Hmm. As far as I know the EU doesn’t provide a common defense.
And who exactly would guarantee the security of the tiny emirates and other countries? Without the US in the Middle East, not only would Russia and China take a far more direct role in trying to win allies, influence, and bases (just as the USSR did), but there would be an instant arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia. With Syria already allied with Iran, a pretty serious cold war would likely develop, splitting the Arab world and possibly leading to a few side wars. Oh, and Iran would be even freer to openly acquire nuclear weapons, in which Saudi Arabia and other states would then feel the need to acquire their own.
As for South America, while numerous countries may feel suspicious about the US’s recently re-activated Fourth Fleet, even Venezeula’s Chavez (in a rare moment of personal honesty) would have to admit that there is no US invasion or military action imminent or anywhere in the near future. Colombia, Brazil, Chile and others do not maintain strong militaries because of the US or US defense spending.
Exactly how would China ‘stomp them down’? If North Korea collapses, everything suddenly would become China’s problem, particularly dealing with several million likely refugees trying to flee into China. North Korea has a million-man standing army and now has developed crude nukes. They’ve previously shot long range missiles directly over Japan as well as kidnapped Japanese citizens to force them to train NK spies on Japanese language and culture. NK has dug numerous tunnels underneath the mined DMZ so that its invading forces could penetrate SK lines immediately in the event of war. NK likely was helping Syria develop some kind of nuclear capacity - be it a generator or something else, in addition to selling their Scuds all over the place. Again, what kind of metric are you using in determining that “the Chinese wouldn’t all them to get too powerful in the region?”
As much as you say that Americans as a whole are somehow cavalier about the sacrifices their allies are making in common cause, you’re pretty cavalier about the wars and potentially millions of deaths that would follow a complete and total US withdrawal from East Asia.
Frank Whittle had invented the jet engine in the 1930s. The first British jet engined plane flew in 1941 (the Gloster Whittle). The first British jet engined fighter that saw combat service was the Gloster Meteor, which served with 616 Squadron in Belgium and Germany during late 1944 and 1945. In total, 46 Luftwaffe planes were destroyed by Meteors in ground attack and armed reconnaissance roles in WW2.
The biggest problem the meteor faced was allied forces mistaking it for ME262s.
What are you talking about? What facts are against me? My entire point here was that US allies do make substantial contributions to international peacekeeping, the “war on terror” and so on.
You provide facts and figures that support my argument, and then act like I was wrong. I asked you (twice) to show us a cite if you found any major US allies that didn’t spend a significant amount of their own money on a) peacekeeping, and b) helping the US do whatever the hell it is you’re attempting to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You find a bunch of figures that prove my point, and then act like you’ve somehow outsmarted me. The US no doubt does pay more than its allies, which is a fact I never denied, and you’re acting like you pointing out something we both already know and which was never part of the question I asked is some kind of masterstroke which invalidates my argument.
To keep it simple, here again is the question I asked: Can you find any major US allies that do not pay their own way for defence &/or international peacekeeping? Please note that the question is not about who pays more, or what exact percentage anyone pays, it’s about who doesn’t pay. Who gets a free ride?
Answer: not your allies. We pay plenty. Maybe you don’t think it’s enough, but that’s a different question. It isn’t the question I asked.
EDIT: And I asked that question in response the assumption in the OP that the US pays for everything and us damned dirty foreigners get to enjoy the protection of the US military for free. And that we’re irresponsible children who rely on the US to bail us out when things get ugly.
Without the US all those countries would have to spend a lot more on defense.
You think South Korea can face North Korea on its own? Not likely.
You think (say) Poland could rebuff a resurgent Russia on its current military budget? No way.
You think Taiwan could repel China on its own? Nope.
You think Iraq (considering how we’d be leaving it) could oppose Iran? Laughable.
The lot of them would have to go on a defense spending binge. Others too. And when they go on a defense spending binge then everyone else has to follow.
“Free ride” is overstating it but it is without question that the EU countries (among others) absolutely has been able to spend considerably smaller sums because of the US military presence.
ETA: And quit pointing to me to provide cites. I have provided them. How about you provide some cites to back your assertions for a change.
I won’t speak for other posters, but I believe the point that you are missing is that whatever these other countries spend on their militaries, it is less than what it should be because they’ve got the good old USA there to bail them out of a jam.
If we decided to pick up our marbles and go home, all of these countries would have to pay a lot more to maintain the level of security that they currently have.
Also, you seem to limit your question to internal defense only. What happens in a situation like Desert Storm I (or pick a hypothetical if you didn’t agree with that) when a dictator threatens world peace by his actions? What if the USA isn’t there to foot more than half of the entire world’s bill for the operation? Where will that extra money come from?
ETA: or what Whack a Mole just said; damn double posting
The difference is that my comments about East Asia concerned purely hypothetical deaths and injuries to people as a result of events that are extremely unlikely to actually happen.
The deaths and injuries that are actually happening to real individual human beings as a result of them being allied to the US and getting involved in debacles like the “war on terror” are a lot more important than imaginary deaths and injuries happening to imaginary people in my hypothetical ramblings.
I’m allowed to be cavalier about imaginary people and events. I promise you, I’m way more respectful of real people than imaginary ones.
I said “international peacekeeping” several times. I’m sure you know what that phrase means, so I can only assume you missed it.
I think that you overestimate the level of cooperation within the EU defense. There is currently not much in the way of common defense nor foreign policy within the EU. If the Lisbon treaty is ratified everywhere it will move more in the direction of common defense though.
I’ll pick this one out as it is significantly different from your other examples. The US has no permanent troops deployed in Poland, so I don’t see how the situation there would change. They would still be members of NATO, and as I understand the OP (maybe you use a different interpretation), it does not include a dissolution of NATO.
I would assume that it does not include the military excursions that I mentioned, because there is no way you could say that the rest of the world contributes its fair share of the expenses, and wouldn’t have to massively increase their spending without the USA.
Again, I won’t speak for others, but this is exactly my point. Poland can spend less on its defense because it has NATO to protect it. NATO has which country footing the bill?
Withdrawing the US from the world affairs, which would include NATO, would leave Poland and other NATO countries with higher bills just from this one area.
Forget the protection of the rest of the world.
Are you saying that the US gets no benefit from its allies?
If every country that is allied with the USA suddenly decided to, for instance, cancel those alliances, kick the US military out of its non-US bases, and basically force the US military to stick to its own territory, how do you think the US would react?
No allies? No bases anywhere outside the USA? Nowhere to refuel and rearm, no staging posts anywhere on the globe? Well, the US would have to massively increase its military budget if it wanted to remain a global power, and would have to give up the whole idea of “policing the globe” in the way it has during the last 50+ years.
Also, if the entire world stopped buying US military hardware (and we do buy it, we don’t get it for free) I suspect the US economy would take a pretty major blow. That’d have to hurt.
Of course, none of this is going to happen. Because we’re allies. We co-operate. Americans get plenty of benefits from having allies, just as US allies get benefits from the alliances. We also get responsibilities, such as getting to waste some of our own lives and treasure on stupid wars in godforsaken hellholes. And we bear those responsibilities, too.
I’d say the people who imagine that the US doesn’t need allies and gets nothing but trouble from those alliances are the ones who are missing some pretty important points.
Then we interpret the OP differently. I thought the question was regarding the withdrawal of troops stationed around the world, not a complete withdrawal from NATO. NATO does not depend on permanent US troop deployments to work. It would still serve as a significant deterrent.
This whole thread is an exercise in hypothetical events that are extremely unlikely to happen (i.e. a total withdrawal of US forces worldwide). You said that in this event, there would be nothing catastrophic that happens worldwide. While I don’t know what your own individual definition of “catastrophic” is, a few hundred thousand to a million deaths, numerous wars, and arms races that include nuclear proliferation (in various Middle Eastern countries, Japan, South Korea, and possibly even Europe) probably isn’t that far from the mark.
While the wisdom of either the initiation or conduct of the Afghanistan war or Iraq war are certainly open to debate, the US did not force any allied country to contribute troops to either conflict. The member states of NATO unanimously voted to invoke the collective self-defense clause of Article 5 to support the US following 11 September 2001 and also unanimously agreed to take control of ISAF troops in Afghanistan. The countries contributing troops are free to put any sort of limitations on their use as they want, as Germany and several other countries do.
In Iraq, of course, many US allies refused to contribute troops for either the invasion or occupation, notably France, Germany and Canada. They are still US allies, however. So, being a country allied with the US is not some casualty burden in and of itself. While the US did request allied troop contributions for each conflict, I don’t know how the US can be blamed for the agreement of an allied country to provide troops alone.
You do realise that without the US to drag us into those “excursions” none of our troops would be in those places in the first place?
When has Australia, for instance, dragged the US into a war? “Oh, hai, we’re invading Bali, want to help out with that?” Can you imagine that happening? Yet there are Australian troops getting shot at on behalf of the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. Remind me, how does Australia benefit from that?
Know who’s peacekeeping in East Timor after the Indonesians were forced out? Know who helped force them out, with zero assistance from the USA? The Australian Armed Forces. Know who pays for that? Australian taxpayers. NOT American taxpayers. I’m willing to bet that if you’re an American, you’ve never even heard of that “excursion”. Because Americans are convinced that America does all the work and pays all the bills.
This is more of a endgoal rather than a present day description. No treaty, policy, or law of the European Union, European Commission, or European Parliament specifically calls for or requires a military alliance. If this were the case, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, and Austria would not be member states.
Iceland. They don’t have a standing military, enjoyed a US military presence and base for the Cold War, and up until 2005, had limited US fighter cover to protect their airspace. They weren’t happy about those few F-15s leaving in 2005. Since they are a member-state of NATO, it would probably be fair to describe them as major allies, even if they wouldn’t be among the first countries that come to mind.
Our imaginings of what would happen differ. You’re imagining an apocalyptic catastrophe, I’m imagining something a lot less bloody. As it happens, I think your imaginings are probably quite far from the mark. So what? I don’t particularly wish to argue about who has the more realistic imagination, do you?
And where did I say any of that wasn’t true? I never said that any country was forced to contribute to the “war on terror” - however, if you can bitch about your people getting hurt and your money getting wasted, I can bitch about it happening to my people, since they are there too, helping out the US, because we’re allies and we are your friends. Believe it or not, we do take that stuff seriously, seriously enough so that we’re spending our money on it, and some of our people are getting killed on your behalf.
We’re contributing, we’re doing our bit. Sorry if it seems not good enough to you, perhaps you should look up some photographs of the non-US servicemen who have died in those wars, maybe that’d make it seem a bit more like the US has some friends who can and do stand and fight beside you when the going gets tough.
Or you could throw a hissy fit because we spend less of our budget on blowing things up than you do, and act like everybody else is getting a free ride and exploiting the good old USA.
Iceland? You think Iceland counts as a major anything? Iceland has a population of less than 350 000 people. If that’s the best you can find, you’re proving my point.