What would happen if America withdrew troops globally?

@KnighRanger:

I mean no disrespect to Sara, who is a very good friend of mine, (nor to you) but the entire premise rests on the assumption that America is actually keeping the peace. Given what we've seen for the last fifteen years, that is NOT a safe assumption.

@room101: Also true... Though there is an idea that there is stabilization in the world of super power countries provided by the US. Part of the problem is also that the US often seems to work against itself. The CIA creating one problem while fixing another or trying to get some control and then the Army and Marines having to clean up the mess...

There is so much in the way of shady motives and background stories that I so often don't know what to think anymore.

@room101: Touché! There is more than a little truth in your words. We have much to answer for, over the last couple of administrations.

That said, the examples she cites are ones in which (for the most part) I think we truly are exerting a stabilizing influence, however imperfectly – would we really prefer Russia or China to be serving the role of "world policeman"?

@KnightRanger: I don't know that they would serve that role. We can debate whether or not the US is doing anything that is really stablizing right now. The real reason is that the US cannot stand the idea of being less powerful than another nation. The thinking being that the US is shady, but others are shadier still and more volatile. At least with the vast number of people involved with US decision making change happens slowly which in and of itself is stabilizing.

@KnightRanger: do we need anybody to be serving the role of "world policemen"?

The fact of the matter is that, whether it be political machinations or covert operations or whatever, being a superpower has led America into a role of interference in the way other countries what to be. That interference is biting all of the Western World in the ass. Not only that, it's actually creating opportunities for people like Putin to basically do as they please.

@room101: I agree with you. The general idea behind being involved in a global scale, or renewing involvement seems to be (on the front side anyway, the back is always money, power, and influence) to protect human rights and push democracy for the wellbeing of the world. Whether or not this is actually good or worth the continual fighting for would be an interesting thought. The alternative is let these countries figure it out on their own. Which of course would lead to continued wars as the middle east and Africa catch up the Europe in terms of defined country boundaries and disputes. Boarders would change and a lot of people would die, but the result might be a more stable better defined region...

@room101: A good question, to which I don't have a definitive answer. I agree with both of you, in principle; however, a world in which a number of the belligerents are or likely soon will be nuclear-armed makes the prospect of an increase in armed conflicts worldwide concerning on more than just moral / humanitarian grounds.

As I say, I don't have a definitive answer, and I am finding the conversation interesting! But I continue to agree with Sara that simply pulling out and leaving a power vacuum behind is likely to be counter-productive. That's basically how we managed to enable to rise of ISIS, to cite just one recent example...

And I fear that if we stand down, others will stand up, whether we [i]need[/i] a world policeman or not! We have seen this beginning to happen, in the case of both Russia and China, after 8 years of the Obama administration. Interfering in the internal affairs of other countries is a different question entirely, and we have a lousy track record where that is concerned.

@MarsSword: there is another element to this.

We may not like or agree with the ideologies of African countries and of Arabic countries but, who are we to tell them that we are right and that they are wrong. Furthermore, it has taken Western civilizations 2,500 years to evolve into the democracies that we have today. That process was often painful and bloody, possibly because we were making it up as we went along.

Wouldn't it be better if we led the world by example instead of with this "boots on the ground" attitude?

@room101: Perhaps, but our journey was bloody and painful as you say. Could we not spar others the same blood? Perhaps not. But the cost will be watching parts of the world burn.

@room101: No disagreement, there! As I mentioned, our track record of interfering in the internal affairs of other countries is not exactly inspirational.

@MarsSword: Or irradiated, as I alluded to above... ;-)

In any case, I need to take care of a few things before bed, so I bid both of you gentlemen good evening!

@KnightRanger: Yes, the risk of nuclear is terrifying.

Indeed! It is a spectre hanging over all our doings, since 1945...

P.S. May I say that it has been a real pleasure to have an interesting, intelligent, and respectful discussion on issues of substance? That has not exactly been a common experience for me, here on SW. My thanks to you both!

@KnightRanger: thank you for re-invigorating one of the best discussions that I've had on SW. Well done MarsSword :)

A couple of closing comments because I too need to head to bed lol

@KnightRider: Obama did more to raise the currency of the US on the world stage than any of his recent predecessors (and the current incumbent of the White House) could ever dream of.

@MarsSword: isn't watching the world burn exactly what we're doing. After we lit the fuse by attacking Iraq without a credible plan for what would come next and after attacking Afghanistan without having a clue about how the people of that nation would react.

@room101: What do you mean by "raising the currency of the US on the world stage"?

Yes, we have watched, but we have been involved, and apparently have been trying to help. Although the more I read the trying to help looks more and more like using the military and people who volunteered to protect and defend the people to protect and defend the interests of huge corporations abroad at great expense of human life and suffering on both sides.

@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.

@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.