Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's very simple. I want the dollars spent defending Europe to be spent here at home. Presumably you would still like to spend some dollars defending the US? How many dollars do you think is the difference? (keep in mind there are many nonlinearities in defense spending: you can very easily cut spending by 20% and wind up with 20% of the capability instead of 80%) The US's presense in Europe is very much strategical…
I noticed you weren't able to provide any compelling concrete examples, as expected. At best , the US does a bad job of providing global public goods which benefit all nations. At the peak of the British Empire, the Brits controlled 25% of the globe. By contrast, US territory barely expanded in the wake of WW2, during the period that we've supposedly been running the world for our own benefit. During this period, rel…
> At the peak of the British Empire
Global public goods and peak British Empire don't belong in the same thought IMO. Might as well go in about how great a public good the Belgians and French brought to Africa in their heyday.
I definitely agree the US shouldn't insert itself as much directly like the Iraq wars. But thinking that means we should walk away from controlling global naval shipping and near immediate air presence is missing out the enormous soft power we can project. Align with us on trade and we'll make sure your ships can leave, your planes can take off. Disagree, and we'll see who answers the call when those Houthis start shooting at your boats.
Losing those air fields and making the Navy considerably smaller massively reduces the ability for the US to project security on a global state.
Meanwhile the Trump administration cuts programs while ballooning the military budget to $1T...