I recently read an article that quoted the cost of supplying our troops in Afghanistan and was shocked by the monetary cost, and the amount of political capital we expend just to be allowed to transport supplies through the “stans”.

Another article I read lamented the “fact” that if we bring our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq there will be that many more unemployed to deal with in the USA. Well, that “fact” is total fallacy because the enlistments of the troops don’t end when they cross into the USA. In fact, many are professionals that will stay in regardless – and well they should. We need to be building up our troop strength to be ready to push back at Russia and China in the future if necessary. Although we must quit being the world’s “peace enforcement officers”, we must remain the world’s Superpower. We can afford to remain a Superpower if the bulk of our troops are at home spending their money on housing, and, at stores and restaurants in the USA instead of costing billions to resupply in Afghanistan and Iraq – as well as the many other places they are “keeping the peace” in that have fallen off the media radar. Those billions go to foreign governments and assorted criminal groups that control the resupply routes we use so add nothing to our economy.

So, what is the answer? Well, if we bring our troops home and station them along our borders, we bring the payroll of a couple hundred thousand people to the areas in which they will be stationed. We would need new infrastructure in the less built up areas along the borders which would provide some “shovel ready jobs” that have thus far been elusive. The contractors doing the work would be competitively bidding locals – not the much maligned (and to some extent misunderstood) big overseas contractors so many liberals love to hate. The troops and their families would fill some vacant apartments and buy some foreclosed houses.

Just a thought, but maybe a start?

Greg