Post WW2, the United States still had their industry intact whereas everywhere else was destroyed so they were the wealthiest nation, which has continued to this day, and leaders at the time wanted to keep it that way.
Bases around the world let the US respond to basically any small threat it wants to, which helped keep its “most powerful nation” position.
It hasn’t always been successful and US power hegemony seems to be on the decline, but they still have bases everywhere even if they’re extremely unpopular like Okinawa.
US has bases because we have powerful aircraft. And Jordan lets us have that base because they’d prefer it if our base were there also protecting them from such dangers.
We have a base there because ISIS is a real threat and deserved nearby air-power to counter it. Iran is there because ISIS is a real threat and Iran is rightfully setting up defenses. ISIS is there because Iraq / Syria destabilized (we are to blame for Iraq, but Syria is on its own for their troubles, we had nothing to do with that. ISIS took advantage of weakening Al Qaeda thereby absorbing local militants / former Al Qaeda and becoming a regional problem).
USA countering ISIS is to our benefit in Iraq, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
We don’t really take power “just to take power”. There’s a reason behind all of our decisions. Arguably, our life could be so much easier if we just took power like the 1800s, but USA isn’t about that today and our politics are way more complex. Unfortunately, its too complex to discuss in most circumstances and most people fail to understand the moves anymore.
Agreed that ISIS is a real threat and that it’s all incredibly complex and short responses on Lemmy won’t do the topic Justice.
I disagree with the statement:
We don’t really take power “just to take power”
as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
1800s everyone was taking power, even well into 1910s or 1930s. But modern 1990s+ era politics is pretty different. Monroe Doctrine barely applies today (we’ve kept our hands off of Venezuelans even as they collapsed, and I’d prefer if we stabilized South America more actually…)
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
Its largely for the defense of trade routes. Look at the Houthis, they’re not exactly a minor entity. They have cruise missiles and other such weaponry. To effectively combat Houthis, it makes sense to attack them with overwhelming might. Even then we aren’t going to really deal with them or stop them from disrupting trade in the Red Sea.
Why the USA? Well, look at Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They haven’t been able to keep the area peaceful by themselves and we now have to step in with Operation Prosperity Guardian. Or what? Are we supposed to just let $Billion cargo ships get boarded by the Houthis?
We haven’t pulled a Vietnam on Venezuela likely because of OPEC connections.
You cannot deny the influences of historical actions on modern politics. There’s a direct line of people who supported / enacted US power ambitions, that you’ve agreed with, to the modern day. Many of these people are either on their deathbed or 1-2 generations gone. Kissinger just died two months ago.
You’re justifying the power projection after the fact. The original question was why does the US have bases everywhere and they didn’t just appear one day. Many bases are in conquered countries from WW2 (Germany, Japan). There’s also history of the US placing troops with countries that nominally align with US interests, despite their despotic nature (S. Korean dictatorship, S. Vietnam, Cuban Bautista government etc.). US operations have also been implicated in overthrows of democracy (Iran shah reinstatement, Guatemala’s 1952 coup on Jacobo Arbenz) and the US has also supported deplorable governments like the Khmer Rouge (nominally communists but at odds with Vietnam in 1977) out of spite.
It’s all power projection, and one that primarily benefits the rich within the United States.
People need to understand that Iran is a direct result of the US and the UKs oil ambitions, because the unpopular reinstatement of the shah bred the environment for the Islamic Revolution to thrive, take power, and cause the problems we see today including the Houthis who clearly would have no love for the US because of its supply of armaments to the Saudis who have been bombing them.
Sanctions are “I’ve decided not to trade with you”, which hardly constitutes “imperialistic ambitions”. Mercenaries do not constitute proper US policy either.
And yes, I recognize we’ve done some shitty things in the 1950s (“banana republic”), but its difficult to even call those things “Imperialism” proper, especially given their overall effects between our countries. Shitty foreign policy does not necessarily mean that we’re going around trying to conquer people.
I think comparing Venezuela to China is apt here. Both are “leftist” governments that the US is nominally opposed to, but we still allow trade with China despite growing tensions. Venezuela, and Cuba too, got embargoes from the US because of the idea of the Monroe doctrine and Roosevelt corollary (my neighborhood, my rules). The US can hurt them more for not falling in line.
I guess my point is that it’s the US leveraging its power to get what it wants, and I’m biased but trying to look at it from a more objective perspective. The US does not act as a monolith, there are people who oppose bases / promote isolationism which complicates the matter.
As an American I’m personally pissed that we have to deal with the sins of our forefathers for being greedy and trying to rectify that is going to be a slow process.
Meh, the short answer is power projection.
Post WW2, the United States still had their industry intact whereas everywhere else was destroyed so they were the wealthiest nation, which has continued to this day, and leaders at the time wanted to keep it that way.
Interesting article about the wealth: https://medium.com/the-worlds-economy-and-the-economys-world/a-short-history-of-americas-economy-since-world-war-ii-37293cdb640#:~:text=At the end of World,net exporter of petroleum products.
Bases around the world let the US respond to basically any small threat it wants to, which helped keep its “most powerful nation” position.
It hasn’t always been successful and US power hegemony seems to be on the decline, but they still have bases everywhere even if they’re extremely unpopular like Okinawa.
US has bases because we have powerful aircraft. And Jordan lets us have that base because they’d prefer it if our base were there also protecting them from such dangers.
We have a base there because ISIS is a real threat and deserved nearby air-power to counter it. Iran is there because ISIS is a real threat and Iran is rightfully setting up defenses. ISIS is there because Iraq / Syria destabilized (we are to blame for Iraq, but Syria is on its own for their troubles, we had nothing to do with that. ISIS took advantage of weakening Al Qaeda thereby absorbing local militants / former Al Qaeda and becoming a regional problem).
USA countering ISIS is to our benefit in Iraq, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
We don’t really take power “just to take power”. There’s a reason behind all of our decisions. Arguably, our life could be so much easier if we just took power like the 1800s, but USA isn’t about that today and our politics are way more complex. Unfortunately, its too complex to discuss in most circumstances and most people fail to understand the moves anymore.
Agreed that ISIS is a real threat and that it’s all incredibly complex and short responses on Lemmy won’t do the topic Justice.
I disagree with the statement:
as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
1800s everyone was taking power, even well into 1910s or 1930s. But modern 1990s+ era politics is pretty different. Monroe Doctrine barely applies today (we’ve kept our hands off of Venezuelans even as they collapsed, and I’d prefer if we stabilized South America more actually…)
Its largely for the defense of trade routes. Look at the Houthis, they’re not exactly a minor entity. They have cruise missiles and other such weaponry. To effectively combat Houthis, it makes sense to attack them with overwhelming might. Even then we aren’t going to really deal with them or stop them from disrupting trade in the Red Sea.
Why the USA? Well, look at Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They haven’t been able to keep the area peaceful by themselves and we now have to step in with Operation Prosperity Guardian. Or what? Are we supposed to just let $Billion cargo ships get boarded by the Houthis?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-68139518.amp
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10715
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020) - *US mercenaries
We haven’t pulled a Vietnam on Venezuela likely because of OPEC connections.
You cannot deny the influences of historical actions on modern politics. There’s a direct line of people who supported / enacted US power ambitions, that you’ve agreed with, to the modern day. Many of these people are either on their deathbed or 1-2 generations gone. Kissinger just died two months ago.
You’re justifying the power projection after the fact. The original question was why does the US have bases everywhere and they didn’t just appear one day. Many bases are in conquered countries from WW2 (Germany, Japan). There’s also history of the US placing troops with countries that nominally align with US interests, despite their despotic nature (S. Korean dictatorship, S. Vietnam, Cuban Bautista government etc.). US operations have also been implicated in overthrows of democracy (Iran shah reinstatement, Guatemala’s 1952 coup on Jacobo Arbenz) and the US has also supported deplorable governments like the Khmer Rouge (nominally communists but at odds with Vietnam in 1977) out of spite.
It’s all power projection, and one that primarily benefits the rich within the United States.
People need to understand that Iran is a direct result of the US and the UKs oil ambitions, because the unpopular reinstatement of the shah bred the environment for the Islamic Revolution to thrive, take power, and cause the problems we see today including the Houthis who clearly would have no love for the US because of its supply of armaments to the Saudis who have been bombing them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
Honestly one of the funniest things I’ve read on Wikipedia
Sanctions are “I’ve decided not to trade with you”, which hardly constitutes “imperialistic ambitions”. Mercenaries do not constitute proper US policy either.
And yes, I recognize we’ve done some shitty things in the 1950s (“banana republic”), but its difficult to even call those things “Imperialism” proper, especially given their overall effects between our countries. Shitty foreign policy does not necessarily mean that we’re going around trying to conquer people.
I think comparing Venezuela to China is apt here. Both are “leftist” governments that the US is nominally opposed to, but we still allow trade with China despite growing tensions. Venezuela, and Cuba too, got embargoes from the US because of the idea of the Monroe doctrine and Roosevelt corollary (my neighborhood, my rules). The US can hurt them more for not falling in line.
I’d also argue the US is particularly mad at both nations because they escaped the cycle of the School of the Americas (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation) tendency to create right-wing dictators from US trained army officers in left swinging South American states.
I guess my point is that it’s the US leveraging its power to get what it wants, and I’m biased but trying to look at it from a more objective perspective. The US does not act as a monolith, there are people who oppose bases / promote isolationism which complicates the matter.
As an American I’m personally pissed that we have to deal with the sins of our forefathers for being greedy and trying to rectify that is going to be a slow process.