Is it time for the United States to bring its armies home?

[Venant]

The United States has several hundred military bases and over 200k soldiers stationed around the world. Much of the planet has been under military occupation by the global hegemon for the last 75 years. Trump is making moves towards ending NATO, and has stopped the military escalation in the middle east that would have turned Syria into a second Iraq, as well as moves to end the occupation of the Korean peninsula. Is this a good thing? Can the world function without the US playing the role of occupying power and world police?

[slime]

They are home. The world is their home.

[Noomz]

The United States has several hundred military bases and over 200k soldiers stationed around the world. Much of the planet has been under military occupation by the global hegemon for the last 75 years. Trump is making moves towards ending NATO, and has stopped the military escalation in the middle east that would have turned Syria into a second Iraq, as well as moves to end the occupation of the Korean peninsula. Is this a good thing? Can the world function without the US playing the role of occupying power and world police?

Yeah abandon all responsability, all allies and friends. Seems to be right up Trumps alley. Because just letting China and Russia go wild is gonna consolidate US power. Right? RIGHT?!

[pyro989898]

they will not , until they are forced due to their own budget.
US is not even a police(by police i mean body which knows the difference between good and bad ,also maintain good ethics) they have no moral/guilt , only their own agenda matters.

[Deleted]

I dont want to come across as a tinfoil hat type person here because it's the furthest from the kind of person I am but I've lately been reading and hearing on podcasts about the sheer amount of money that is generated for companies that supply the materials of war and america seems to have more than enough young men and women who are more than happy to sign their names on the dotted line in the name of freedom and democracy. So you have companies make huge profit off producing all the guns/vehicles and whatever else you need to supply the military and you have an extremely patriotic population who are more than happy to lay down their lives for freedom and democracy at all corners of the globe. This seems to be a perfect concoction for the most capitalist country in the world as well. Would just be a theory as to why because the vast majority of countries do have a standing army and if america did curtail its military and lay off say 50%, then other countries would increase their own armies as a result *Im assuming*.

Im obviously open to debate here as the opinion im sharing is just largely based off a few documentaries about how corporations profit off war.

[draynay]

Is there something they need to do here?

[Mihalik]

The United States has several hundred military bases and over 200k soldiers stationed around the world. Much of the planet has been under military occupation by the global hegemon for the last 75 years. Trump is making moves towards ending NATO, and has stopped the military escalation in the middle east that would have turned Syria into a second Iraq, as well as moves to end the occupation of the Korean peninsula. Is this a good thing? Can the world function without the US playing the role of occupying power and world police?

Yes and no.

The nature of US military presence abroad is often sorely misunderstood.

US forces in Europe are not protecting Europe. They are protecting American interests, and really they aren't even doing that in Europe but rather primarily exist to support US operations in the Middle East and North Africa.

Most US bases globally exist to provide the United States with the infrastructure for global power projection that goes beyond a nuclear deterrent. Shuttering that infrastructure would be the single dumbest act committed in human history and would reduce the United States from a global power, the only global power, to a regional power, abandoning much of the US naval, air and ground capabilities.

That infrastructure is valuable and worth preserving.

On the other hand, certain military deployments are simply absurd wastes of resources at this point, namely Afghanistan. An unwinnable and pointless engagement that has been ongoing for nearly 18 years now. At some point one just has to cut its loses and step away.

[Tiwack]

What's your vision with that? Which is preferable and worthy of pursuit? Easier and better to adapt than wipe the slate and end up in a potentially worse situation in the future. As long as discourse is allowed to be torpedoed it will just be more of the same old giving Trump and his supports more merit in their argument that ignores the world around them as if only American interests exist.

[Venant]

I dont want to come across as a tinfoil hat type person here because it's the furthest from the kind of person I am but I've lately been reading and hearing on podcasts about the sheer amount of money that is generated for companies that supply the materials of war and america seems to have more than enough young men and women who are more than happy to sign their names on the dotted line in the name of freedom and democracy. So you have companies make huge profit off producing all the guns/vehicles and whatever else you need to supply the military and you have an extremely patriotic population who are more than happy to lay down their lives for freedom and democracy at all corners of the globe. This seems to be a perfect concoction for the most capitalist country in the world as well. Would just be a theory as to why because the vast majority of countries do have a standing army and if america did curtail its military and lay off say 50%, then other countries would increase their own armies as a result *Im assuming*.

Im obviously open to debate here as the opinion im sharing is just largely based off a few documentaries about how corporations profit off war.

It isn't really 'profit' though, since all that money is taken from productive people by the US government through taxes and then funneled into defense contractors who heavily lobby politicians to get ridiculously profitable no-bid contracts. Then you have situations like the Bush administration where most of the people who worked in the white house got positions with contractors who reaped massive profits from the invasion of Iraq.

[Santti]

Well I guess it would be funny seeing both Putin and Xi go all woob woob woob on the floor?

[Deleted]

I don't think you have a choice. The US is trillions of dollars in debt. Your military is mostly a useless white elephant incapable of dealing with domestic insurgencies. Troops will come home because they have to.

[unbound]

The United States has several hundred military bases and over 200k soldiers stationed around the world. Much of the planet has been under military occupation by the global hegemon for the last 75 years. Trump is making moves towards ending NATO, and has stopped the military escalation in the middle east that would have turned Syria into a second Iraq, as well as moves to end the occupation of the Korean peninsula. Is this a good thing? Can the world function without the US playing the role of occupying power and world police?

Overall, it has been a good thing. While the US is far from flawless, its presence around the world is almost certainly the biggest reason the military conflicts / wars are not as severe as they were.

Europe has had a very long history of fighting among themselves, and that stopped largely because of the NATO alliance. That NATO alliance is part of the reason all of our economies have done well (overall, trade helps everyone). Our pushing for the withdrawal from NATO is almost certainly due to the person Trump will be visiting in a few days, in private, with no US witnesses / support.

The same goes for our stance in Syria. While Iraq was spectacularly mishandled, leaving Syria in the hands of a brutal dictator (who is doing things at least as bad as Saddam did to his people) and Russia who is largely helping Syria with that brutality, is not a recipe for good things...it's actually a recipe for more terrorism in the future.

As things are turning out, with our short-sighted idiotic President doing Putin's bidding...er, putting America first by isolationist policy, China is stepping up their efforts to fill the void. They are essentially building Silk Road 2.0 as we speak as well as giving out loans to poor countries that can't pay them back, and getting ports turned over to them as a result. So, to your question of "can the world function without the US playing the role of occupying power and world police", the answer is yes...it will be China who will performing that role in the near future if continue down our short-sighted path.

Here are some excellent videos that do a great job summarizing the more complicated history and activities of the things I mentioned above. They are well worth your time to watch:

[Deleted]

No it's time to make any place on this planet home WITH the army!

[Lochton]

The United States has several hundred military bases and over 200k soldiers stationed around the world. Much of the planet has been under military occupation by the global hegemon for the last 75 years. Trump is making moves towards ending NATO, and has stopped the military escalation in the middle east that would have turned Syria into a second Iraq, as well as moves to end the occupation of the Korean peninsula. Is this a good thing? Can the world function without the US playing the role of occupying power and world police?

*Shrugs* Maybe finally the US can think of reducing their military budget and think about a more nationwide thorough healthcare? Maybe enhance your law enforcement services a bit too? Truth is, many can live without the US troops but the truth is also that the US has forced countries to rely on them in the long haul, by leaving other areas to fend for themselves - mostly talking in the middle-eastern areas - the US has basically shown that they would have given up their initial goal of spreading their control and security.

One could then consider, can the US afford over 200.000 soldiers to be idle within its own borders, can they justify their bloated military budget by keeping idle men and women out of active duty?

Overall, many in the world can live without the troops of the United States of America, but the countries that needs a guiding hand will be fractured once more, if they are left before they can rebuild what is needed.

[Tiwack]

It isn't really 'profit' though, since all that money is taken from productive people by the US government through taxes and then funneled into defense contractors who heavily lobby politicians to get ridiculously profitable no-bid contracts. Then you have situations like the Bush administration where most of the people who worked in the white house got positions with contractors who reaped massive profits from the invasion of Iraq.

Campaign finance reform. maybe some rules on when and how you can slap up posters and ads? Might be smart to ensure they can't lie or attack each other with them. Let voters decide instead of spewing propaganda treating them like sheep. Democracy only works if people are informed and participate in electing representatives instead of becoming patsies.

[Venant]

Yes and no.

The nature of US military presence abroad is often sorely misunderstood.

US forces in Europe are not protecting Europe. They are protecting American interests, and really they aren't even doing that in Europe but rather primarily exist to support US operations in the Middle East and North Africa.

Most US bases globally exist to provide the United States with the infrastructure for global power projection that goes beyond a nuclear deterrent. Shuttering that infrastructure would be the single dumbest act committed in human history and would reduce the United States from a global power, the only global power, to a regional power, abandoning much of the US naval, air and ground capabilities.

That infrastructure is valuable and worth preserving.

On the other hand, certain military deployments are simply absurd wastes of resources at this point, namely Afghanistan. An unwinnable and pointless engagement that has been ongoing for nearly 18 years now. At some point one just has to cut its loses and step away.

Why should the citizenry of the US care about being a 'global power'? It is extremely obvious in the case of other countries that it is only the oligarchs or a few powerful special interests that benefit from such an arrangement, yet in the United States we attempt to indoctrinate everyone into believing that this is actually good for the people.

I think that people would be better off with their government paying everyone's medical bills, instead of paying to occupy foreign countries.

[ellieg]

No. Have any of you ever worked for the military? As in military personnel, government employee for the DOD, or contracted for them? It's real easy to think we are the big bad meanies trying to police the world if you look at it from the outside. But once you are on the inside, and realize what it is we actually do, you'll change your mind.

[Kalador]

I dont want to come across as a tinfoil hat type person here because it's the furthest from the kind of person I am but I've lately been reading and hearing on podcasts about the sheer amount of money that is generated for companies that supply the materials of war and america seems to have more than enough young men and women who are more than happy to sign their names on the dotted line in the name of freedom and democracy. So you have companies make huge profit off producing all the guns/vehicles and whatever else you need to supply the military and you have an extremely patriotic population who are more than happy to lay down their lives for freedom and democracy at all corners of the globe. This seems to be a perfect concoction for the most capitalist country in the world as well. Would just be a theory as to why because the vast majority of countries do have a standing army and if america did curtail its military and lay off say 50%, then other countries would increase their own armies as a result *Im assuming*.

Im obviously open to debate here as the opinion im sharing is just largely based off a few documentaries about how corporations profit off war.

Oh you are right. But it as nothing to do with Capitalism, US Army/US arms makers are the biggest "big gov" // Subsidized industry on the planet probably. It's also easy to see why, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics etc. are all U.S based companies.

Now if you fall into the tinfoil hat territory you can ask yourself why is the US pushing so hard for other country to have higher defense budget...

[Ozzyorcborne]

Yes. They really need to stop meddling with other countries and quit thinking of themselves as the police for the planet. Theyre not gods gift to everything as most of them delude themselves into thinking they are.

[Alydael]

I think it is long time to bring our troops home.

They risk their lives for these countries that don't even really appreciate it.

It also costs us a boatload of money and we are currently 20 trillion dollars in debt to China. We could use less spending.

We won't even talk about the hugely negative environmental impact that having an army basically constinously deployed causes.

Its not really needed as we can project force relatively quickly (probably the fastest in the world). The future of combat is not deployed armies, it is projected force, cyber and space. We should focus on those three.

The best part of this thread is watching all the posters that were continuously against all these armed conflicts over many years (because they wanted to oppose the Pubs) doing a complete 180% turnout and now supporting the over deployment of our armies- just to try and take a shot at Trump. Hilarious!