The levels at which we maintain our global Milty presence seems almost borderline insane compared to other countries. If at some point in the future we decided we cannot pay for SS, medicare and a ginormous military and decide to scale back our global military presence what would happen?
I’m not talking about a complete withdrawal from all sectors but a very sizable reduction in foreign bases etc. What would be the real world impact of such a scaling back. I don’t see a bunch of wars between industrialized nations as seen in history before WWII as many are now nuclear.
Let me give you an example that recently came up. France was sending troops into Mali to combat terrorist there. What’s this got to do with the US? Well, we provided the logistics for those French troops to get to Mali. Without the US, France would have…well, I’m not sure what they would have done. Probably stayed home.
Sure, France (and the EU) COULD spend more on their military and get the same capabilities…but they don’t. Because they aren’t ‘insane’, I guess. That, and they rely on us to be able to do the heavy lifting when it comes to protecting and defending our collective interests. If we stop doing it, well…who do we rely on to do it? Answer…no one. The Euros aren’t going to expand their military spending by a large degree, and no one else is likely to step up. So, it comes down to whether you think it’s important to protect our collective global interests, to protect trade, to prevent regional powers from infringing out those interests and trade or attempting to dominate their local interests.
Regional powers would start to exert themselves more locally. Nations who today wouldn’t attack a neighbor because they fear retaliation from the US and our allies would consider it if they felt that the US et al couldn’t back up their ability to project force globally…which we wouldn’t collectively be able to do if the US radically downsized it’s force structure and left it up to someone else to carry the water. There are several places in the world today where things are only stable because the threat of US military force keeps one or more powers from doing something stupid.
But fear not…it’s doubtful that the US will be able to maintain it’s current levels of spending on it’s military indefinitely, so we will probably all live to see the paradise that the world will become when the US is no longer able to project military force at a global level. Maybe NATO and the Euros will step up…but no, that would be ‘insane’, right?
I assume Obama’s comments are being taken out of context (or is speaking to his base, who IS rather clueless about all things military)…either that or I seriously wasted my vote because that would mean he’s clueless. We are a global superpower with global commitments and who provides the main military muscle for the entire western world. Look at Libya, as an example…or, look up some details on the French operations I mentioned.
Attempting to compare the US military budge to another single country is pretty much meaningless. The only ‘country’ you could possible compare us to would be the EU…and the reason their collective budget is so far below ours is because they rely on us. No other country is in our league GDP wise, nor does any other country (besides the EU, which is a collection of countries) have our global commitments.
I answered that question already. What are your thoughts? Unless the OP wants to talk about why we have such a large military budget…it’s fairly clear that he doesn’t understand, and perhaps that is what he wants to talk about?
Everybody else complains about us being a superpower, but none of them are able to step up and replace us nor do they seem to really want to, at least at the moment. France took the lead on Libya but they needed our help. Europe dawdled with Bosnia and the situation didn’t get resolved until we stepped in. So if we started to draw down a lot, our allies wouldn’t really step in to fill the gap and various countries that are troublemakers, like North Korea, would make more trouble. I can see NK actually attacking South Korea if we decide we’re done defending them. I can also see an arms race among other countries and a lot of belligerence to fill in the gap
Short answer: In the first world, nothing. In the developing world, border skirmishes and minor problems. In the third world, everything would go to complete shit as opposed to only mostly shit. That, however, may not be a terrible outcome globally speaking. Such a meltdown would eventually produce a stable climate of some sort. In humanitarian terms, it would be a grave travesty though.
I just want to point out that withdrawing from foreign bases and decreasing the defense budget are two very different things… and personally I’m in favour of the former, but not the latter.
No, they still would have gone. Other countries would have kicked in some support, as in fact they are doing; a number of countries are providing the logistical support for the Mali mission, not just the USA.
The United States does not exist in a vacuum. Without its support, you’d just have other countries buying a few more C-17s and using them more often. People who live outside the United States are not mentally deficient. They would not be sitting around saying “Sacre bleu! We want to send troops to Mali, but we have aucun airplanes! Whatever can we possibly do?” In fact, the support is out there. It’s just not being used because some of it is coming from the USA. If Italty had a C-17 to send troops, maybe Canada wouldn’t be using its C-17.
You’re assuming a drawdown in one country’s capabilities would not affect other countries’ plans, which is… well, it’s a really weird assumption.
Countries have often requisitioned civilian air transport for military purposes and I suspect that in a bind the French would have used Air France planes and more merchant navy ships. Admittedly not as good as using Air Mobility Command. But, will get the job done.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
No, they still would have gone. Other countries would have kicked in some support, as in fact they are doing; a number of countries are providing the logistical support for the Mali mission, not just the USA.
[/QUOTE]
Who else is providing logistics support and how much comparable support are they giving? Half? 2/3rds? Do you have a cite?
It’s not just a matter of buying more C-17s or whatever, it’s an entire system. Could other countries step up and do it? Yeah, if they were willing to increase their budgets a consummate amount, and take years to build out the organizations and systems to do so. But it’s not just a matter of throwing more money at it and getting instant magical results. We have been providing the backbone for the western worlds military for decades now. Only the US currently has the capabilities to project more than a token force on a global scale.
As an example, the EU spends roughly half of what the US spends on it’s military. But they don’t get roughly half the capabilities…far from it. The US military is more than double the effectiveness of the EU’s combined military at this time…it’s many, many times more effective when put into the perspective of our global commitments. We don’t actually need the EU to deploy a large force overseas if we so choose (we would like them along, to be sure, but more for political and perhaps economic reasons than for military ones). If the EU wanted to deploy it’s military in force outside of it’s borders, however, they absolutely DO need the US’s assistance. Same with every other western nation. No other country on earth today can deploy a large military force beyond more than a short distance from it’s borders. That includes China, Russia and India.
So, when people start talking about how ‘insane’ our military budget is, we need to get some perspective. And when someone tries to bring up the ‘The US spends more than the next 10 military countries!’ we have to look at what that actually means.
I’m not assuming that at all. It absolutely WOULD affect other countries plans. As I said, it would make the overall effectiveness of the combined western worlds military’s much, much less effective. Would they step up and fill the void? I don’t see how they would. I don’t see the EU raising it’s taxes (more) to pay for a larger and more capable military, both for economic and for political reasons…and, basically, it’s not only about the money. Oh, I could see them raising their budgets a little, but not enough to fill the void. Canada? Yeah, they might be able to justify raising their budgets and making their military more capable…but enough to make a difference if the US bowed out?? Not a chance. Same goes for every other western power I can think of…there just isn’t anyone to step up, and collectively I don’t think that they could or, more to the point WOULD do so.
If that seems weird to you, well, I guess we have a different outlook on things.
It all depends upon how much and how fast.
Too much and too quickly could lead to conflicts and brush-fire wars all over the planet. The inevitable intervention by other nations (some of which are not allies of the US) could well lead to a dangerous destabilization of the present and somewhat fragile entente among the major players.
Too little or too slowly could lead to economic crises inside the US and would leave the US in the undesirable role of ‘foreign enforcer’.
Remarkably enough, I believe that US military bases overseas are rather necessary if we are to project power globally. I say ‘remarkably’ because I once was staunchly opposed to them, seeing them as Cold War relics best relegated to the dustbin of history. But, if the US is to serve as the de-facto ‘World Police’, then our bases in Europe and elsewhere are quite irreplaceable.
There appears to be a reason why the US has chosen the current path, and it isn’t all ‘The New American Century’ nonsense. Or at least, that is what I hope.
I think it would be a good thing-the USA is currently being manipulated by many regimes around the world. Take the Persian Gulf-we have a very expensive naval task force there-ostensibly to keep the oil flowing. Actually, it functions to keep Iran at bay. This delays the evolution of the Iranian regime into something more democratic. And when we intervene in places where civil wars are raging, we wind up taking sides-and losing lives and treasure (see Somalia)…and manage to make enemies of everybody. If we took a hands off approach toward North Korea, the Chinese would be forced to get involved (and perhaps introduce some reforms).
Or take Mali-the French are mad because we didn’t immediately step in and provide transport and logistical support-I say, sorry, its YOUR war-you break it, you own it.
Playing “world cop” has cost us a lot of money, and yielded pretty bad results.
