It’s a pretty simple question that raises many complex issues.
America’s power as a Nation basically resides in their ability to out-muscle any opponent. (as opposed to their ability to inspire and lead other nations by example).
Is such a large and overwhelming force actually relevant in this day and age?
or is it just an anachronism from an outdated way of thinking?
What would happen if the USA reduced it’s military to a minimist level?
The problem with your question is that it comes from a flawed premise. America’s power does not arise from its military might, but from its economic superiority.
In fact, since World War II, I think you would be hard pressed to come up with a single example of the USA scoring a resounding victory over an opponent by means of its military might. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq; none of them could exactly be described as a great victory for the US Military Machine.
And no, Grenada does not count.
No, America’s “power as a Nation” comes from McDonalds, Disney, Microsoft, General Electric, Dow Corning, et. al. Our economic influence on the rest of the world is far greater than that of any army we could ever hope to build.
Wanna buy a bridge?
Perhaps you could expand on that?
I’m not suggesting that the US does not have a strong military, or that we are afraid to use it, merely that we exert more influence with our economic power.
Do you dispute this?
Economic power and military power are basically the only forms of power that really matter. “Diplomatic” power as a behind-the-scenes power broker can work for some nations (I can think of a few select hisorical examples) but that’s very limited.
Basically military power is required, because no state can afford to be the first state to say, “We don’t believe in using military means to spread power or influence, we’re disbanding our military.”
It’s sort of like we’re all standing together holding a gun at one another and no one can afford to blink first.
Military power is just necessary because of the nature of the states we as humans have developed.
Certainly the first Gulf War was a resounding victory for the USA. Iraq had IIRC the 4th largest army at the time and was roundly smacked down.
So, Suburban, are you implicitly stating that Americans could boycott their
military without undermining either their economic wealth or their world
stature as the leading power?
If so, what purpose does having such a large stadning military pose?
Would a reduced army, say 25-50% of the size be enough to effectively
keep America ‘safe’? How exactly is the current Army (and it’s size)
keeping America safe?
For that last question, I’d appreciate more insight than
“by killing the terrorists stupid!”
or
“The best offense is a good defense!!”
I’d appreciate statements that are actually backed by supporting arguments.
(which I think is probably understood by placing this in 'Great Debates", but
sadly many people would rather verbally attack out of anger / mistrust than to
actually discuss a topic)
Oh I want to add that I wasn’t directing that last part at YOU suburban.
After reading that, I realized that I meant to disconnect those two portions.
I was saying to all of the readers of this thread that I wasn’t looking for
any rash, poorly thought out responses.
Sorry if I worded that badly.
I don’t think I’d agree with that first point. Espcially after the elections in Iraq last month. Not everyone takes democracy for granted. I don’t know if you caught the news these last few weeks but a lot of people were very inspired.
To answer the second question I’ll pose a series of questions: What if Americans boycotted the military starting in 1915? 1940? 1945? 2001? I don’t know for sure but I’d guess there would be a lot more people speaking Russian and German killing each other.
The thing is that the US does have military commitments around the world. We have treaties requiring us to protect Europe, Japan, and a bunch of other countries. We certainly could cut down on our military, maybe abrogate the treaties, and move most, if not all of our troops back into the US, but that would probably decrease world stability. One of the things that helps maintain world peace and the global status quo is the knowledge that the US can intervene pretty much anywhere if we want to. The US has become, by virtue of our size and power, a sort of global policeman, whether we want to or not, much as Britain was in the 19th century. If we abandon that role, the world becomes a lot more chaotic.
I’m glad you made this comment CA, because this is the sort of idea I’d love to hear discussed. Is the American military stabilizing the world or unravelling world stability? It would be nice to think that there could be ‘Global Policemen’, but how can you trust one country to assume that role? I’m sure most American’s are comfortable with the thought that they are the stabilizers and moreal authority fo the world, but how would you feel if another nation were more powerful and was assuming that role? What if France had the world’s largest military and were policing other nations who were deemed to be unlawful in THEIR view, not quite yours? Can one country be trusted to unilaterally decree ‘justice’? Can anyone hold that kind of power without using it to garner advantages for their own nation over others, such as financial or political?
If the US military is in fact DEstabilizing the world? Would it not be wise for the American people to boycott and reduce their might so as to reduce that effect?
Is the American prescence in so many countries around the world reducing the amount of violence or sustaining it? Is the US prescence in a country such as Japan necessary, or is the US just using that as a means for a strategic post for an Asian point of surveilance? On the surface the US military ‘seems’ to be all for the good of the world, but how much of that is really true?
I know I’m asking more questions than anything else, but I’m hoping we can analze this from ALL aspects and get a wide range of insight.
Just as a note, before I go to bed, but France does intervene around the world, although primarily in Francophone countries. France just recently sent troops into the Ivory Coast when fighting broke out there, they concidered sending troops to Haiti just recently, etc.
Completely true, but the point I was trying to raise was what if they had the power to make decisions on ‘American’ matters? Or if the US strongly dissented to their ideas and decisions that had an effect on America but they went ahead and did them anyway… how would you feel in that position?
Generally speaking, one can’t. But the alternative is a return to some sort of balance of power of the sort that led to Great Power wars in Europe for centuries.
It’s not enough to say “I don’t like the way things are now.” What exactly do you intend to replace it with? A multiplolar world of the sort that led to WWI and WWII? A bipolar Cold War II?
Obviously, I wouldn’t like it. But it still would be a stabilizing force.
Well the US military was very quick to go into action in helping support the Tsunami victims in Asia. I think that can be viewed as a good thing.
It’s a double edged sword - countries enjoy the protection and benefits of a US military presence but tend to dislike the influence other strings that often comes attached.
There’s no such thing as “diplomatic” power. Diplomacy is simply a method of communication and negotiation between two countries. A nation has no “diplomatic power” unless it can bring something to the table - the carrot of economic benefits or the stick or military power.
England would heartily disagree with you… The English have a long and glorious history of being brokers of diplomacy, and far from all of it was the carrot and stick diplomacy you speak of. And tell the Swiss they have nothing to bring to the table with regards to diplomacy; one could say their country is simply made for it. Sometimes diplomacy is simply getting the two sides talking at the table, without involving oneself.
Be that as it may, as I see it the OP has brought 2 questions
To which I answer:
In other parts of the world, maybe not so much. I don’t know how much it’s changed, but when I was stationed in Korea (93-94) we were a definite destabilizing influence, in that large parts of the South as well as the North wanted us out of the Korean Penninsula. As a result of some unfortunate incidents involving US Marines and innocent civilians, the same could be said of parts of Japan and Okinawa - we aren’t really wanted there.
And right in the middle is the Middle East. Obviously, some would see our presence there as destabilizing, but due to the fact that we’re directly propping up at least two countries governments at present (Iraq and Afghanistan) and indirectly supporting a couple of others (Israel, Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain, Dubai), then I would say the overall impact of the military is one of stability in that region.
forgot about the damn Swiss :mad:
England’s historic ability to broker deals was very much based on their military power.
The US vacating its position as the world’s policeman would create a power vacuum. Those tend to be ugly.
Having a strong military controlled by a country that at least professes it wants “good” things for everyone (democracy, freedom, prosperity), should be preferable to one controlled by cynics (maybe like France?) or corruptible leaders, or a hard to categorize outfit like North Korea.
You can at least hope that they will outwardly pursue those “good” goals.
I would argue that the US was a factor for “good” in the Balkans. Without the US, I believe genocide would have continued longer, and excesses would’ve been worse.
It would be nice if we could just talk our problems through. The world isn’t ready for that yet. The fact that some are seriously considering that a possiblity, though, in my opinion is in no small part due to US military might in the 20th century and the geopolitical changes that it wrought .
Historically, yes. I was referring to more recent history, where Britain’s military power is a distant second to the US’s, yet they still seem to have fantastic diplomatic relationships with much of the world.
Ah, my friend - the question was not whether we were ‘good’ or not, just whether we brought stability, and I never doubt for a second that we brought stability to the Balkans both in the form of military might (Stop killing each other or we’re gonna spank you) as well as economic might.
Doesn’t mean good (or bad). Stability can sometimes come at the cost of propping up some pretty bad people (the Saudis aren’t really nice guys, to be honest) but the benefit is worth it (less open warfare in the Middle East and freer flow of precious natural resources to the rest of the world).