Thread: United States Military Role in the World: Europe, Asia, and Middle East

So I got to watching a documentary about the United States military and what would happen if we removed it from the world stage. It had some interesting facts. It brought up a lot of incidents like geneocide, oil, and defense of certain nations. It posed some interesting questions. I cannot comment with true expertise, but I do have some knowledge in the areas. So my question is what other people think? What especially do Europeans think?

The reason why I am curious about Europeans is because I seem to hear a lot about how we need to keep out of other nations' affairs. One of the questions posed by the documentary is what can Europeans and the UN do about things like Geneocide? Well given the military status from these nations...well...nothing really. Looking at history we see even in the European backyard...nothing. The Balkans (Bosnia, Serbia, and Kosovo). They can't really field a large enough force FAST enough. I would say that is pretty accurate. I mean there are dozens of US military bases world wide and how many in Europe? I would say that was a large benifit during the Cold War. Of course I think part of the European mentality on this has to do with 2 MAJOR wars being fought on their soil. I would figure that makes a lot of sense to hold back from large militaries.

I think another HUGE benifit that very few Europeans understand they receive from the United States military opperating abroad as it does, is that of stability. I am not talking about us keeping everything in the world on track, but look at the Middle East. We have our bases in certain areas keeping guys like Achmedinjadadada (I can't spell that Iranian dudes name to save my life) at least half way in check. The areas with the Oil are the ones Europe needs to be concerned about. We have bases there, and I don't know how much Europe does there. But us staying there keeps the region stable and keeps oil from being cut off (aka Kuwait). China also stands to gain from stability on the oil markey from OUR military. Does anyone else see this?

The Israel question is huge. What exactly would happen if we stopped our support of Israel? What would happen to the Middle East and oil prices? Especially if a place lke Iran gets the bomb.

Now what about the North Korean question? South Korean protection depends a lot on US technology and troops. Especially with Seoul right on the border. If anyone wonders why them getting the bomb is a big deal...that is it.

Taiwan is a nother nation under the protection of United States military and the Navy specifically is what prevents China from making moves. The OTHER big question is also Japan. China may have no ambition to control Japan, but the question arrises that if China gets to expanding...how long till Japan is under threat? Or that they need to go nuclear? Or expend for a bigger military?

So these are my thoughts (some are parroted out of the documenary and really I am looking for commentary). Anyone else?

Something to be said for keeping the sea lanes open.

Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik

Something to be said for keeping the sea lanes open.

Yea. I agree. I am not well versed in the topic. I might try to get this thread moved over to the international politics thread. I am really curious about such things. But as it seems to me the sea lanes are quite a big deal. Not to mention the only Navy that can truly hold them down is the United States Navy.

I will admit to only being moderately versed, but, I would suspect that most Europeans (and probably especially the leadership) see their role as sort of an annoying back-seat-driver; bothering the guy operating the vehicle but offering him criticism when they want him to fix his path. Were they ever to look in the seat next to them and discover that sitting there was the person they thought was driving the car, they might get very nervous indeed.

Originally Posted by cpwill

I will admit to only being moderately versed, but, I would suspect that most Europeans (and probably especially the leadership) see their role as sort of an annoying back-seat-driver; bothering the guy operating the vehicle but offering him criticism when they want him to fix his path. Were they ever to look in the seat next to them and discover that sitting there was the person they thought was driving the car, they might get very nervous indeed.

Very interestingly put. I question what exactly they are taught over in Europe about military involvement in the Middle East and so on.

I think it is a curse to be the dominant military power. With this power you obviously want to use it to keep your own trade safe. But with globalization it is more prudent to do so for all nations. This of course goes unnoticed as after a few decades of not much pirate activity people will forget there was ever a problem. Think about when the British were at the height of their power. I highly doubt that anyone was being respectful because they were protecting trade and keeping the sea lanes open, which they were doing. Now we are in much the same boat and it looks to stay that way. Please don't think I'm trying to bash you or anything. I realize my response is a little sharp, in fact I myself have posed exactly the same question. I think in the end it is for the best that we keep doing what we do. That is all.

Originally Posted by Gracchus

I think it is a curse to be the dominant military power. With this power you obviously want to use it to keep your own trade safe. But with globalization it is more prudent to do so for all nations. This of course goes unnoticed as after a few decades of not much pirate activity people will forget there was ever a problem. Think about when the British were at the height of their power. I highly doubt that anyone was being respectful because they were protecting trade and keeping the sea lanes open, which they were doing. Now we are in much the same boat and it looks to stay that way. Please don't think I'm trying to bash you or anything. I realize my response is a little sharp, in fact I myself have posed exactly the same question. I think in the end it is for the best that we keep doing what we do. That is all.

I really don't see it as such. I see your response as well thought out and respectfully worded . I understand what you mean and I certainly grasp the historical concept. I do see being the world power as not a curse for the only reason that I know I am safe militarily speaking. I will also be quite well off given the country I live in.

I don't think it is disadvantageous to be the dominant military power. Politically speaking though it is very annoying. They way I like to think of it is all the nations of the world are on a frozen lake. Over the centuries some have disappeared and new ones taken their place. Each of these "nations" carry bats which symbolize attacking the other. Inevitably cracks have spread everywhere. Now the USA stands in the middle of the lake with multiple enemies. However they no longer wield a bat, or in other powerful nation's cases a large bat, they wield a massive mallet. If the full force is used the lake will shatter. That is how I picture our power. No one dares engage in outright hostility of one nation attacking another. So it is an advantage but also a hindrance. Much like the more powerful and successful you become the more envy and hatred you attract for no reason. You aren't trying to garner this, you just want to be successful. It's all part of the game.

When WWII ended, much of Germany saw the Allies as invaders, foriegn occupiers. the peace treaty with Germany had been signed between the military establishment and the Allies and any civilians present did not technically have the authority to sign. The other problem was that France, USSR and the USA treated Germany like their own private military play ground. thier planes flew constantly just above the houses. You could see the pilots and almost read thier names on the side of the cockpit. (Personal experience). the first time I had this happen I actually ducked. Millions of DM's in damage were done by these practices (including have tank maneuvers in farmers fields with thier crops still in. Good luck collecting damages.
So theses Allies made few friends in the villages and towns.

Anyhow, my point is that our military is probably not as popular and our media would like us to believe. I believe in a stronger, smaller, more mobile military. But not a self proclaimed babysitter or guardian. In Europe that is the job of NATO and I support NATO. Along with NATO we have military obligations to the UN and so if we removed our forces from Europe, maintained watch on the Atlantic and stayed away from being Big Brother, I think Europe for the most part including the east would do just fine.

Remember the Yugoslavian Crisis was handled by the UN with American support. If a country needs help or the UN decides it does, the UN can mobilize forces from its member states including the USA and move in. If they need more they can ask. There is a backup plan. Get out, scale down, keep to our treaty obligations with NATO and the UN and go from there.

I believe and support a United States that attempts to retain its hegemony for as long as feasibly possible in an effort to shore up alliances, create new partners, and in general establish the most geopolitically advantageous ground for the coming century. This includes the extension of democratic hegemony, the suppression of autocracies beyond our sphere of influence, the liberalization of those within our sphere, and the contesting of strategic ground like Central Asia, large swathes of Africa, the Caucuses, the Pacific Rim, etc with our autocratic rivals Russia and China.