[jamesredd]

The truth is that the US can no longer afford to be the police of the world, and as this recent Houthi situation has shown, lacks the capacity to do so. What's even more worrisome is the nuclear arsenal of the US could fall into the wrong hands in the event of a civil war - with the upcoming presidential election. Disarmament, of conventional and nuclear weapons, should be a long term goal of the US.

[devjab]

We’ve had warships fighting pirates in the area for two decades, we being Denmark. The US does very little “policing” in the area compare to European nations. Which isn’t too weird considering we’re much more affected by these things.

The US is mostly present when the US wants to do US things in the region. Which is rarely “policing” it, and more about having strong influence. I’m not going to judge whether or not the US should keep a strong geopolitical presence in the world or not, but if you don’t, someone else will probably do it instead making. I know a lot of Americans don’t think of the soft power and influence you guys have around the globe through your hard power, but it would be a very different world if you gave it up.

[CommanderData]

Disarmament goes in hand with being less aggressive in other parts of the world.

Practically means receding army bases including the biggest American outpost the US has in the middle east at the moment (I'll let you guess which country that is).

It will never happen because it does not align at all with it's foreign / soft expansion policies.

[matthewfelgate]

You think the world would be less aggressive without American policing?

It's an interesting argument...

[m0llusk]

Recent Houthi situation? That mess has been festering since 2004.