Why are none of the candidates talking about "Bringing Home The Troops" ?

For the last couple cycles we have heard promises to end these conflicts and bring home the troops.

Yet we still have thousands of troops in Afghanistan and all over the middle east.

I haven't heard any candidate speak on the issue or even entertain an exit strategy.

Are we all just now committed to endless war and a juggernaut defense budget ?

a reply to: abe froman

because no one has ever brought home the troops since vietnam

They probably don't know how to address it and it would probably end their chances as long as to gov and msm is keeping the fear alive.

Most likely some marketing expert in some obscure room decided America don't want the troops back with ISIS, or simply others themes are more popular.

I got nothing against your troops I just started to feel some time ago marketing and pools are what motivate politicians to say something.

a reply to: abe froman

It's not even an option, republican candidates are talking about war on day 1.

Start more wars, economy keeps going for a few more years, the rich get more, and back home unemployment seems pretty low because everyone is out on deployment. What would they do with the troops if they brought them back?

Now if only they could get women added to the draft that would solve all the unemployment issues.

a reply to: abe froman

The GOP would have us in endless war and so will Clinton. Sanders is the only one I would say that wants to take us out of this weary cycle.

a reply to: abe froman

Well the last guy that brought them home hasn't heard the end of it. Now I would say they are worried about sounding like hypo cites but we know that isn't true.
I will admit that the Don has mentioned that once or twice, not sure if he really means it tho.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: abe froman

The GOP would have us in endless war and so will Clinton. Sanders is the only one I would say that wants to take us out of this weary cycle.

On those points, Swills, you and I are in complete agreement.

Here's the honest but boring reason. "Bringing the troops home" isn't a big enough priority for the majority of Americans. All powerful candidates have access to different polls, focus groups, and the such. The point of these is to find out what citizens are concerned about and to see how citizens will respond to different political policies. And unfortunately, bringing the troops home isn't a national priority right now.

This is one of the biggest reasons people should write their representatives and answer political surveys. They give you a chance to get your opinions heard in an official capacity. In political science (in the US), you're even taught that the responses from citizens (like letters & emails) should be taken very seriously. This is because of a theory that most people don't reach out to politicians about their complaints, so when someone does, other citizens must surely be feeling the same way.

Or to put it another way, many politicians know they're out of touch with many different demographics. So getting to hear directly from constituents serves as a great way for them to "reestablish" their ties to the communities they serve (or are pandering to). This is literally why special interest groups and lobbying firms can have such a large influence on politicians; because they supposedly represent large numbers of concerned community members from specific demographics.

TL;DR version: Not enough people seem to care about bringing the troops home. So if we can start some outrage, commotion, and other widespread talk about it, politicians will eventually address the issue. Until then, don't get your hopes up.

Relatively speaking the troops are home. Of course there are still some American military personnel actively engaged but it is a small number compared to a few years ago.

I believe that the conflicts in the Middle East are only in the first stages and America will maintain and expand its role there with troop levels ebbing and flowing for the next century or two. The ideal Middle East situation for the U.S. will necessarily take generations achieve. We are in the midst of a cultural clash the world hasn't seen since Europeans expanded through North America from 1500 to 1900. The end-game situation is either complete middle eastern assimilation to western culture or sharia law around the world. The number of troops abroad won't be decreasing much more than they already are in this lifetime.

a reply to: abe froman

Because currently all deployments are as advisors or backup rolls. There is no direct conflict Afghanistan has been declared over support troops remain meaning we aren't willing to give up the base we set up. Iraq just advisors. In Syria we are providing air support no troops again other than advisors. So in the broadest sense the deployments have ended. Obama actually did what he said and ended the wars though you could say he's about to start a new one in Syria but as you can see he's very reluctant to do so.

Because they are talking about sending them back.

Just an aside, 'endless war' means we're loosing.

Like every empire before it the US is trying desperately to subjugate ever more countries, drawing ever more resources in denial that conquering the world is somehow working.

a reply to: abe froman


Why are none of the candidates talking about "Bringing Home The Troops" ? - Good point.

perhaps its because they know Oboma said this and saying it a second time in a row just won't work.

Perhaps its because they know they can't because the forces behind the curtain are greater than them and they therefore know they just cant deliver that.

Perhaps its because they have no intention of doing so.

Because they dont want to lie to you....

You guys did not know that once there, we will never leave in our lifetime? The Oligarchy will NEVER allow it. If we quit warring, even less oil would be in demand.

Because they want the RAR RAR merika! Vote.

Neocons didnt just die out, they are still there hidden under different names....

a reply to: abe froman

Because Rand Paul dropped out.

a reply to: abe froman

Because politics is not truthful or for the good of humanity.

Strange really because most people regard it as such and give it undeserved credence.

WHat they actually mean: Lets bring these useful drones to home and make them useful here.