|
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
its hard for me to decide whether this is a smart, or otherly dumb decission the USA is making in redeploying troops.
Historically, all ancient empires had large garrisons and naval bases around there sphere of influences. These bases kept them strong, and typically prevented any uprising or trouble from the areas of control.
When economic or political reform struck, and these bases were dismantel, the empires were soon lose much of their might, wealth, and power within a few decades.
The ancient Athenians prove a great example of this with their league of Delphi. However, they were much more clever. Not only did they get the approval of their fellow 'allies' to surrender their security to the league (which was run by Athens), but the Athenians also got them to pay tribute for this. So in esence, the allies were funding the Athenian army instead of their own. This kept them in great might for many years.
Our situation today is slightly reversed. The USA has gotten most the world to forefit militaries by simply telling them they don't need one anymore, and that the USA will pay for their military expenses. Being that the USA is in action a benevolent nation, and a good caretaker, it isn't outrages for nations to agree to this sort of arrangement.
Now because of economic, or political concerns, or maybe even a belief that simply technology has let us overcome, the USA is thinking of voiding this arrangement.
And thats the scary part. Without the USA world-wide security garuntee, you will get more nations building up their militaries, although this might be a good thing for a short period (it will defintely make the world more appreciative of USA's bargin arrangment to them), in the long run this might not be as pleasent. I've never known of an idle European army... And we've all know what European armies are capable of.
If this realignment is simply the result of new technical achievement, whereby the USA is still able to garuntee the same security to Europe and the rest of the world, I have no problem. However, if this is a realignment for purely other reasons, then I'd have to be strictly against it.
Simply, I don't care how much Europe bickers and moans about American care taking of world affairs, where as the author of the article clearly illustrates this is the inverse proportion of their ability to do something about it. I'll let Europe bicker and moan any day of the week, so long as it will mantain the global hegemony afforded to us by the USA.
When the USA loses such hegemony, it will simply not be as good a world we live in as today - and that goes for the entire world, not just the Americans. |
While this may be true to some extent, in previous times empires didn't care what other people thought, they just owned land around the world. In this time, people get outraged when you are in their land but they also want it both ways and want protection in their time of need. It doesn't work this way however so you either want us there or you want us out.
About nations building armies. Well, I think treaties such as NATO prevents a lot of this as one country attacked would be seen as an attack on all and no one wants superpowers allied with a country you attack . So I dont think there will be a great arms race, aside from teh countries who have beed doing so already for years, India, Pakistan, NK, China etc.
We all know that 36,000 troops in South Korea if anything happened would mean nothing. They would probably be obliterated in a matter of days, being outnumbered over 100 to 1 as they are on the front lines. They only serve as a trigger point deterrent in case NK attack and the US would have to be in the war as it would an attack on our own troops. To me they are unneccesary as in a war they would be just cannon fodder before any real force could arrive.
|
