Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US considers it in their strategic interest to maintain peace around the world. We are vicarious beneficiaries of that logic. The same way that a farmer considers it in his pecuniary interest to grow and sell vegetables, and we are vicarious beneficiaries in that we have access to affordable food we can eat. People like you see conspiracies where there is actually nothing but fortuitous alignments of interest. Li…
You're making a textbook strawman argument. While I get the dislike for conspiracy nutjobs, I did not make any such statements or implications. I merely have stated two facts: 1. The USA has put up military infrastructure around the world by its own volition. 2. The USA is the richest country in the world. > The same way that a farmer considers it in his pecuniary interest to grow and sell vegetables, and we are vica…
Fair! Withdrawn.
> So what is the handout here, exactly? Your argument is an oxymoron.
I'm not sure how it's an oxymoron. I don't believe I called anything a handout. The fact that others have let themselves become dependent on your behaviour does not make your behaviour a handout to others. The US has made a strategic calculation that defending Europe is of security interest to the US, which has caused it to undertake vast expense on that continent between 1945 and now.
It is an open question whether the US was actually correct in that calculation. Perhaps it was a costly mistake with minimal security benefits for the US but positive externalities for others. Or perhaps it was initially correct, but ceased to be so after the end of the Cold War. Either way, the US may conclude that a continuing presence in Europe no longer serves its security interests going forward. In that case the confluence of interests will simply have ended.
The fact that Europe did not take the many decades it had to prepare for this moment is quite unfortunate, but not really something the US is responsible for. The US has done nothing but encourage Europeans to step up their security efforts for over fifty years. Ultimately it is Europe that faces the consequences of its own decisions, not the US or the rest of the world.
I realise the word 'eurocentrism' is not in vogue, but it is so very apt. If Europe managed to see itself as a region like any other, the way the rest of the world sees it, it may find it easier to understand why the rest of the world does not feel responsible for underwriting the cost of Europe's defense. Why is it America's job to fund the defense of Europe? Why it is not the reverse? Or perhaps Europe should be funding the defense of Southeast Asia? It's certainly got the money. There are far more people in SE Asia than in the EU. They are no less deserving of safety and security than anyone in Europe.
Of course, the reason this doesn't happen is that people cannot just expect free security umbrellas from countries on the other side of the planet. Except Europeans, that is, who for some reason not only do expect this, but also act absolutely outraged when anyone queries this assumption.