreign lands have been well-documented throughout history. Fr

The Argument

Initiate plans to phase out the presence of a standing army in foreign lands. In terms of overseas deployments, there were over 228,390 U.S. military personnel stationed in foreign countries as of September 2023, 168,571 of which were active-duty troops. The perils of prolonged military occupation and the presence of a standing army in foreign lands have been well-documented throughout history. From the Roman Empire’s struggles to maintain control over its vast territories to the challenges faced by modern superpowers in their interventions abroad, the costs and consequences of such endeavors have often proven to be substantial. This idea reflects the American constitutional tradition of avoiding a permanent standing army, rooted in the founders’ mistrust of large military forces due to their potential for corruption and tyranny. This principle is compromised when the United States establishes and maintains standing armies in other nations. The presence of these forces can foster dependency, create local resentment, and entangle the U.S. in foreign conflicts, undermining its commitment to a limited and controlled military establishment. Additionally, the corruptive influences that the founders feared domestically are merely transplanted abroad, perpetuating cycles of instability and erosion of the host nation’s sovereignty, which ultimately conflicts with the foundational values of American constitutionalism. The military-industrial complex is emboldened by the U.S. maintaining a large standing army in other nations in several ways: The need to support and supply a large standing army abroad necessitates significant defense spending. This leads to lucrative contracts for defense contractors, thereby fueling the growth and influence of the military-industrial complex. A permanent military presence overseas creates a continuous demand for a wide range of military goods and services, from advanced weaponry to logistical support. This sustained demand benefits defense companies and contractors, encouraging further investment in military infrastructure and technology. The financial interests of the military-industrial complex often translate into political influence. Companies within this complex lobby for policies that support maintaining and expanding military operations abroad, ensuring a steady stream of government contracts and funding. The presence of U.S. troops in foreign nations provides a justification for the continued expansion of military capabilities and infrastructure. This, in turn, leads to increased budgets and further entrenchment of the military-industrial complex within the national economy and political system. Keeping a large standing army in other countries normalizes military engagement and intervention as standard practice. This normalization supports the narrative that a strong, pervasive military presence is essential for national security, thereby reinforcing the role and power of the military-industrial complex. Regions and communities that benefit economically from military bases and related industries become advocates for maintaining these presences. This creates a cycle where local economies become dependent on military spending, further entrenching the military-industrial complex. In summary, the maintenance of a large standing army in other nations provides the military-industrial complex with financial incentives, political influence, and a continual justification for expansion, thereby reinforcing its power and entrenchment in U.S. policy and society. 99 HOW SHOULD WE ENSURE THESE FOREIGN MISCHIEFS ARE MINIMIZED?