How many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

Do you know how many soldiers the USA currently has on foreign soil?

  1. 50,000 in 25 countries.

    1 vote(s)
    5.3%
  2. 100,000 in 50 countries.

    2 vote(s)
    10.5%
  3. 200,000 in 100 countries.

    5 vote(s)
    26.3%
  4. 400,000 in 135 countries.

    11 vote(s)
    57.9%
  1. jcsd
  2. GENIERE

    GENIERE 288
    Science Advisor

    Not as many as China has in Tibet.
     
  3. Incorrect.
     
  4. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    I thought we discussed this once before. Anyway, the US has a large number of troops in the Gulf and large permanent bases in Germany. The vast majority of our foreign deployed troops are in those two areas. The vast majority of countries that have US troops stationed in them have only a small Marine Corps detachment at the US Embassy (shall I argue that if they are at the embassy, they're not actually in the country? ....naaa, I'll let that one go).
     
  5. The top scores, according to the US military's "ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL STRENGTHS BY REGIONAL AREA AND BY COUNTRY (309A)
    December 31, 2002"
    :

    Europe: 117,401
    East Asia & Pacific: 96,289
    North Africa: 13,697
    Cuba & Honduras: 1,060

    Total in foreign counties: 237,473.
    The US recognises 192 countries, and has personnel posted in 135 of them.
    237,473 divided by 135: 1,759 military personnel per country.

    South Korea has only 38,725.
    Germany has 72,000.

    Since this report there have been a further 150,000 to 200,000 troops deployed on foreign soil.
     
  6. Yes, let's mix in Iraq and AFghanistan in a post that is blatently aimed towards you complaining of New world order, US imperialism, or PNAC. No difference between people deployed in Germany and those that are being rotated through Iraq :rolleyes:
     
  7. Rather interesting that the U.S. still has many stationed troops in Europe even though the threat of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact is gone. I guess they are doing their allies a favor so they dont have to pay for their own defense.
     

  8. This has been discussed bu Rumsfeld, and while everyone seems to think it's so bad that our troops are in Germany, the Germans aren't ready for us to move out (economic collapse of two cities during a recession). It's a politically sensitive situation, but I'm happy to have them move on to where they are more needed
     
  9. Discussed by Rumsfeld? It must make sense. Germany is where US casualties in Iraq usually end up. It's a no-go for reporters now days. I like this part though:
    What's wrong with summarizing US troop deployments worldwide? So we can face the truth about how weakened our military has become because of un-planned overextention in Iraq. Not budgeted either. This is an extremely reckless act that has resulted in high casualties for Iraqis and US soldiers as well as mercenaries. Mercenaries are hired to hide the true cost in American human lives.
     
  10. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Hey, I didn't notice that before. Musta just come in after the software upgrade. That emoticon has been sorely needed around here.
    Actually, it goes far beyond even that. We aren't closing the bases in Germany for the same reason we have so much trouble closing bases here: it'll destroy the local economy.
    Mercenaries?


    typo fixed
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2004
  11. Tsu

    Tsu 638
    Gold Member

    Mercenaries. (No such word as 'mercinaries' - at least that my dictionary says)
     
  12. Why do you assume I am distressed?
     
  13. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    Historical precedent.
     
  14. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    I should have answered this one before:
    I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before (if not here, I've had it other places). The purpose of the stats is shock value and the natural next question (from the person shocked) is: 'why do we need so many troops in so many places?' The answer is far more mundane than the initial poster would prefer.
     

  15. Adam has taken to ignoring all those that dare try to expose the intent of this thread, or wish to debate it. We're on page 2, and yet there is no real point made, and thus I fully agree with your synopsis of the situation :)
     
  16. Interesting idea. Can you support this assertion?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?