3 ms·

The US does it because a) it's one of the few countries with global force projection capability b) it's in both its long and/or short term interest to do so

The US does it because a) it's one of the few countries with global force projection capability b) it's in both its long and/or short term interest to do so Today, the US under Biden is pretty selective about intervention. For example, it isn't intervening on the the behalf of the Saudis anymore as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be Riyadh--specifically, MBS--is also being petulant and immature in taking for granted American support. There is remarkable symmetry between Netanyahu and MBS in this respect, e.g. the former trashing Israel's formerly bipartisan image by allying with the GOP under Obama and Trump.
wing-_-nuts 3y ago
A) That costs money. More than 800 BILLION dollars a year, to be exact. B) Extremely debatable. There's a lot we could do with 800B that would have a much more tangible impact on the average American. If it's in our interest, it's in the worlds interest as well. Something tells me it wouldn't be too long before the UN had a maritime task force capable of defending shipping.
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  All the UN's military power is provide by its member nations. If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability To put this into context, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, 38 overseas bases, 130,000 troops overseas and nukes [1]. Turkey has 1, 12 and 60,000, respectively; Russia 1, 10 and 50,000 (exempting Ukraine, I think). You have to go from China to Australia--through India, Japan, France, Italy and the U.K.--to get to America's aircraft carrier fleet. U.K., Turkey and France for bases (this one is plausible). And none of this counts the massive logistics reserve the U.S. military has compared to the world. America has built and funded a military designed to check global hegemony. It doesn't produce it, even if our policymakers sometimes pretend it does. But it prevents a global hegemony from emerging, with regional hegemons kept from dominating their neighbors. In general, it is difficult to read history without concluding this is the right approach. It's basically antitrust as geopolitics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_projection_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_project...
    - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
      TBH, I don't really care. I don't mind the idea of the US being an equal partner as part of said UN task force, but I'm pretty much over the US being solely responsible for it

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> as their oil isn't as important to the US as it used to be Riyadh--specifically, MBS--is also being petulant and immature in taking for granted American support. There is remarkable symmetry between Netanyahu and MBS in this respect, e.g. the former trashing Israel's formerly bipartisan image by allying with the GOP under Obama and Trump.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

A) That costs money. More than 800 BILLION dollars a year, to be exact. B) Extremely debatable. There's a lot we could do with 800B that would have a much more tangible impact on the average American. If it's in our interest, it's in the worlds interest as well. Something tells me it wouldn't be too long before the UN had a maritime task force capable of defending shipping.

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
All the UN's military power is provide by its member nations. If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > If those nations willing to lend their military to the UN don't have global force projection capability, the UN doesn't have global force projection capability To put this into context, the United States has 11 aircraft carriers, 38 overseas bases, 130,000 troops overseas and nukes [1]. Turkey has 1, 12 and 60,000, respectively; Russia 1, 10 and 50,000 (exempting Ukraine, I think). You have to go from China to Australia--through India, Japan, France, Italy and the U.K.--to get to America's aircraft carrier fleet. U.K., Turkey and France for bases (this one is plausible). And none of this counts the massive logistics reserve the U.S. military has compared to the world. America has built and funded a military designed to check global hegemony. It doesn't produce it, even if our policymakers sometimes pretend it does. But it prevents a global hegemony from emerging, with regional hegemons kept from dominating their neighbors. In general, it is difficult to read history without concluding this is the right approach. It's basically antitrust as geopolitics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_projection_capabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection#Power_project...
  - wing-_-nuts 3y ago
    TBH, I don't really care. I don't mind the idea of the US being an equal partner as part of said UN task force, but I'm pretty much over the US being solely responsible for it