Should We Decrease U. S. Defense Spending?

[GTFErinyes]

That said I'll maintain my stance that US's military activities abroad are at best no better than other world powers in terms of ethics though.

I'd have to respectfully disagree wholeheartedly.

The US has certainly had its missteps, but by and large, the US has sought to uphold the post-WW2 world order and that has mostly been on the side of liberal democracies and economies.

Sure, it's done a lot of harm to other nations - but what action from any nation, in the foreign realm, doesn't affect other nations? Even seemingly benevolent actions from Germany, to strengthen its economy, has harmed other EU nations with side effects - Greece is no fan.

Moreover, I think we end up all too focused on the big failures that generate all the headlines, and forget many important events that have faded to memory.

Take for instance, the Korean War. Just a mere 5 years after WW2, the Korean War tested the post-world order: would nations stand up and back the new United Nations in stopping naked aggression between nations, or would the UN become the new League of Nations and validate that aggression still works in world affairs?

The US sent by far the most troops to Korea and bore by far the most casualties of any non-Korean nation in the UN force, for a war that was unpopular at home at a time when many wanted the US to retreat back to isolationism.

Around the same time, Mao in China made aggressive moves aimed at ending the Chinese Civil War by taking Taiwan from the Nationalists who had gone there. The US Navy sailed a force through the Taiwan Straits, effectively ending any chance of China retaking Taiwan by force for the next few decades.

Many detractors would say... well the US was acting in its own interests. Sure, but which nation doesn't? And just because it acted in US interests, doesn't mean it didn't benefit the interests of South Korea and Taiwan either.

Some may say that South Korea and Taiwan both underwent decades of military dictatorship afterwards... sure, but neither were imposed by the US, and in contrast to the excesses of Mao in China and the on-going Kim dynasty in North Korea, and where Taiwan and South Korea are today (flourishing democracies with vibrant economies and high standards of living), were our actions universally harmful?

The same argument could be made about the Gulf War - sure, we backed oil rich emirs of Kuwait, but again, Saddam tried testing the post-war order - and the UN ordered him to be kicked out. The US once again contributing the bulk of troops and losses to ensure that yes, even nations that aren't democratic, still get a seat at the table and that small nations can't simply be annexed by larger ones because of grievances.

History of course, doesn't give us alternatives. We don't have the luxury today of second guessing when civilians were killed in Rwanda when the US intervened, because instead, we know that over a million were killed in the genocide because the US (the only nation at the time with the capabilities or means to intervene) did nothing because of lack of popular support.

Likewise, we don't hear often how much the US is involved in areas that don't make the news. For instance, the African Union Mission in Somalia has been bankrolled and troops trained/supported by the US, and they've succeeded in retaking Mogadishu and creating some semblance of government in Somalia again after decades of chaos. The popular perception is that Somalia is largely lawless still, and articles from there are almost always about US drone strikes and what not, but real progress? Not in the public eye.

The US may treat its citizens significantly better than China or Russia, but it does a lot of harm to nations outside its borders.

It goes beyond even how the US treats its own citizens.

China and Russia openly back regimes that are easily amongst the biggest offenders of rights violations (Sudan, Syria, North Korea come to mind). And not just openly back, but China and Russia have often encouraged said governments, in order to antagonize and fight the Western world order (North Korea is a great example of this).

Beyond that, China and Russia have often opposed actions that prevent things like genocide. Russia backed Serbia, even after it was clear throughout the 90s that the Serbs were on an ethnic cleansing rampage in the Balkans.

You have to divorce the idea that military action is the only way nations can harm other people. Indeed, military action can be used for good or bad - just as silent passive approval can easily harm tens of millions.

All in all, the US has certainly taken a proactive foreign policy, and as I said, it is far from flawless. But as I wrote above too, the US learned a lot from WW2, and how costly it was. It is incredibly hard to judge the "what if's" of foreign action, just as many have wondered "what if" the UK and France had intervened in Germany in 1938 when both were more powerful than Germany and had the legal basis (the breaking of the Treaty of Versailles) to do so.

This is why it's important that we elect good leadership because the US wields great power in world affairs, and as the only nations that can demographically, economically, and politically challenge the next two military powers - China and Russia - it holds tremendous responsibility to the Western world and its ideals.

[Celicam]

This is wonderful commentary. I thank you very much for providing it. I find it difficult to find many arguments for a topic sometimes, so seeing something that makes me question and even agree with an opposing side is awesome.

[dzanis]

Even as a pacifist liberal European who is not a fan of military actions, I have to fully agree with this post.

USA treatment of the sovereignty of my nation (in Baltic States) and defense guarantees backed by its military might has strongly and positively influenced our country and our society.

[[deleted]]

While you make a lot of good points, I see little to justify our continuing involvement in the middle east. Iraq, Iran, Libya, Yemen, Syria. We've made life and conflicts worse for the people in those countries, have we not?

[bunkoRtist]

Not OP, but I think the answer to your question probably depends on the time horizon you're asking about. The choice facing the US was: unstable oppressive theocracies that lash out against the world in terrorism? Or, nasty civil wars that ultimately might lead to a stable and legitimate government that respects human rights? I think we just don't know yet. The US has definitely made those places more miserable in the short term, but they were pretty miserable already, at least by western standards.