3 ms·
Strategic motivation? If one assumes the US is going to be globally involved, yes, but that's begging the question. Economic motivation? Not so much now, wit
by pfdietz 11mo ago
Strategic motivation? If one assumes the US is going to be globally involved, yes, but that's begging the question.
Economic motivation? Not so much now, with the US being a dominant oil producer, and with petroleum itself losing importance. Even then, it's questionable if this could justify the full cost of the US military.
I think the original motivation was two fold: it was a combination of some sort of moral obligation to defend the "free world" from authoritarians, and (after WW2) a desire to keep small countries (and recent WW2 enemies) from deciding their only option for defense was their own nuclear deterrent.
- amanaplanacanal 11mo agoI don't see much evidence that's the US wants to defend the world from authoritarians. Some of their closest allies are authoritarian countries.
- pfdietz 11mo agoExpansionist authoritarians, which in the post war world was communists. Why would the world need defending from non-expansionist authoritarians?
- amanaplanacanal 11mo agoMaybe. They seem to actually like expansionist authoritarians now. Evidence being the Russia Ukraine peace effort.
- pfdietz 11mo agoAnother thing the US did in the post-war world was apply economic leverage to dismantle European empires. This can also be viewed as defending nations against external coercion.