Every Memorial Day, when we honor the soldiers who have
sacrificed so much for the greater cause of liberty, I think about
Uncle B.
My grandmother's brother served in Europe during World War II. I
remember him playing Chinese checkers with us kids in the 1970s,
not knowing then that he was almost incapable of relating to anyone
older. Physically whole, Uncle B suffered from the quiet disease we
used to call "shell shock."
The military today makes great efforts to help veteran troops deal
with the transition away from the heavy psychological burden of
combat. Sadly, not all vets can escape the nightmares, the memories
and the doubts. A recurring question haunts: After so many have
died, and have killed, did we really help the world?
It's a question that touches on today's deployments. Calling for
accelerated disengagement from Iraq, Sen. Ted Kennedy has asserted,
"The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not
part of the solution." Those are painful words for a solider to
hear. They echo the anti-military sentiments of many 1960s
protestors, and they resonate with many who see America as just
another empire. And they are wrong.
Surprisingly, there has never been a detailed study that looked at
troop levels across countries and measured them against objective
achievements. But using new troop deployment data compiled by The
Heritage Foundation, we can see a clear relationship between
economic growth and American engagement.
The U.S. presence has been overwhelming. Some 87 countries hosted
more than 1,000 American troops during 1950-2000, and 54 different
countries hosted that many during a single year. Nearly one in four
GIs were stationed on foreign soil during the typical year, and
with a 27 percent deployment rate, 2005 is a typical year.
In a study I am conducting with Dr. Garett Jones of Southern
Illinois University, troop deployments correlate with the economic
growth in the broadest possible sample of countries. Countries with
high U.S. troop presence during 1950-2000 had GDP per capita levels
in 2000 that were nearly double the world average, while the 50
countries hosting the fewest U.S. troops had income levels that
were roughly half the world average.
Even when other variables that explain growth rates are accounted
for, the presence of half a million American troops over 50 years
(e.g. 10,000 per year) increases growth by a full percentage point
per year. Importantly, the duration of U.S. presence seems to have
an important relationship with growth as well. The finding is a
strong refutation of anti-military arguments that assert harm is
inflicted by the presence of U.S. troops.
The reconstruction successes of Japan and German are well known,
but the tremendous economic growth rates enjoyed by South Korea,
Taiwan, Singapore, France, Italy and Turkey, to name a few, are
less celebrated. Yet they are the beneficiaries of the
American-secured peace in Asia and Europe during the Cold War. If
past is prologue, investing in alliances with Iraq, Afghanistan,
Qatar and other Middle Eastern states will reap rewards not just
for peace and democracy, but for prosperity as well.
I cannot imagine a more fitting memorial to our fallen American
soldiers than proof that their sacrifices to create a better world
has not been in vain. That is the legacy of the last century across
the Earth. We may be too close to see it now, but history hundreds
of years hence will remember those warriors who provided comfort
instead of revenge, and prosperity instead of exploitation.
Tim Kane is a research fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. He is a veteran Air Force intelligence officer, and former San Diego software entrepreneur.
Distributed Nationally on the Knight-Ridder Tribune wire