Excargodog

The US today is anything but agile. Look at the mess the Navy is in with their deferred maintenance issues and lack of shipyard capacity - either civilian OR military - to do much about it. That plus the lack of much in the way of surge capacity. We have been aiding the Ukrainians AND the Israelis in large part with weapons produced in aging government owned- contractor operated plants with little surge activity and have contracting processes that hamstring the possibility of getting anything done quick. Plus we have let the defense industrial base for basic warfighting needs wither and the numbers of operational units decline on the theory that with a technological advantage we may no longer have we can do 'more with less.'

And as sad a state as that is, we are STILL an order of magnitude more prepared than any of our NATO allies. For those not paying attention, it isn't just the Ukraine where everything is coming apart. It's the Ukraine, the whole flippin Middle East, much of Africa, and parts of Central and South America, as well as a growing challenge in Asia.

in any event, the time is well past when we could afford to carry NATO members that won't carry their fair share of the load.

My opinion, anyway.

MaxQ

It is inaccurate to characterize the international role the United States plays as "policeman for the world." Unfortunately I can not make it quick and have any degree of coherence. Also, consider it an attempt to correlate information and world outlooks that someone of your background should already be familiar with. I have little expectation of influencing your conclusions, but perhaps it can provide a nugget or two for a few wayward browsers.

When I was in Jr. High I read the book "Lord of the Flies". Many decades later I came to realize just how insightful that book was.
While Golding wrote of a specific, narrowly defined society, his theme also applies to the society of nation states. It is a bit of fiction about Order, and how critical it is for functional human affairs.
For starters, this is about political order in the world, which is a given condition. It differs from it's nephew, The World Order, which is a state of affairs that is more malleable and fluid than Order. The World Order affects Order, but it is not its foundation.

Plagarizing from R. Haass from "World in Dissarray" and Hedley Bull from "The Anarchial Society" Order reflects that there are widely accepted rules as to how int'l relations ought to be carried ought and that there is a balance of power to buttress said rules such that those whom egregiously violate them are likely to fail.

There is never total peace, justice and equality in the world. But the only way we have achieving any progress in these areas is in an environment of Order. When order between countries is lacking, the loss of life, prosperity, and freedoms ranges from significant to catastrophic. Its existance or absence translates into benefits and costs for EVERYONE. In absence its effects can not be quarantined. It can be neither ignored or wished away. Their war should have your interest. Regardless, it will be, one way or another, interested in you.
The primary condition for any of the things we presume for a higher quality of life is Order.

The 20th century saw two catastrophes, both from a collapse of order. Total chaos ensued both in 1914 and 1939. The checks on chaos of the notions of sovereignty, diplomacy, and world trade were overwhelmed by failures of diplomacy, nationalism, racism, etc.
The Cold War however managed to stay cold. The forces of order such as diplomacy, arms control, and NATO offset the array of forces pushing towards disarray/chaos. While always a loomimg risk, a major, cataclysmic war was avoided. In spite of all the individual areas of disorder, by and large, major catastrophe was/has been avoided.

Currently we see evidence of more and more disorder. There are more externally diplaced persons (EDPs) than at any time since WW2. If any developed country has a border crisis there is a direct line to a breakdown in order. Usually it is a breakdown in a country internally, but it often spills over to other countries. If there are supply line issues in energy or material goods, it is an increase in havoc. And so on.
And of course, the flashing red light of a cross border invasion of a sovereign nation is the ultimate indicator of a breakdown in order.
When such a breakdown occurs, it is critical for the near future to insure the failure of the aggressor. It is essential for the health of the polity of Mankind.

There is one country that is essential for the mending of these breakdowns. The USA. And for the Machiavellian cynics, it is essential for the well being of the USA for this to come to pass.

subnotes: Essential is not to be confused with Exceptional.
Order does not mean a Hobbesian type of subservience to the various powers that be.
Order does not mean a Maciavellian world of back room deals to benefit some while dooming the rest.

If I get ambitious, and find the time, will add further thoughts to ExCargo's question why it is important for the USA to engage in foreign affairs. But if not, then there should be enough here to suggest some of the core reasons.

METO Guido

Carry, beyond our strength, agree. Have we lost capacity to defend, respond effectively as tested by rivals with increasingly aggressive, more frequent assaults? Wait & see won’t cut it too much longer. On whichever side of the argument one sits, caution with regard to Yankee action ain’t nearly what it used to be. Little more than trash talk nowadays.

Excargodog

Today that number is 243. At the end of WWII we had 16 million military personnel. And that was out of a population of 144 million, less than half of the number today.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Release...-while-percen/


A wise man once told me that you might be able to have anything you want, but You'll never have EVERYTHING you want. So how much are you willing to give up to be the world's policeman? Because the lethality of nonnuclear munitions really hasn't changed all that much. Yeah, there are improvements in accuracy, and that helps, but there is a limit to the extent to which technology can substitute for man(or woman)power. So how much of the surface of the Earth do you think we ought to be policeman for?

Read Kipling's Arithmetic on the Frontier. It's still valid.

METO Guido

Wilco.

Police departments do law enforcement. The service branches defense. Does DOD’s mission extend to surveil, patrol & protect global trade routes over ground, sea, air, space, cyberspace? Of course. Support alliances via accord & treaty, yeah. So far as reasonably achievable, sustainable. Russian rule in the cruel, dare I say evil, war on Ukraine is indefensible by any measure of baseline standards for modern morality or conduct in pursuit of purposeful, rational diplomacy. To the extent UN participation, market exchange or business resembling prewar normality is concerned; NO DEALS, NO EXCEPTIONS. Anything less is a sell out. Which I understand but refuse to relabel.

Hubcapped

you have the gift of eloquent speech. Just wanted to make sure someone acknowledges your thoughtful response.

History is rife with examples where sticking your head in the sand has backfired. We have endured the longest reign of world piece since lucy……be a shame to let it go out the window because of US political bullsh1t.

Excargodog

And I repeat my question:

So how much of the surface of the Earth do you think we ought to be policeman for?


For reference, the Earth has 197 million square miles total. That would be roughly ten square miles for EACH of the US military to police. So give a square area you think we can handle - realizing we recently lost a 20 year fight to police Afghanistan which only has 252,000 square miles. And what things in the US budget are you willing to give up to fund this quixotic campaign? Or are you recommending we use nukes - which we wound up doing in WWII?

METO Guido

Whatever part its voting citizens decide as determined by their elected leaders. I don’t question that. So it goes https://youtu.be/TUGOKB-JOT8?si=U6DB3WLNpNmMfcg8

Excargodog

Apparently our elected congressional leaders have other priorities...

MaxQ

A continuance of a 'not quick lecture' on the "real benefits" the US derives.
But first, I will restate that your term "playing policeman for the world" is a gross exaggeration, and mischaracterizes the reality of Ukraine/Russia as well as much of the int'l history of post WW2.

I am personally convinced that WW2 left the men who comprised the leadership of the West deeply shaken. (I am excluding what 'we' call Eastern Europe from this, as there the war was still ongoing, just that it was no longer with the Germans). I also believe that these leaders--their egos,cultural racism, and human error and foibles aside, were by and large men of goodwill. During the immediate aftermath the enormity of the catastrophe that had befallen the world, and Europe in particular, was just starting to sink in. Being practical men, they went to work to try and create a political world that would lessen the likelyhood of such a disaster again. We tend to refer to what evolved from this as The World Order. It was, and still is, a creation of many forces--but none so influential, or critical to it's function, as The United States of America.

From this era we have the United Nations. Much of the high hopes for it have not come to pass, but it still does important work as a focal point for data,catastrophe assistance, and a platform to put forth Man's aspirations and ideals. It is almost a certainty that if it were to be recreated today it would have a different structure, but it is better than no international forum.
As many believed some of the causes of the catrostrophe were rooted in economics, we have evolved to where we have The World Bank and The International Monetary Fund. As many believe that the overall physical well being of all people improves political stability (order),The World Health Organization, numerous NGO's, and multiple idealistic organizations such as Greenpeace, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty Intl, etc. These all make up the World Order. In spite of paternalistic tendencies, heavy handed application of use by the stronger powers, and it's contribition to the reemergence of nut-job Der Sturmer type conspiracy theories, all these various organizations have helped us humans be better off than we would have been than if we had attempted nothing.

We also have, largely due to the beligerant stance of the Russian Imperium (called the Soviet Union), and due to what I now believe to be a misreading of Stalins view of Communism as a world revolutionary force, alliances were also developed. Their aims were NOT remake the world, but rather to contain what was viewed, correctly or not, as an expansionistic threat from Soviet Communism. (the thought at the time could not accept that Mao and China et al were not puppets of Moscow) This was the primary thrust of the thinking of George Kennan, adopted by the Truman administration and continued by every subsequent administration through Bush and the collapse of first Russia's satellite empire, and then the USSR itself.

These alliances cover more than just military, but I will only mention military, and at that, only NATO.
The USSR was viewed as an immediate physical threat to the Europe not already occupied by Russia. Post 1945 there were only two Western powers with a military industry and the economy to support a military. The USA and Great Britain. The only strong, undamaged economy was the USA. Forming a military alliance rested on these two countries, and primarily on the USA. As their economies recovered, each member to the alliance contributed more and more.
2 factors: Strategic independence for most countries is not achievable. While a weaker partner gains security from joining an alliance, the reality is that the stronger partner will have significant influence over the weaker partners decisions, economy, and political autonomy. All this deferred power and influence flows to the stronger partner. In the case of NATO, that is the USA. A corrollary of this is that a mercurial shift in position by the stronger partner can have consequences to the stability of governments, world economies, and the encouragement of rogue actors--both governmental and non-govt such as criminal organizations.

The second factor is that Allies are a force mulitplier. Allies have in the past, and continue to, provide a HUGE advantage of the USA versus Russia and China. Russia and China do not have any true allies. They have never developed the relationships that would make for reliable friends. (Serbia may be one exception for Russia. I don't count Belarus as it's people are not pro-Russian) Russia and China can not depend on assistance from others when then need it. The USA, in spite of behaving badly in this century, still can.

More to come...out of time and I keep getting logged out of APC. I fear losing this so will post it and try again later