What would happen if America withdrew troops globally?

You think there should be a withdraw? What do you think would be the result?

@MarsSword: it seems to me that American foreign policy which includes some form of military intervention and/or presence just isn't working. i've no idea what a "succesful" alternative would be but, proper diplomacy would be a good starting point

@room101: More diplomacy maybe. I think a good start would be less influence of private companies in US political/military investments. There are lots of places where it is working and the region is relatively stable as a result. There are lots of places where it isn't, those places get most of the media attention, bad news sells.

@MarsSword: bad news does sell. without a doubt. let's be honest, how many of us would be buying newspapers, or turning on our TV'S, or going to our newsfeeds if all we got was good news?

i do believe that the multi-national organisations, like NATO and the UN, should be the ones we turn to when conflicts arise

@room101: It is an unavoidable truth, but one we should keep in mind to maintain perspective.

But we must also understand that NATO and the UN don't actually have troops or power. They are basically living treaties requiring the supply of troops. It so happens that America is the most willing and the most able to supply those troops. In most ventures there are other nations involved, but because the American military is so much bigger their numbers far out way their allies. As a result they take most of the political heat.

@MarsSword: agreed. so we're left with the following options

1. America continues, militarily, as is
2. NATO, the UN and maybe even the EU (they've been talking about creating an EU military force for some years) become a sort of multi-national, military presence in real terms
3. every nation goes it alone and forms its own alliances as it sees fit

@room101: Yes, those are the options.

The second option is not real. That option really means more troops submitted by other countries, which just isn't happening and wouldn't happen if the US pulled out. Or what you are saying is that every country in the world be required to pay to allow the UN to pay and supply an army that is under the exclusive control of the UN's governing body and ultimately a single commanding general, and then takes over the role of international peace keeper, stabilizer, and deterrence.

How that army is controlled and kept in check is another question. How much each counter pays and what sort of control that payment would be another. Who's interests does it protect? What ideology does it follow, what happens if countries don't contribute? So many complicated questions.

Every country going out on its own would result in the outcomes talked about above, with Russia and China taking control of more territory, destabilization in the middle east and likely outright war.

@MarsSword: America's military spend in 2015 was well in excess of $500 billion. that's more than six times greater than its nearest competitor, Saudi Arabia who spent $80 billion. in terms of manpower, America undoubtedly has a much bigger population than any of its allies. so yes, its contribution, and burden, is far greater.

the model that you've outlined is not entirely what i had in mind in my second option. the UN Security Council is charged with maintaining the security of UN member states. it's completely ineffective in meeting that objective mainly because each member state has its own objectives, alliances and ideologies. therefore, i agree, i do not see it as a viable option.

however, in terms of the third option, i do not fully agree with the projections put forward by Xuan12 and the idea that Russia and China will gain more territory.

i do not see Middle and Near Eastern countries getting into bed with Russia, despite what's going on in Syria with President Assad and his chum Putin. Russia is secular and what religion does exist, is Christian. since the Arab Spring of 2010, we've seen more and more Middle and Near Eastern countries install Islamic governments. so no, they would not turn to the Russians. they would look to themselves and forge alliances with other Islamic countries. this could also create another front for Russia to deal with (other than Europe) because of the many Islamic countries on its own borders. of course there will still be the power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran but, i have to be honest, i'm getting to the point where i'm ready to throw in the towel on that one and just say to them, "have at it"!

in terms of the Pacific, China's influence is indeed growing. however, it is again at odds, ideologically, with all of the other nations in the region. what this could actually end up doing is further eroding Communism. in the fullness of time, isn't it conceivable that North Korea will stand alone in every respect?

and then there's Africa......now what. lol

@room101: I think the Russian influence would control Eastern Europe and military power would continue to work in the middle east attempting to control oil. Similarly China would do so in Asia, gaining more territories by politically bullying and threatening smaller nations. The ideological differences matter, but when one force is overwhelmingly more powerful and interested in self gain the ideological differences don't matter so much.

@MarsSword: Since the beginning of this millennium, Russia has tried to move into the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Notice that I use the rather ambiguous term “move into” and not invade. It has invaded Georgia and Ukraine. Out of those five countries, it has succeeded only in Crimea, a “section” of Ukraine. I’m not trying to belittle even this gain and I’m not trying to belittle the impact that this has had on Ukraine and its people.

We can argue all day long about why Russia failed to get a foothold in those five countries, was it sanctions, was it the EU, was it the UN, was it American military intervention. To me, however. The better questions would be;

Why those five countries out of the eleven countries bordering Russia? and,

How did the people of those countries react?

Those five nations are naval exit and entry points into Russia, therefore, they are of vital strategic value. Wouldn’t that strategic value be mitigated if we didn’t continue to think in terms of us and them? If we didn’t give the likes of Putin the political ammunition to persuade his people that the West poses a threat to the security of Russia then, any such attempts, by him and his government, would be that much more transparent.

As far back as 1991, the Crimean people wanted independence from Ukraine.

Just think about those two points. Strategic value enhanced by our actions. The desire of local people for independence from their current government.

Since the beginning of this millennium, China has not invaded anybody.

Taiwan was, and is still officially considered to be, a province of China. This is agreed by both sides. The sticking point is that they have a different understanding of what/who China is. Is it the People’s Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, or the Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Nationalist Party? Regardless, their identity with greater China is weak. Some want Taiwan to abandon any pretence of a link with China and declare independence.

But I repeat, China has not invaded anybody.

On 1st July 1997, Hong Kong was passed back to China by the British. The Chinese were astute enough to let it remain as the financial hub that it is and have done very little to change its Capitalist economic system. In fact, in all but name, the Chinese people have embraced Capitalism.

Surely all of this begs the question; why are we talking about a military presence and military intervention when the two great bogey men that we’re all so afraid of have not actually used these “tools”?

The influence of China and Russia, in the wider world, has come through trade and politics. Therefore, if we want to curtail that influence then we must use the same techniques. Or are we stating that we’re going to force our ideologies and our trade deals on other nations through military threat?

I can’t begin to count how many times (in talking to people in the wider world) that I mention America (and the UK) and am met with words such as: colonialism, imperialism, exploitation and globalisation. Surely we need to start thinking in terms of hearts and minds and stop thinking in terms of being the biggest guy with the biggest stick.

@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.

@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. :)