When was the last time the "people" were asked if they agree with the size of their country's army ?
EDIT: we agree to disagree but my impression is that when it comes to army and security services the tail is wagging the dog almost everywhere - not only in US. Any congressman can be presented with classified information which with the right interpretation can justify basically anything and the said congressman will simply ignore the public will.
How is this different than any other topic? People get asked their opinion on this every time they are asked to go to vote. Support candidate that aren't promoting an isolationist and/or world police agenda for example.
Just to close the loop on this and connect back to "the people":
Congress funds the military. The military funds large corporations. Large corporations fund congressional election campaigns. And "the people" base their votes off of campaigns.
Congress wants to fund the military, especially when their are bases in their own state. That means lots of dollars taken from elsewhere in the country and spent in their state.
In a defacto two party system with both parties agreeing in general that a large military is needed and see interventions to topple governments as a time honored tradition.
I think you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world. What would it look like if China, Russia, Iran and many others were unchecked and we let them do whatever they wanted...
Now, the current admin is cutting back on involvement. Some candidates call for more interventionism. That we’re retreating from “our duty” to be international police, essentially. So what is it?
In my opinion USA is the one that needs to be kept in check, being the self proclaimed world police has left only destruction in it's wake. Covert operations, intelligence gathering is totally fine, but having several military bases in every country with an oil resource and forcing your will on innocent people thousands of miles away from your country is not. You are the aggressor and don't delude yourself otherwise.
Although what you say is true, don't expect any change of mindset from US citizens. There is just too much glorification of the evils of the past and present, be it hollywood, most news or basically any mainstream source of information. For every piece of information telling about horrors of war, PTSD, seeing kids/women blown to pieces / doing it yourself, there is 10 pieces talking about proud veterans, patriots, camaraderie etc.
I think this behavior is common among us all, us vs the rest. Its jsut that this is so much more obvious if you see it from outside of the bubble. Look at former colonial powers, many citizens of western europe still consider enslaving and raping whole nations for hundreds of years an enlightened period ("but... we build them rails!" or similar is a phrase I heard more than once on this topic).
But since we don't have time machine, its hard to say whether US was/is overall the force of good vs evil. Somebody would have to fill up power vacuum otherwise, and trust me, you wouldn't want the communist USSR earlier chinese to run the whole show.
I think you are living inside a big bubble. When was the last time China showed military aggresion outside its borders, especialy on the other side of the world? US doing the “checking” around the world left countless people dead for nothing, and a lot of countries ruined. Not to mention trillions od dollars spent on financing that. US complain about Russia meddling with US elections (through 150k worth of Facebook ads lol) but then proceeds to overturn number of democratically elected governments around the world. Hipocracry much?
First 2 items are about their borders - not that I agree with the actions, but these are completely understandable.
The Africa still isn't a proper comparison - building few bases where you invest tons of money and extract crutial resources isn't the point here, bloody invasions that destroy whole region for generations and kill millions innocent are. And this is something specific to US, even Russia didn't do anything comparable.
Anything after WWII, maybe but just maybe including Korea is actively adding evil to this world. But I suspect not many americans are willing to accept truth here
Ask anyone in Taiwan, they’d have a strong difference of opinion on Taiwan being apart of any piece of China, or within the borders.
As for countries being militarily aggressive, and causing direct conflict since WW2, sure the US, but there have been numerous wars since. A few at the top of mind —-First Afghanistan War ( Russia), Battle of Falkland Islands (Argentina), Iran vs Iraq War
Soviet Russia annexing the Baltics and setting up Eastern Europe and Central Asia as client states as well as destabilization in South East Asia, Africa, Latin America & Caribbean you say is in no way similar? Ok!
You are comparing one vessel incident in the disputtes waters close to China to countless wars US initiated? I mean you cant be serious. Or if you want to compare incidents... Let me give you just one because Iran is in the news lately. What did the commander of USS Vincennes that downed civilian plane Iran Air Flight 655 killing 290 people including 66 children in 1988 got as punishment? He got Legion of Merit “for exceptionally meritious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer...” and the air-warfare coordinator for that day got Navy Commendation Medal. That is just one out of countless exampless..
No I wasn't comparing them, just pointing out China is active in military aggression trying to grab areas of Vietnam and the Philippine's territories that it feels it should have.
I think a) we may have different definitions of "military aggression" and b) China and the US have different "priorities" when it comes to the military.
Just look to WW1 and WW2 to see what real world instability looks like. I don't think anyone would prefer that kind of bloodletting to status quo.
Now you can argue that nuclear weapons are the root cause for current stability, and ask if a world with nuclear weapons but less aggressive US would be better off.
Bottom line, the first world's prosperity is based on an efficiency in terms of work done per person, which stems from energy mostly coming from fossil fuels. The US just happened to get first dibs on the resources, but I doubt it would be any different with others. The societies have a tendency to grow and the only real backpressure is resource exhaustion (manifesting as cost).
Globalization is simply an extension of the US global policy. Democracy and free trade are rewarded. It’s not a coincidence that globalization speaks English and builds on American infrastructure (such as the very internet).
The US supports plenty of undemocratic regimes and has toppled democratic ones. US global policy rewards subservience to the US economy more than anything (which I'd hardly call "free" trade).
And you can’t think of what would happen if we just let things happen out there?
Yes we’re made monumental mistakes like Arab spring and gulf war II. But those would pale compared to what would happen if we just let things go. All those repressed military desires by dictators everywhere suddenly given a green light.
Being on the side "kept in check", believe me, we were better off on ourselves. Dictators fall one way or another, 3rd party military intervention is rarely selective and not a bit subtle with the collaterals.
That’s a difficult position to be in. It’s lose-lose. Dictators can last generations and drive countries needlessly into the ground (Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea, etc.) Interventions are blunt instruments (interestingly some US Democrat candidates put forth the idea of intervening in Honduras... Democrats...)
The size of the losses aren't the same, though. Saddam was by no means a benevolent Dictator, and he had plenty of people disappear, tortured and executed. But not nearly anywhere close to the number of people that died because of the Regime Change campaign.
And don't forget: a dictator usually keeps order. A civil war, ISIS roaming through the no-mans-land etc is much worse than a cruel strongman.
I hear you. But I just want to add one more perspective, when there is an intervention, the intervening party (US in this case) technically aligns with someone from the conflict. That might be a political oppositional force, it might be a national majority, it might be a region which is or is not a part of a country. Usually there is already some kind of conflict going on. I don't have any data, but from my own experience, a lot of people are not with either side, and they suffer greatly. It might be because of the sheer despair of the situation or the "oppressing" or "opposing" force. And don't be led to think that the force supported by the US plays nicely without war crimes, offence and with pure motives. Sometimes the party supported by the US has it's own agenda which aligns with the US and it is just beneficial to be supported. I guess that it makes sense and the great US wouldn't be the US without that kind of strategy.
This went political, and the topic was ecology. As this wasn't bad enough, this all goes with a huge ecological toll which impacts a broader number of people than those involved in conflict.
> All those repressed military desires by your actors are everywhere suddenly given a green light.
Too bad there is no one to repress the military desires by your American actors that are given green light to start arbitrary wars around the world, right?
It’s so odd. Watching the debates, it’s unfathomable that we have candidates calling for intervention in Honduras.... Democrat candidates... one could be forgiven for thinking this was Bush’s war-hawk party...
My soul hurts a bit when I see people from a privileged position of power write this and judging the world in simplistic terms.
You say Lybia is better now, destroyed and torn by war, with no real government in sight, with ISIS there and civil war, thousands dead and economy destroyed is better than with Gadaffi and with biggest economy by far in Africa and with law and order (however that law and order is achived)?
War destroyed Syria is better than before?
And dont give me that "Asad used poison gas on his people" dumb excuse as a reason why US got into that war. Because US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases, or when he used it on Kurd civilians, where US even supplied it to him.
I just hope US never experience this types of logic on their soil if in some future US loses world dominance and some other power decides that US "needs liberation".
I didn’t say it’s better now. What I said was that a lot of those places have a tumultuous history of instability (Afghanistan) or are run by dictators where a violent power struggle is a certain eventuality (Libya, Syria).
Gadaffi was going to lose power eventually (through death is certain) and the power struggle that results is going to be ugly.
> US had no problem when they supported Sadam attacking Iran with poisonous gases
And that was in the past? The US had no problem segregating schools at one point. It's not compelling to bringing up an ancient relationship, where not a single person involved in the whataboutism, is still in power.
We have the internet and extremely timely war coverage now. That no longer flies.
Have you looked at any of the countries you listed recently? Everyone has had a substantial ISIS presence as the result of the involvement, that alone says it all. They are also all still active warzones.
Lybia is still a country in a bloody civil war with local warlords and militias fighting for power. The number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan is still growing yearly, with a ever increasing opium production and the Afghan National Police is also far from upholding law and order. And have you looked at Syria? Its a bloody proxy war with barely enough involvement to keep the conflict going at the cost of the civilian population. Not to mention the groups being supported by weapon shipments are fundamentalist Islamist, most notably splinter groups of Al Quaida. I am having a hard time as seeing it as anything else then a Afghanistan revival with the support of jihadist groups to keep the soviets busy.
NATO didn't attack anyone. The USSR fell on its own, Eastern Europe became free from within.
Defending a country with a set of borders is very different to the capability of the U.S. military, and relying on a country you have no say in for your defence is never a one way deal.
I wouldn't say "let things go" but let's face facts: The US has bases all over the world. We occupy dozens of countries for nebulous reasons. If global security is that fragile, when is it ever going to not be?
My second thought is that the US MIC is out for itself. It would be one thing if we had a defense system like the Swiss which I look at as pretty sensibly invested civil defense infrastructure (which, btw, the Swiss are rapidly losing as they forget the lessons of the past). Instead, we spend billions on expensive, fancy technical weapons systems that don't necessarily measure up. For example, the Littoral Combat Ship that has an aluminum hull that cracks in cold water. Or the F35 which has to be one of the biggest aeronautical boondoggles in history. We just keep pouring billions down rat holes because of corporatism. I currently work in the health insurance biz and it's the same tune--billions going in all kinds of odd directions in order to make money but outcomes haven't changed or have gotten worse. But our stock price is great!
>you have to balance that against not preventing instability around the world
You are absolutely right. This statement is as true as saying you have to balance eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week against letting your children starve. Completely true. However, if you're currently eating lavish restaurant meals 7 nights a week, the direction you need to go in toward balance is obvious.
Would you support reducing U.S. military spending from 2-3x that of China (the 2nd highest spender), to 1.5x?
>Would you support reducing U.S. military spending from 2-3x that of China (the 2nd highest spender), to 1.5x?
China is currently constructing 2 new aircraft carriers (they have 1) with as many as 3 more planned by 2030 based on intel out there.
From 2001-2006 they built at least a dozen new classes of ships, putting 60 more into the water.
They have at least 10 known new ships/subs coming online with some being constructed, some seeing sea trials and some being fitted out.
Etc.
My point is, China is very much building up their military
>China's military salary structure is similar to other countries’. In terms of salary level, China’s level is comparatively low. "For example, a U.S. colonel who has served in the military for 30 years will have a monthly salary of $10,000. However, the salary of a Chinese who has served in the military for 30 years is just 8,000 or 9,000 yuan,” said Zhang.
It's also worth noting China has state owned oil wells, state owned oil refineries, state owned natural gas companies, state owned fuel companies etc which all likely keeps their fuel costs artificially low.
I'm guessing they also don't provide things like the GI Bill to their military personnel and similar benefits that we give to our military personnel.
Or could it be in response to them being very effective platforms for patrolling territorial waters and even providing cover for coastal regions? And because China has 9,010 miles of coast?
I think the US military budget could be cut and still retain most of the capability. Ask a general which bases to cut and they will tell you stateside bases that are in expensive areas. The most useful bases are the ones that are overseas. The conflict of interest comes as congress is responsible for budgets and no senator or rep will ever willingly part with a base in their state.
If it were me, I think we need to be able to fend off the largest rivals convincingly.
If Russia and China were to enter the fold and be good world citizens and share a common vision and cooperate, then yeah. We only need to be as strong as the combined strength of our nearest rivals.
Unviable from a game-theoretic standpoint. If someone chooses to break that reciprocity, what can you do about it now that you've disarmed? Literally nothing, you are in a weaker position than before.
Yes, true. But my point is sometimes we think in idealist terms where there are no negative effects to completely pulling out from international involvement.
Deterrence is good. Running roughshod like Bush and Obama resigned himself to is not good. But completely shutting it down is worse than even that.
There are still a few questionable non democratic countries out there that may make it worth keeping a military so as to keep them in check. Russia, China, Iran and the like.
It's as if people don't consider Generals Smedley D. Butler and Dwight D. Eisenhower as authorities on the subject when they warned against the racket of the military-industrial complex.
It's depressing and utterly pathetic that we refuse to listen to wise words because our primitive monkey feelings don't jive with the advice they gave.
Because it prevents foreign troops from attempting to land on U.S. soil and attack us, it also gives us means to take most air and ocean-based attacks out long before they get near the continental United States. With the exception of 9/11 (which wasn't actually military but does seem to have been state-sponsored to some degree), we've gone the better part of 2 centuries without hostile military action on the continental United States.
Because it has provided jobs for many of us and our families. My mother retired from DoD, I have no less than 2-dozen friends that served in Afghanistan and/or Iraq and many more that are/were guard/reserve, my aunt's husband retired from the USAF and then went to work as a contractor for them, one of my half-brothers was in the Navy and even served on a sub, one of my aunts was USCG reserve, from my grandfathers (Army Air Corp, Navy) back we've fought in every single war since the War of Independence, my godfather was Navy UDT, the guy I owe my sobriety to is a purple heart carrying 18D. Several members of my Lodge are veterans, several members of my Ward are members, several people in my office are veterans or are married to them, the founder of my company that employs 425k people is a Vietnam-vet Marine and a lot of our pilots are former military. Several of my friends were able to get college educations thanks to the military, my mother's father had multiple heart surgeries over the years thanks to the VA, etc etc.
Because space exploration, GPS and literally every other type of satellite our civilization relies upon, effectively all nuclear technologies (power, medicine), advanced prosthetics, handheld radios, RADAR, airliners, digital photography, the internet, etc etc so on and so forth are all direct results of technologies developed by various branches of the U.S., and foreign, military branches?
I mean, without the U.S. military, you wouldn't even have safe and reliable ocean shipping. The United States Navy and United States Coast Guard patrol international shipping lanes and are the largest deterrent to piracy (which is a multi-billion dollar economic loss annually)
