Its true, our current system of military bases overseas more reflects a cold war stance than it does the current world reality. We really only need our base in Turkey overseas. A mega-base in say, Florida, would mean only about a 6 hour difference in deployment of troops to the Middle East, for example. In the First Gulf War we were avle to deploy troops straight from Germany, now apparently, we can't do this, thanks to George Jr.'s heavy handed tactics this time around, so what's the point?

Brue also has a good comment. A military base means beaucoup bucks for local economies. Why not have our troops spend their dollars in the US economy versus in some foreign nation? I would bet, too, that we must be paying foreign governments something for the use of the land on which are bases are now situated, so there would be a savings there, as well.

I see Kerry has already started playing politics with this...

yeah - i saw that. it was his speech to the vfw.

yes, we can get the troops there fairly quickly but the equipment and supplies would have to go by ship and some port near the action. That can take weeks or in cases of large deployments, months. :(

I imagine it would all depend on the type of engagement being fought. And no matter where your base is, doesn't everything ultimately have to come from stateside anyhow?

Looks like they over sold the Stryker as well.

Sure, but the difference is response time. The US has equipment and spare parts stashed all over the world to cut that time down. Maybe the best solution is not sending our soldiers all over the world. :)

Oh, pooh! You're no fun. ;)