Reply #11: Germany wasn't an outside threat, the Soviets were

[kiahzero]

I always thought that German aggression was primarily a result of its later arrival on the stage as a major player in Europe, which consistently resulted in England and France trying to "squeeze them out". I also was under the impression that not too many Europeans who lived through WWII were too anxious to repeat the event of a major war playing out in their backyard.

You are correct that Europe did not want to repeat WWII. However, Soviet expansion meant that the Europe needed military protection... if Germany (the most logical place to check the USSR, geographically) built up a military, the tensions of the inter-War period would return.

As for the idea that Europe needed outside protection to develop into what it has become, it's not my thesis... it came from this article:
http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

Now, he's not a leftie by any stretch, according to the stuff I can see he's written for the Post, but that doesn't make his point any less cogent.

I also didn't realize that there were barbarian hoardes waiting to set sail for Okinawa, justifying our continued presence on that island despite the protestations of its populace.

If they want us gone, that's different... Germany, for instance, does not want us to pull all our troops out; they help out the economy.

However, it seems unlikely to me that the Japanese want us to pull all of our troops out - our military is essentially its only military defense.

Neither did I realize that those 38,000 troops in South Korea were playing any kind of meaningful role in stopping North Korean aggression -- unless you consider the fact that the whole damned South Korean military is still officially under AMERICAN control.

I don't know enough about Korea to speak on this, sorry.