Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What would happen if America withdrew troops globally?

We all hear about America being a global policer and a stabilizing force across the world. What do you think would happen with a total withdrawal of American forces on foreign soil?

What about states with growing economic power that could fund their own military but still depend on American military might, states like Japan and Korea (yes, I know treaties are in place making the US responsible for security to varying degrees, but treaties can be renegotiated with changing times)? Do you think America should start a hand off and withdraw?
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F Best Comment
I think it is long past time for a gradual handoff to begin. But we cannot create a power vacuum in our wake.

If we did just up and leave, you would see the Korean peninsula erupt, Taiwan collapse, the South China Sea fall completely under Chinese control, Eastern Europe including Ukraine & likely the Baltics come under Russian control, NATO collapse followed by turmoil in Turkey, and much, much more.
sarabee1995 · 26-30, F
Thanks for the best answer!

Xuan12 · 31-35, M
As for what would happen.

In the pacific, two possibilities. Pacific nations such as Singapore, Australia, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and others form their own defensive coalition to check Chinese influence in the region. The US loses influence in the region, but China gains little and the independent coalition deals with both powers. If the coalition fails, or is never formed, it's very likely that Chinese hegemony prevails in the Pacific. The smaller nations, many of which already have China as their main trade partner, would also be beholden to China for security. This gives China very powerful influence over the pacific nations, and makes the US the outsider. Pacific trade and politics will be on China's terms.

In the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is already preparing for this contingency. Maybe not to much change there except less favorable oil prices. They will however continue their political and ideological war with Iran. Without US support on SA's side, Iran and likely ally Russia make significant against Saudi Arabia and their regional allies. Continued strife in the region may even erupt into a formal war between nations. In any case, Turkey, Iran, Syria, and possibly Iraq will all move further toward Russia.

In Europe. Western Europe is able to check Russia to some extent, but eastern European nations are on shaky ground. Several of them likely reenter the Russian sphere. The Baltic states may try to align with a Scandinavian pact, but the entire region will find itself in limbo, torn between wealth of Western Europe, and the force of Russian arms.

What does this all mean for the US?

We lose influence around the world. Security treaties, economic bargains, and political leverage all become more difficult for the US. Ever notice how almost every major US military endeavor since WW2 has included Australians? Won't happen anymore if they're busy with their own security, or under the Chinese political sphere. US economic investments abroad become riskier in regions where the US doesn't wield as much influence. Investment in US interests also becomes less attractive for foreign investors, for a similar reason. The US is less capable of advancing it's interests in the global market. Nations don't cooperate with one another out of charity or civility. They do it to advance shared interests. If the US withdrawals from the world (not just militarily, but economically as well), then other nations will have fewer shared interests, and less motivation to cooperate.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. The US would certainly lose power and may shift into economic collapse as other nations no longer need to prop up its very indebt economy.

I would see another Arab/Israeli war in the middle east as well.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
I think the world would be more peaceful in most places. The UN should be the body that keeps the peace because they are closer to the consensus of world opinion and have less bias for favoured regimes.
@room101: Effective does not pass a moral judgement and is very much attached to context. Atomic weapons are undeniably very effective devices of destruction.

In terms of their application in Japan, the desired result was the surrender of Japan, which was achieved, making them effective.

But I understand what you mean. They are horrible and the impact is long lasting and devastating.
room101 · 51-55, M
@MarsSword:

"the impact is long lasting and devastating"

exactly
@room101: And effective at devastating...
KnightRanger · 56-60, M
There is a part of me that would like to see this. But I agree with @SaraBee1995, and you for selecting hers as the best answer! A gradual handoff would be good; a power vacuum would not. We learned, or should have, in the lead-in to World War Two what can happen if we adopt an isolationist attitude to the rest of the world... tempting though it is, sometimes, to do so.
room101 · 51-55, M
@MarsSword: I don't generally subscribe to this idea that the wars that we've been involved in have been for the benefit of global corporations. However, I'm not so naive as to think that various businesses don't benefit from these conflicts.

To answer your question re Obama, he is very highly regarded here in the UK and in Europe. He also won a lot of people over in the Middle East because he tried to listen to all sides and come up with solutions that were acceptable to the world in general and to the people of the region. You may not know this but, during his tenure in the White House, American tourists were beginning to go to Iran of all places.
@room101: I guess I am just becoming super cynical. I look at reports and reasons and false intelligence and I just wonder what is going on behind the scenes. What don't I know? Then I look at possible motivations and they seem very real. I also listen to first hand accounts from soldiers and well...some of them are scary.

I didn't know that about Obama.
room101 · 51-55, M
@MarsSword: just look at Iraq for example. America has plowed millions of dollars into that country. In hard cash! Do American corporations now own its oil wells? Isn't that what critics of the Iraq war said? That America and the UK were only in there because of the oil.

Of course, military contractors have made a lot of money from that conflict alone. As have arms manufacturers. But, what American or Western commercial enterprises do we actually see in that country?

Maybe if and when there is some form of stability and the economy starts to actually function, we may see something. But, in four days time, it will be 14 years since we invaded. Just think about that. Fourteen years!

Meanwhile, look at how many Western corporations are now under the control of oil sheikhs from Saudi Arabia etc.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
And a moral argument for America being there, namely the protection of basic human rights.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Booyeah · 41-45, M
North Korea would feel emboldened and invade South Korea, which is still reeling from it's first female President being impeached for corruption charges.

Russia would probably take bigger chunks out of the Ukraine.

China would probably force Taiwan back into the fold and continue to expand into the Pacific.
I think all those things are likely. I did just read an interesting article pointing out that South Korea's economic strength is enough for it to be able to fund its own military capable of stopping North Korea.

The other two, yes, I agree, probably with other territories as well. It is also possible we would see another Arab/Israel war...
isolationism is an idea i reject. Simply withdrawing troops from east asia and eastern europe along with other parts of the world without considering any sort of repercussions such as stability in core regions will have dire consequences. I'd much rather see more embassies and diplomacy efforts carried out instead of military bases but that wont happen in the next 4 years seeing that president trump has destroyed the state department budget unfortunately.
I respect your perspective
room101 · 51-55, M
a very simple answer for a very complex question......YES!
@room101: I have to hand it to you, you bring up some amazing points.

Though Russia certainly has use military power to conquer before... In recent times, yes, you are right. Though I think often it might not take military power because the smaller countries might capitulate if there is no hope of victory or intervention by the US...

Anyway, the China point is a good one and modern Russia.

The fear is that in the power vacuum left by American withdraw and downsizing of the military we are left to the mercies of those other big governments and their ideologies. Though I think if America downsized and withdrew they could focus more cash on the development of trade, business, and military technology, and if the need arose to have a big military again it could be rebuilt in a fairly short time. So long as the intelligence network keeps its eyes open for a military build up by someone else.
room101 · 51-55, M
@MarsSword: thank you for saying that.

"those big governments and their ideologies"

If we're talking about China and Russia, that's my whole point. Their ideologies are not so different from our own. Not anymore.

The EU was ostensibly created to bring peace to Europe through trade. Although I've always been a bit of a Euro-skeptic, one can't deny that there has indeed been peace throughout Europe since the inception of the EEC (as it was originally known). I believe that there is a lesson there.

Personally, I believe that the threat to the world comes from fundamentalist Islam and the nations (in particular Iran and Saudi Arabia) who have an agenda and an ideology that is very alien to our own.

Anyway, this is a great debate. Thanks for starting it off.
@room101: Yes, I acknowledged that China and Russia are actually much closer than many realize in ideology. My point was that we are then at the mercy of any future changes that happen to their ideology, basically that we lose military power which scares many.

That is another good point, when economies are co dependent and there is more travel there is less political support for wars. Like if the US now tried to take over Canada a lot of soldiers would just refuse to fight.

I agree with your belief there. Fundamentalist Islam has no geneva conventions and no limits.

You are welcome. I love interesting debates. :)
Cierzo · M
Yes, please, the sooner the better.
Socialclutz · 36-40, M
yes I think so. I don't really care what happens to Korea, The Ukraine and so on. Let them bitch and moan over there while killing one another.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
SW-User
America won't withdraw troops cause... money.
That depends on the public response and the democratic process. Do we want leaders that are controlled by private corporations that use them to protect their profit interests?

For america as a whole it costs to have troops abroad, with no benefit besides an alleviation of conscience. Who it does profit is up for debate...

 
Post Comment