I agree that the US military budget is currently out of control and should be reduced.  I would point out that until recent years many of our overseas military bases were established during World War II or the cold war and were very effective in countering Soviet and communist expansion.  One can argue the fine points of this, such as whether the Soviets would have invaded Western Europe, taken over Berlin, or remained a power to be reckoned with until this day had it not been for the US and Western European stance (Europe currently has about 2 million men and women under arms if my sources are correct) during those years.  However, it was the Western World's response to these perceived threats that necessitated US overseas troop basing.  Have they stayed too long in some locations and in numbers too large? Perhaps.  Do we really need bases in all of the former Eastern Bloc countries and Soviet republics? Maybe not. Have all the threats disappeared.  Definitely not. Is the best defense a stay at home military? Some will undoubtedly argue yes.  My personal opinion is that it is not, but in adopting this position I do not advocate wholesale establishment of US bases in every country that will accept them, nor do I endorse non-defensive military actions such as Iraq.

I do not question your comments about the ever increasing size of the military budget following WW II/Korea, but remember this was also the era of the Cold War and the arms race.  While the arms race can be seen as wasteful (I see it that way), the US saw itself forced into the race by the Soviet Union (SU).  Both nations spent large portions of their budgets on arms and other Cold War actions (the Soviets a much larger percentage). The greater peacetime increases have appeared since the Reagan era and dissolution of the SU and I, like yourself, find them difficult to justify .

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears