Editor,
I mostly agree with William Bolt's letter published in the Daily Lobo on Thursday in support of Rep. Ron Paul for president.
To be honest, I like Paul a lot, and if not for his stance on the military, he might have my vote. However, closing all foreign military bases is a very bad idea. The bases are there so we have access to strategic world positions in case of war or international crises.
And as nice as it might be, getting rid of the bases does not get rid of war. It might limit the U.S.'s ability to wage war, but such a thing would not prevent war from happening.
Imagine a situation where U.S. military presence might be beneficial, such as in Darfur. If we decide to be there, we could do so in a ridiculously short time with our strategic bases intact. Also, there are thousands of military personnel living, working and relying on bases worldwide.
If people are interested in reforming war policy, we should perhaps reconsider how we're using the bases, but not close them altogether. Doing so would limit the expeditionary prowess that certain branches of our military possess, making us vulnerable to attack.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Closing the bases will not undo 50 or more years of arguably regrettable foreign policy. So, the bases need to remain open in the interest of domestic and global security.
Ashley Brooks
UNM student
