Letter: Billions spent overseas would be better spent at home

I watched the Republican presidential debate on Dec. 15. The discussion centered around national security (ISIS) and immigration.

Yes, Americans are concerned with national security, but it seems to me more are concerned with improving wages and job opportunities, affordable medical coverage for themselves and their families, educational opportunity without amassing huge student debt, climate change and environmental issues, and gun control — issues most Republican candidates seem reluctant to discuss.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, perhaps less is better — less intervention in other countries’ governmental affairs. If there is an issue of human abuse or threat to world peace, then the U.S. should intervene as a member of the United Nations and act collectively, not alone. Most of the Republican candidates advocate the war hawk approach.

I don’t remember the U.S. being elected world policeman, whereby we put our military men and women in harm’s way and spend billions of dollars.

I wonder why we still have military bases in Japan, Germany, Italy, and Spain. What if we diverted some of the billions of dollars spent overseas and used it to improve national infrastructure, job training and education.

Just asking.

This story was originally published January 3, 2016 at 7:57 PM with the headline "Letter: Billions spent overseas would be better spent at home."