If they don't live on base, they will of course need jobs, which would be very much true for those in the national guard/reserves
Look at history. After WWII we had loads of people come home but none of the problems people fear. The economy actually thrived as the government cut down spending and stopped crowding out the private sector.
Also, do we have the capacity to keep all of these troops at home, or would some need to be discharged
Well, I sure hope we don't keep an army much larger than is needed. Otherwise we retain much of the spending. And pointless spending too.
would contracts make this impossible?
Employers may fire their employees, I think.
how we can support them all
How do we currently support them all?
Here is the breakdown of the possibilities:
1) The troops don't come home. They take X amount of money to feed + Y amount of money for weapons and have 0 productivity.
2) The troops come home, they still take X amount of money to feed (now in the hands of the private market) but we now don't waste the Y amount of money for weapons. Also, the troops now have a high productivity.
Your choice:
1) X + Y money for 0 productivity
2) X money for high productivity
The idea is simple, as the other posters pointed out. Who is paying all those troops' salaries right now? You and I. At the exact moment a soldier loses his soldier job, we stop paying him. So we have money freed to hire him in a civilian capacity.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
As the gentleperson above me stated, they are paid by tax revenues. Tax revenues are taken from citizens, so it is money they do not have to spend. If you free that money for private cititzens to spend, then you have created wealth to pay them in a private capacity.
I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are worried about the amount of available work in the private sector to accomodate the influx of workers. While their certainly would be a period of adjustment, there is no limit to the size of the private sector other than what government places on it. As someone... somewhere once pointed out, if everyone can think of two things in their daily life that you need other people to do, then you have twice the amount available work as their are people on this earth. It's a simple but elegant thought... only not the way I worded it, because I tend to be complex and inelegant.
Is anyone else worried not about whether veterans will find jobs in the marketplace, but that they might be disgruntled and become violent domestically? I hate to bring it up, but war sometimes make someone entirely unsuitable for involvement in anything outside the battlefield.
Didn't seem to be a problem after the world wars.
WW1 and WW2 also had (most of) their war time market regulations removed after the hostilites ended.
Don't get me wrong. I have no doubts that the market would be able to absord more workers if it were free. My doubt is what happens when veterans return home, but there hasn't been a corresponding liberalization of the marketplace. Seeing as the military is playing around in Uganda, Libya, Iran, central asia, amongst other places, I have my doubts we're going to see this liberalization.
Even under Ron Paul's desire to end all current wars and remove personnel located on foreign soil there would be a military cultural/strategic argument that would have to be resolved.
First, in the way wars are fought today as opposed to the past, there's a lot move emphasis on mobility and response time. This is the doctrine of projection of power, and if the military is to continue this doctrine, it requires forward bases to support any kind of military action. This is where things get sticky when talking about returning all military personnel back the US. So for a real force withdrawal, this doctrine must be eliminated from US military strategy.
Essentially, the theater of operations would be reduced to the international borders of the US plus the distance force may be projected without requiring support bases. A Ron Paul military would probably require more tankers for the US Air Force, and more support capabilities like fuel and resources for the Navy since they would be vulnerable at foreign ports. So there is an offset to whatever savings that might come from reducing the foreign bases. Assuming that we're not talking about restricting the US military from entering international waters or air space - something that would indeed be deemed to be isolationism. I believe military would have the duty to protect US ships in international waters or US airliners in international air space. Otherwise, why have a military at all?
Now the size and structure of the military would most definitely change. You'd probably see much fewer active duty personnel, with the bulk of the force being reserves. You can probably eliminate a significant number of personnel who are mainly administrators (part of the problem with having a large active duty force is that jobs are created just to keep the numbers up and to keep people busy). There would be an enormous amount of political pressure on which bases, and therefore, which states get to keep the "jobs". More BRAC actions would most likely be required, reducing the number of bases since a lot of the work done at some of these bases support foreign activities. Going to be a refocus on what it means to have "national" defense.
The costs associated to closing foreign bases won't be relieved immediately. It would be years before any savings would materialize because of the costs associated with closing down a base and whatever agreements are in place with the host nation. And I wouldn't necessarily assume that just by closing these bases that you'd see a reduction in taxes. Government tends to spend money even when it proposes cutting spending. Some will argue that the unspent tax dollars must go towards paying off the national debt. So the money not spent on military personnel won't necessarily go back to communities for anyone's benefit.
That's not to say it shouldn't be done, just that the benefits won't be immediate - other than getting folks (both US military and those in the nations they occupy) from getting killed. There will be some chaos as the world adjusts from malinvestment over the past 60+ years. Nations will now have to defend themselves. There will be internal conflicts, revolutions, wars, etc. that up to this point the US has manipulated one side against another. Socialist states and dictatorships propped up by US foreign policy, military and money will likely fall. Guess we'll see the true amount of distortion cause through US intervention - some bad, but some probably good.
As for adjustments. I'm sure there'll be a transition plan over a number of years. First to come home would be those at war or occupying hostile/nonstrategic territory. There would be an expected build up of forces by the host nations - to do less would really be a disservice. I would image sales of existing US equipment and arms to those host nations would be suitable and would help in the transition.
I don't think the conditions now are the same as they were for WWII. First, at the end of the war America benefitted in the world-wide destruction of manufacturing capital. They had already ramped up production on military goods, which required retooling rather than building from scratch. They were quick to retool and refocus on new markets worldwide. Today this is just not the case.
Second, government controls on industry after WWII were relieved which allowed for the market to operate more freely. Today the restrictions on the free market are severe.
Third, while the costs of WWII were high ($226.45 billion), the portion of federal revenues were also high. After the war, the amount of revenue decreased which provided more for the private sector and drove the economy toward a massive growth period. Today you're not very likely to have this sort of rebound just by pulling back the military spending. The debt is too big and the pressure to tax the rich and even seize property (401K, savings, etc) seems to be growing from the inumerous masses of economically ignorant.
Fourth, culturally it was the time of the nuclear family. Prior to WWII multiple families (grandparents, parents and even children) tended to live together in one residence for economic benefit and support. After WWII it became the thing for single families to have their own home, a car, a TV, etc. all with only one income. This was viewed as "normal", and actually caused a whole generation of baby boomers to become really screwed up, but that's another story. This more independent living gave rise to a lot more demand - whether or not they really "needed" all of these products is irrelevant. Today the "normal" is either two working parents or a single parent situation. People are starting to downsize more, moving back in with parents and grandparents. This cultural change drives down demand for the products many were wanting in the 50's. In fact, there's been such an oversaturation of products and "toys" that people are beginning to re-evalute their wants and needs. I don't expect there would be a signifcant change in demand just because the military personnel return to the US.
I believe to see the kind of rebound witnessed post WWII it would take the complete and total elimination of the US Federal Government and all of its ancillary entities (like the Fed). There's just too much debt, too much spending to recover from.
In addition, now as opposed to then, the level of revenue and spending at the state and local level is to a point where you'd probably have to see a number of these governments collapse too.
Bring the troops home?
I think they should all be abandoned where they are. Let them get home on their own dime!
Let them get home on their own dime!
I am sure the American public would definitely willingly fund their return even without taxes. Of course, it would cause a furor.
I would not reccommend that. They would rape, kill, pillage, and burn the long way home. What would they eat? Babies. This is standard operating procedure when abandoned behind enemy lines.
There's no land path to home. They would need some sort of ship/air plane anyway. I am sure the public would pay for their passage.
Thats what all the killing is for. A land bridge of corpses. There are documentary/quick reference tattoos of this very outcome, actually.