Defense spending a hot topic

"We have fought in every clime and place where we could take a gun," boasts the Marine Corps hymn.\nRight now U.S. military units are stationed all over the world. For eight years, the Clinton administration has stationed American soldiers throughout the world and used military force in "humanitarian" missions, like interventions in Kosovo, Haiti and Somalia. \nDuring the presidential campaign, the role of the military and the readiness of U.S. forces have been hotly contested.\n"We must always have the will to defend our enduring interests and values -- from Europe, to the Middle East, to Africa and Asia, and in our own hemisphere," Vice President Al Gore said in a Sept. 12 speech to the National Guard Association.\nThroughout the presidential debates, Texas Gov. George W. Bush has voiced disapproval of humanitarian missions, saying it's the duty of the military to "fight and win wars." He said the military should only be used "where our interests are at stake."\nHistory professor Nick Cullather, who teaches classes on the Vietnam War and World War II, said the United States keeps troops overseas because "that's where the wars are" and the U.S. military is unique in the world as a force used to "project power," rather than "quell revolutionary violence at home.\n"Instances of straightforward aggression like the invasion of Kuwait are likely to be few in number in the future." Cullather said. "Most deployments will be in response to civil wars and genocidal events such as those in Rwanda, Timor, Kosovo, Haiti, Bosnia, etc."\nPolitical science professor Leroy Rieselbach said the collapse of the Soviet Union is the main reason for debate about the military purpose. He said this has given rise to the question "What should the military be doing now?\n"Nobody professes to be an isolationist anymore," Rieselbach said. "The question is not so much whether we will be involved with the rest of the world, we realize we have to be, but Bush is somewhat more cautious. He would be reluctant to do things like sending our troops to Haiti because he thinks nation building is not our responsibility."\nCullather acknowledges many problems in keeping troops overseas. He said every dollar spent in feeding, housing, clothing and entertaining troops overseas contributes to another country's economy rather than the United States'. \nHe also pointed to recent rapes allegedly committed by American soldiers in Okinawa and Bosnia as examples of the harm to international relations, which stationing troops overseas can cause.\nCullather said he doesn't think building a bigger military, an idea both candidates supported in the debates, is a valid option.\n"Large military forces aren't much use against terrorists and may only be targets for terror, as we saw in Yemen," he said. "Bush has made the claim that eight years of the Clinton administration has left a 'hollowed-out' military. This neglects a couple of questions, the first being 'compared to what?"