Question for our friends on the left

[TJX]

I've seen a number of threads lately along the lines of the USA shouldn't be the worlds policeman, doesn't need a military, should only respond with force to direct threats only.

Let's say for discussion sake that the USA does the above, withdraws from world leadership, draws down the military, becomes isolationist etc. How do you see the world after that happens? How do you see China in this future? How do you see Russia in this future? How do you see the Middle East in this future? How do you see Europe in this future?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I truly would like to understand how and why you arrived at your present view. I'm hoping we can have an adult discussion about this. Can we leave the name calling out of this?

 

[Earthlyone]

Afghani women and girls only real hope is the intervention of what woke western progressives regard as the big bad evil west, but you see, woke western progressives don't do Joined up thinking.

 

[TJX]

Woke western progressives don't do Joined up thinking.

Please no flame wars.

 

[Earthlyone]

Please no flame wars.

See my edit.

 

[CornusKousa]

I've seen a number of threads lately along the lines of the USA shouldn't be the worlds policeman, doesn't need a military, should only respond with force to direct threats only.

Let's say for discussion sake that the USA does the above, withdraws from world leadership, draws down the military, becomes isolationist etc. How do you see the world after that happens? How do you see China in this future? How do you see Russia in this future? How do you see the Middle East in this future? How do you see Europe in this future?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I truly would like to understand how and why you arrived at your present view. I'm hoping we can have an adult discussion about this. Can we leave the name calling out of this?

Not a lefty but I do agree with no longer being world police and exercises of nation building for people who hate us while our own nation crumbles.

Not being the world police, especially for people who hate us, don't want it and or are using it to exploit us, isn't isolationism.

Russia would probably be prosperous.

China too.

Especially after they get done winning some wars, something the USA no longer has any interest in doing.

The middle east will probably continue to just be a shit hole along with Africa and most of S. America.

Europe will likely devolve into some infighting and getting kicked around by Russia.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

I've seen a number of threads lately along the lines of the USA shouldn't be the worlds policeman, doesn't need a military, should only respond with force to direct threats only.

What threads, specifically, are you talking about?

 

[IrezumiKiss]

See my edit.

Using "woke" undermines your whole post.

 

[oggbashan]

That worked really well in the 1930s when the USA was isolationist. When the League of Nations, not backed by the USA, allowed Abyssinia to be taken over by Mussolini's Fascist Italy, it showed that the League was toothless and allowed the rise of Hitler.

The League of Nations was established because of the USA's backing, but when they did nothing - WW2 was on its way.

Again when the USA joined in WW1 its army was pathetic and had to be built from scratch. In WW2 the Japanese underestimated the USA because they could see an obsolete and reduced scale military establishment. They were wrong, but Pearl Harbor was a real shock. The isolationists and 'Keep America out of foreign wars' activists were marginalized overnight. That was the Japanese's biggest mistake. By attacking without declaring war they changed the political balance in the US who wanted revenge.

One of the twentieth-century objectives of US foreign policy was the end of the British Empire and Pax Britannica, which they had achieved (even if many Britons didn't realise it at the time) by the end of WW1. That left a vacuum which the US should have filled but didn't, preferring to stand aside.

 

[TJX]

Not a lefty but I do agree with no longer being world police and exercises of nation building for people who hate us while our own nation crumbles.

Not being the world police, especially for people who hate us, don't want it and or are using it to exploit us, isn't isolationism.

Russia would probably be prosperous.

China too.

Especially after they get done winning some wars, something the USA no longer has any interest in doing.

The middle east will probably continue to just be a shit hole along with Africa and most of S. America.

Europe will likely devolve into some infighting and getting kicked around by Russia.

This looks like a reasonable view. Who do you think will fill the power vacuum when the USA isn't the worlds policeman? Without US interference what do you think will happen to the worlds shipping through the South China Sea,? Something like 60% (probably incorrect %) of the worlds shipping goes through those waters. Is having a Russia who kicks around Europe a good or bad thing?

 

[ll74]

The answer to humanitarian crisises needs to not be the military.

There are other ways to address that.

But lefties aren't isolationists. I'd say we just understand that the govt can provide relief without fighting or wars.

It's not a coincidence that Afghanistan has been compared to Vietnam.

Our role should be to work with our allies through non military intervention to promote human rights and democracy.

 

[coati]

What threads, specifically, are you talking about?

Yes, and which threads specifically are based on the "left" saying the USA "doesn't need a military". And, is it only members of the "left" who don't want our strong military used to try to convert other nations to the American way?

If you want to avoid a flame thread, make sure you set up the premise appropriately

 

[TJX]

That worked really well in the 1930s when the USA was isolationist. When the League of Nations, not backed by the USA, allowed Abyssinia to be taken over by Mussolini's Fascist Italy, it showed that the League was toothless and allowed the rise of Hitler.

The League of Nations was established because of the USA's backing, but when they did nothing - WW2 was on its way.

Again when the USA joined in WW1 its army was pathetic and had to be built from scratch. In WW2 the Japanese underestimated the USA because they could see an obsolete and reduced scale military establishment. They were wrong, but Pearl Harbor was a real shock. The isolationists and 'Keep America out of foreign wars' activists were marginalized overnight. That was the Japanese's biggest mistake. By attacking without declaring war they changed the political balance in the US who wanted revenge.

One of the twentieth-century objectives of US foreign policy was the end of the British Empire and Pax Britannica, which they had achieved (even if many Britons didn't realise it at the time) by the end of WW1. That left a vacuum which the US should have filled but didn't, preferring to stand aside.

This is interesting. I never heard the perspective that the US wanted to end the British Empire. That was not something I remember being taught in school. The rest is consistent with my knowledge.

Are you saying the US should maintain it's world policeman status? And if not who do you think will fill that role?

 

[butters]

i don't know which threads you are referring to, but the withdrawal and isolationist stance was adopted by the trump administration. since biden was elected, he has rejoined the paris accord, has unified again with so many american allies that were abandoned by t, and is working with these same allies to help limit chinese and russian influence in the world economy and cyber security, by the implementation (and potential implementation) of sanctions etc....

the afghanistan withdrawal was a done deal, decided on by the trump administration but without the backing of the requisite safety/security measures to make it feasible... biden inherited this, and was backed by most americans wishing to see americans troops out of the area and american dollars saved, but was unprepared for the sudden collapse of the afghan gov't--leading to the chaotic scenes we've witnessed. Even so, more than 100,000 people have already been evacuated by the biden administration, including 7,000 on the day of the bombings.

so, as 'a lefty', i don't see that america needs to be the world's policeman but biden has stepped up to place america BACK at the head of the the allied world, working in unison with them rather than dropping the ball. Yes, some of the american allies were concerned about the swift withdrawal of troops from afghanistan... they have every right to be... but when the doha deal was cut by trump, the withdrawal was inevitable. I didn't see any handwringing by republicans at the time.

In the time of a pandemic, america's leading the way in helping other countries even as it fights its internal battle over the fucking selfish idiots refusing to get vaccinated to help their own communities. America's leading the world's drive towards combating the ravages of climate change. In fact, america's got more worldwide credence now than it did the last 4 years.

 

[pecksniff]

I've seen a number of threads lately along the lines of the USA shouldn't be the worlds policeman, doesn't need a military, should only respond with force to direct threats only.

Let's say for discussion sake that the USA does the above, withdraws from world leadership, draws down the military, becomes isolationist etc. How do you see the world after that happens? How do you see China in this future? How do you see Russia in this future? How do you see the Middle East in this future? How do you see Europe in this future?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I truly would like to understand how and why you arrived at your present view. I'm hoping we can have an adult discussion about this. Can we leave the name calling out of this?

I see China becoming the regional hegemon in East Asia like the U.S. is in the Western Hemisphere; Russia being satisfied with its territorial gains under Putin; Europe getting on with making stuff and money in peace and safety; and the Middle East blindly groping towards the future as always.

 

[TJX]

What threads, specifically, are you talking about?

A few days ago pecksniff posted a thread , does America need to be a military power, also another asking why we are allies with Saudi Arabia. In one of the threads about the Afgan withdraw, I believe, I read where someone said we should use military force only when there's a direct threat.

 

[KeithD]

I've seen a number of threads lately along the lines of the USA shouldn't be the worlds policeman, doesn't need a military, should only respond with force to direct threats only.

Let's say for discussion sake that the USA does the above, withdraws from world leadership, draws down the military, becomes isolationist etc. How do you see the world after that happens? How do you see China in this future? How do you see Russia in this future? How do you see the Middle East in this future? How do you see Europe in this future?

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. I truly would like to understand how and why you arrived at your present view. I'm hoping we can have an adult discussion about this. Can we leave the name calling out of this?

I'm a liberal and I don't believe that (and you can find recent posts of mine that would bear that out). I'm sorry I can't see your face scrunch up trying to process that revelation on what "liberals" all think/do.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I see China becoming the regional hegemon in East Asia like the U.S. is in the Western Hemisphere; Russia being satisfied with its territorial gains under Putin; Europe getting on with making stuff and money in peace and safety; and the Middle East blindly groping towards the future as always.

That's a pretty concise summation of the World As It Is, although I'd say the Middle East is a backwater continually nursing old grudges and vying for religious supremacy (Shiite vs. Sunni). If they didn't have oil no one would care.

 

[coati]

A few days ago pecksniff posted a thread , does America need to be a military power, also another asking why we are allies with Saudi Arabia. In one of the threads about the Afgan withdraw, I believe, I read where someone said we should use military force only when there's a direct threat.

So, where is the thread with the "left" saying the USA does not need a military?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

A few days ago pecksniff posted a thread , does America need to be a military power, also another asking why we are allies with Saudi Arabia. In one of the threads about the Afgan withdraw, I believe, I read where someone said we should use military force only when there's a direct threat.

That dude has been on ignore since day one so can you link it? Also, one person posting questions doesn't represent "the Left." FFS.

 

[TJX]

Time for me to go back to work but I will monitor this thread. Thank you for the adult discussion. I am interested in understanding. Not saying I will agree but I will give consideration to your views.

 

[CornusKousa]

This looks like a reasonable view. Who do you think will fill the power vacuum when the USA isn't the worlds policeman?

I don't think anyone.

Nobody wants to and I don't think anyone is stupid enough to try after watching the USA destroy itself pretending it could.

Without US interference what do you think will happen to the worlds shipping through the South China Sea,? ​Something like 60% (probably incorrect %) of the worlds shipping goes through those waters.

It will almost certainly fall under the control of China and shortly after, Japan.

Is having a Russia who kicks around Europe a good or bad thing?

Well I figure that's for those snooty oh so superior to the USA in EVERY possible way Europeans who look down their nose at and wave their fingers at us as warmongering racist, to decide for themselves.

What European nations defense, along with others defense and random 3rd world shit holes infrastructure and social norms shouldn't be is the US taxpayers fuckin' problem.

Now, I'm not saying we can't have allies with common defense goals.

But IMO the nature of our military alliances has absolutely got to totally change.

As well as the US military being a world police AND welfare program isn't sustainable and most Americans have had about enough of that particular abuse.

We don't owe the planet our social norms and lifestyle, in fact way may lose ours because we were so busy trying to force it on everyone who didn't want it, our society was neglected and left to decay.

 

[CornusKousa]

I see China becoming the regional hegemon in East Asia like the U.S. is in the Western Hemisphere;

Only if the US continues to restrict Japan and it's military.

If the situation OP was talking about where we got out of other countries military affairs??

I think China's hegemony would be very short lived before they found themselves in the same place they spent the 3000+ years leading up to 1945, Japans bitch.

 

[pecksniff]

Who do you think will fill the power vacuum when the USA isn't the worlds policeman?

Nobody in particular; it will be a multipolar world.

Without US interference what do you think will happen to the worlds shipping through the South China Sea,?

Whatever the Chinese want -- which is not an ominous prospect, because the Chinese clearly want a great deal of international trade to happen, and are investing vast amounts of money in their Belt and Road Initiative to facilitate that, building stupendous transportation infrastructure outside their own borders.

 

[pecksniff]

I think China's hegemony would be very short lived before they found themselves in the same place they spent the 3000+ years leading up to 1945, Japans bitch.

China was only Japan's bitch in the early 20th Century -- before that, Japan was a country they could always safely ignore, which suited the Japanese just fine.

 

[pecksniff]

So, where is the thread with the "left" saying the USA does not need a military?

Here.