Military bases

I am not sure whether we spend enough or not, but we generally end up spending too much of what we do spend, particularly in areas with little or no significant population growth, on new infrastructure for people and businesses who choose to relocate, while neglecting the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Then, of course, the cycle repeats itself.

We probably spend too much on the military (we probably just spend too much in general) and, of course, those expenditures become important to U.S. localities and many become dependent on them just as individuals become dependent on entitlement programs. And the economic benefits are also one of the same reasons (though a more sensible one), many countries are willing to host American bases. Of course, many people in those countries as well as neighboring countries oppose those bases. While it is arguable that bases are needed outside of the U.S., it becomes a little more difficult to argue that 700+ are needed. Supposedly, there is going to be a redeployment of many of the 200,000 troops on those bases, possibly leading to the elimination of some of them. But it appears that we are adding bases in other areas like Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikstan, which has, of course, made Russia very happy. Imagine if Russia had bases in Mexico or Cuba (oh, yeah, they sort of tried that once). Anyway, unless we, as a nation decide that our military role is much more limited than the current and past administrations have believed, there will be little change in our military spending. And of course, if the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war continues to be our modus operandi, the military budget will continue to rise, and even more local economies will be dependent upon it.