Every time you comment on here you show a little bit more of how little you understand of how the world works.
It is not 1945 anymore, indeed. But that's not why the US has bases in Germany. It has bases in Germany to serve as 'stationary aircraft carriers' on friendly foreign soil, which is a privilege and as part of NATO a mutual benefit and which were there on account of Russia and the Middle-East, not because Germany was still perceived as a threat or a country that needed occupation, that particular need ended well before the Unification and the withdrawal of Russians from Eastern Europe.
Tossing all of that into the grinder isn't 'making America great' it is making America smaller, much smaller. The EU has spent an absolute fortune on US military hardware in return in the past. That will end now, and this is being said out loud. EU military spending has been on the rise, but the US fraction of that spending is diminishing, and is expected to diminish further.
This will hurt the US much more than that it will help. So these are - like most MAGA inspired actions - at best own goals, at worse active aid to Putin.
You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense outside of the context of being ostensibly as pay-back for Merz stating that the US has been humiliated by Iran - which they have, there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so. But instead, the use of one particular word that your king is a bit sensitive to because it hits home is what set this off.
> You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense … there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so
If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and now Iran. Not to mention Somalia, Kosovo, and Libya, and countless minor skirmishes. We’ve been throwing kids into the meat grinder for 75 years, and lighting dollars on fire, for no good reason. There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us.
> If American foreign policy was rational, we wouldn’t have been involved in Korea
YGBFShM.
(As to most of the others you do have a point, but hindsight is always 20-20 — and the Dem decisionmakers about Vietnam had to contend with a revanchist, Red-baiting GOP that had attacked the Dems for having "lost" China.)
> There’s no reason for us to light money on fire having bases all over the world, when we have two huge oceans to protect us.
Yes, that helped so much on the 9th of September in 2001... MAGA is a fairly direct result of those attacks.
And I think you missed Afghanistan in your little list, which was not exactly a minor skirmish. Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States. That the proceeds were not shared equally is not the fault of the clients, but an internal affair. A diminished United States has a non-zero risk of collapsing much like the former USSR.
Meanwhile, you're lighting money on fire in Iran right now, and lots of it (though, according to Mike you are not at war and if you were it is over, a 'special military operation' of sorts). If only there was some kind of lesson to be learned from starting wars. Meanwhile, the oil people are making out like bandits, Israel is happy, what's not to like? And who cares about the price of eggs, gas, the Epstein files or immigrants. That's so yesterday.
> Pax Americana was a massive net positive for the United States.
The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence. Instead, this is a statement that’s just asserted without much proof behind it.
Proponents of this theory are making a “wet streets cause rain” fallacy. America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II. If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities. America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.
We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.
> The claim that literally blowing up vast quantities of money has been good for America is an extraordinary one that requires extraordinary evidence.
So, if I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'.
It also seems as though you fail to see how the rest of the developed world perceived the USA roughly up to 2002, whereas of course some other countries had a markedly different view.
You're a lawyer, that means you should have at least basic evidentiary research skills, especially for something so well documented. I suggest you use those skills and try to steelman the argument that Pax Americana was a massive net benefit for the United States in terms of world wide power (both soft and hard), income, prestige and less directly visible benefits, and helped to make it the most wealthy nation in the world (but not on a per-capita basis, however, that's an internal affair).
But I'm not going to do your work for you, it is absolutely ridiculous that you would make a request that can only stem from something close to willful ignorance.
> America was already the world’s economic superpower at the outset of World War II.
So?
> If you look at military history, there’s a lot of discussion about how the Germans were overwhelmed by America’s production and logistical capabilities.
You do know when the US joined WWII don't you?
And you do know what the Germans were up to at the time?
And you do know that it wasn't exactly the US doing this by its lonesome?
> America transitioned from being an industrial superpower into becoming a military superpower. You’ve got the causation backwards.
America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause (and what led directly to the cold war). And it didn't take long for the Russians to get theirs which caused Europe to live under the threat of nuclear war and total annihilation once again.
> We have had this conversation before, but I don’t recall you’ve ever squarely addressed my point.
You don't really have a point. The USA is not larger than the rest of the world, not in the number of people and not in the economic, military or industrial power that it has. Yes, it - for now - is a superpower. But that power is rapidly diminishing and other countries - most notably China - are ascendant. Just like Ukraine has shown Russia to not deserve its super power status any more Iran just showed that beyond all doubt about the United States. All that is happening right now is that one empire is dying and another will take its place.
WWII ended 80 years ago, America came out of it with absolutely massive credit and goodwill all over the developed world. That credit and that goodwill is now spent and/or destroyed on purpose and you are presenting this as a 'good thing'?
I don’t think this issue is so settled that you just get to say “research it yourself” instead of making your case. Whether the global empire makes America as a whole richer or poorer is highly disputed. And it’s not just the distribution of the spoils as you say. The longstanding view of Americans opposed to the empire has been that the empire enriches defense contractors, but is a deadweight loss for the country as a whole. Your theory could actually change the premise of the anti-empire left significantly.
> America didn't have the atomic bomb, which was made possible mostly by European scientists. That in combination with switching the industrial capability to military production is what drove the super power status, the bomb is what gave everybody pause
But the goal isn’t to be a superpower. The goal is to be rich. America was already the richest country by far before it used that wealth to become a military superpower. In fact the GDP per capita ratio of the U.S. to France was about the same before World War II as it is today. Heck, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about how much richer Americans were than Europeans back in the 1830s.
> I understand you right you fail to see what a lasting peace and good relationship with allies will do for the country that brokers that peace and you require 'extraordinary evidence' because it is an extraordinary claim? Next up you're going to say that the USA should have never joined World War II or created the Marshall plan in the immediate aftermath, that's a logical extension of that argument since that's universally seen as the launch of 'Pax Americana'.
I don't agree with him a lot of the time but I think his request is reasonable and I share his skepticism about the idea that US military presence and interventions are somehow beneficial
to the American's wellbeing, both the median American and the polity as a whole.
why should i not be skeptical? the first order effects of military are inherently destructive - why should i assume that having more military makes anyones lives better? its not obvious at all and requires a better explanation IMO.
now Germany has a choice - to spend hundreds of billions for conventionally armed military to defend itself and still face risks of war or just a few billions to develop and produce nukes (using already existing Pu from the power plants) and have everlasting peace. Germans are rational people as i heard.
The nuke is a tricky thing: deterring many scenarios like a full scale invasion, but a risk of mutual suicide when the enemy also has it. As a matter of fact it does not stop from "hybrid war", there are so many possibilities to harm a country (disorganize society, promote a friendly leader, attack critical infrastructures,...). So having nukes certainly increases security in many cases but is not sufficient to have everlasting peace !
How many military bases does the US have in Switzerland again?
Oh, the number is zero?
Germany? Well guess what, the US has a very prominent airbase and listening station in Ramstein and a bunch of other military installations there. Also: History.
But none of that benefits Germany that much. Being in aliance like NATO with duty for mutual protection benefits them, but american military basis are setup primary for american benefit.
Germany would want them in Poland or such, near to Russia which is an actual threat.
Isn’t the main benefit to America of bases in Germany connected to its commitment to defend European security? If the U.S. didn’t have NATO obligations, how much would it benefit from having German bases?
To be able to take territory when it wants something like greenland? Cause speaking about NATO, exactly one country triggerend article 5 and then threatened other members.
Second, more to the point they have rather large military hospital there. It is also used as a safe place to transfer troops through or have them ready for outside of eu operations.
Commitment to European security would be to not support Russia. Or soldiers in Poland and Latvia. As of now, European countries paid for missiles and US is refusing to deliver.
America complained and pressured whenever Europeans bought arms from non american manufacturers. Thr first time it started to matter for real, it stopped delivering.
There was a brief unfortunate episode a couple of hundred years ago, when the US was as little over twenty years old.
Some Africans started capturing American citizens and ships, maybe enslaving some, etc. Really quite unpleasant. The US eventually decided that its best option was invading Morocco.
It didn't have a commitment to defend anyone nearby, except the many Americans who traded all over the world.
The US has worldwide trade and interests now too, more so than in 1805.
Switzerland benefits from being surrounded by well protected neighbors. They also try to be MAD without being mad, they will just blow up all the roads and retreat to the mountains if they are invaded.
Do you think Germany doesn’t have nukes? I’ve always assumed it’s like Japan. They don’t “have nukes.” Just all the parts to make a nuke in five minutes.
Of course making an actual bomb is extremely easy especially when you have Pu from the power plants. And Germany has great stealth cruise missiles which potentially can carry those warheads. Yet actually making and possessing a nuclear arsenal is still a pretty large continuous endeavor - all the facilities for producing and storing of the warheads and delivery missiles, the security for that infrastructure, the ongoing technical maintenance of the weapons, all the people of what is, though small, still basically a separate branch of military, maintenance of the readiness level, integration of these weapons into overall military strategy and training exercises, etc.
It is still much cheaper and more effective than a large conventional army, yet sufficiently large and complex to not be doable overnight, so a political situation is required which would allow to, still very quickly, do it.
It is not 1945 anymore, indeed. But that's not why the US has bases in Germany. It has bases in Germany to serve as 'stationary aircraft carriers' on friendly foreign soil, which is a privilege and as part of NATO a mutual benefit and which were there on account of Russia and the Middle-East, not because Germany was still perceived as a threat or a country that needed occupation, that particular need ended well before the Unification and the withdrawal of Russians from Eastern Europe.
Tossing all of that into the grinder isn't 'making America great' it is making America smaller, much smaller. The EU has spent an absolute fortune on US military hardware in return in the past. That will end now, and this is being said out loud. EU military spending has been on the rise, but the US fraction of that spending is diminishing, and is expected to diminish further.
This will hurt the US much more than that it will help. So these are - like most MAGA inspired actions - at best own goals, at worse active aid to Putin.
You should be able to figure out the truth of this: if withdrawing 5K troops made sense outside of the context of being ostensibly as pay-back for Merz stating that the US has been humiliated by Iran - which they have, there is no doubt about it - then it would have been done so. But instead, the use of one particular word that your king is a bit sensitive to because it hits home is what set this off.