Ive always been wondering. Would the world really go into chaos, if the United States military left every foreign land it now occupies (in whatever form that takes-be it by force or by alliance)?

What if we left Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Europe? Korea? The Pacific? Would everyone go into mass hysteria and invade each other? Or would every other country that hates our guts suddenly be happy again?

In the pre World War I world, we didnt occupy every land on earth and the planet seemed to move along then as it does now. Occasional wars, disputes, peace, etc. The balance of power at the time was multipolar. After the world wars, the bipolar system made the world take sides and go at each other's throat it seems. So now that we are in a unipolar world, as the US is the only super power, does that make us vunerable? We have no competition but from the smaller nations trying to make a name for themselves and rebuild a multipolar world. It is inevitable it will occur, so maybe we should get out of their way now? Bow out gracefully and not be defeated. Kind of like retiring on top as champion.

If not, we may be doomed to failure since we are spread too thin. Thats what happens to all great empires throughout history. Is the USA next?

While the desire to turn our backs on the world is tempting (particularly when we see behavior that could be interpreted as ungrateful), we've stationed our servicemen and women in various points around the world so as not to make the same mistakes we made between WW1 and WW2. Between the wars, the US largely became an isolationist country and pulled back on military spending. When WW2 came around, we were largely unprepared and it caused massive economic, industrial, and personal mobilization.

So, although it would be tempting to tell flag-burning South Koreans to stuff it, we know that it is in our best interests to keep people and military equipment stashed in various potential hot spots. Mobilizing large forces to such a place would be more problem than keeping some there permanently.

Are we over-extended like other prior empires? That is a major concern, particularly given that our foreign policy over the past three years has caused few of our traditional allies to shoulder as much of the burden as they otherwise might. Bush doesn't seem to understand that some forms of multilateralism can help defray costs and loss of life for the US.

The reality is, our economy is dependent on foreign trade, and that probably is a good thing (having all the countries of the world economically dependent on each other is one way to raise the cost of a war, and help preserve peace). There are many places (Western Europe, for instance) where we currently hold bases that could be abandoned with little if any problems. But in places like S. Korea, and especially Iraq, our presence is vital to maintaining whatever level of control there is over a bad situation.

I agree with you, buyt with one caveat.

Once the EU constitution is ratified, the EU will have 455 million people. If the 3 states that have applied, (Turkey, Cyprus and one other) are admitted, it will be over 500 million people, on one market.

That's a huge amount of money, and economic clout, that given the xenophobia of some politicians who should know better, could cause the US problems.

Places like Taiwan and Korea would be instant battlegrounds. Places like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, parts of Africa, and even parts of the Americas could potentially become battlegrounds without a superpower to hold them in line.

But I think that over the next decade, you will see a total of 3 superpowers emerge.

The United States
The Pan European States
Communist China

This should alleviate the burden on the US being the world's policeman. No one counrty should have to do it. If we gave the UN the cojones, they could do it, but I don't think that will happen. What I can see happening is the increasing irrelavance of the UN, leading to its eventual obscurity.

The consequences for freedom around the globe would be horrific if the United States retreated. We can debate the current geo-politics of our adventure in Iraq, but on the whole, thank 'god' the United States, a country with democratic ideals, leads the world.

American military and economic power is the only thing keeping Communist China from attacking Taiwan, North Korea from attacking South Korea, and Japan from developing nuclear weapons - and that's just looking at Asia.

Lksimcoe wrote:

But I think that over the next decade, you will see a total of 3 superpowers emerge.
The United States
The Pan European States
Communist China

I agree that over the next decade (probably 15 to 20 years) the three power blocks you've noted will emerge - but I don't think this will necessarily be a good thing. A European power block dominated by France and/or Germany will probably look for opportunities to separate itself from America on the world stage - thus ultimately serving as a destabilizing factor for World Peace and encouraging anti-U.S. sentiment around the world. The Iraq debacle, and what France is doing vis-à-vis Iran and its nuclear program are current examples of what a powerful "neutralist" or even overtly anti-American EU could be like.

A real nightmare would be a powerful, militarized, modernized, Communist China – and unfortunately I think it’s coming. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, even Australia - all of Asia and the South Pacific - will be completely destabilized. These countries will be forced to make a choice between American security "guarantee’s," and recognizing the gorilla sitting next to them. Would an American President ‘blink” in 2022 to avoid nuclear war with China over Taiwan? China has territorial issues with nearly every country on its border – and has already fought wars with most of them.

Terrorism is a threat, but at its core it doesn't threaten the existence of the United States - it might change our way of life, and even impact our liberty - but not our existence. A powerful, expansionist, Communist China is the greatest potential threat that freedom and the United States will ever face - and a President in the next couple of decades will have to make choices that will determine the destiny of freedom.

[ April 22, 2004, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

I agree with much of what was said above, but have to disagree that Europe will be any kind of a bloc any time soon. That's certainly the dream of the bureaucrats in Brussels, but most Europeans don't really want that, and in any event, there's too much disagreement among the Member States, which are the product of centuries of cultural differentiation.

The fact is most of the real power remains with the national governments, not the European Commission. It's going to be a very tough sell for Tony Blair to bring the UK into the Euro-zone any time soon. And to take the example of Iraq, the UK, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and most of the new Member States from the east are all in the Coalition, while France, Germany and a few others are against it.

So I would argue the European Community is more like an enhanced NAFTA than an emerging power with anything close to a cohesive foreign policy. But I do agree the 21st Century will belong to China.

When the European Common Market was formed, (the fore runner to the EU), you're right. It was just like a NAFTA agreement.

What is very different now, is what the EU has accomplished in 10 years. Most people, including a lot of Brits, don't really recognize borders any more. The introduction of the Euro a couple of years ago went a long way to accomplish that.

I was in England for a family funeral in Late January, and during a layover in Heathrow, I was talking to some Europeans and Brits travelling. Later, while talking with my cousin and his wife, I got almost the same answer.

It is just as easy, and as cheap, to fly Newcastle - Rotterdam - Heathrow - New York, then to stick to a solely British route or Carrier. It is cheaper to go to Amsterdam to see a show on Saturday night than go to London. It's cheaper to buy a weekend cottage in France or Portugal than in England, and all medical benefits from the NHS are applicable in any EU country.

Everywhere I went things were priced in Euros just as prominently as the pound.

Most Europeans that I talked to, and there were a couple of Germans in that group (8AM in a pub in Heathrow airport. Now THAT's civilized) see a political union as an neccessary afterthought. They say in all that matters, and that includes in most cases the world view, they are already united.

But most see a political union, to create a true European State, as a foil to the rise of American Religious fundamentalism.

I'm not sure I agree with any of it, other than the Stella Artois is the best breakfast beer.

I can't say that the consequences for "freedom" would be horrific if the U.S. were to withdraw, because by now it's obvious that were not fighting for freedom or liberation or any other false pretense that has been appended to this war of choice. The one sure consequence of withdrawl is that the U.S. would be in no position to dictate the outcome or impose its will on the place. The U.S. isn't going to withdraw, at least not any time soon, & isn't going to turn political control over to the U.N., because that would mean giving up the prize--no more profiteering, no-bid contracts, no more evangelizing for Franklin Graham, no more potential to control oil markets, no more puppet government, no more using the war to gain domestic political advantage. It's safe to say that to this administration the present rate of casualties is an acceptable price to pay, & they're betting that the American people will concur. Another reason that pulling out is not likely to be considered an option is that Iran & Syria would emerge as the political winners without having to fire a shot.

There is sure to be a period of chaos & instability when the U.S. withdraws, but we on the antiwar left tried to say this BEFORE we embarked on this glorious adventure. Perhaps it would be similar to what happened in Iran in the first couple of years after their revolution--jockeying for power among various factions, with militias shooting it out & bombs going off here & there. (But this is happening already, with 135,000 troops over there!) Perhaps the Kurds would try to extricate themselves from the mess by declaring independence (de jure) or at least making moves to secure their present de facto independence. In this case Turkish intervention is a distinct possibility.

We keep hearing all this talk about how we're not going to "abandon the Iraqi people" or "cut 'n' run", but that is what we will end up doing, eventually. The uprising is drastically raising the cost of occupying the country, & the question now becomes how long & how much are American willing to pay. This place was a powder-keg, we all knew, but George W. Bush was determined to light the fuse. And unless we are willing to pay a very dear price in lives & dollars for a long time (& perhaps even if we are), we will not escape consequences for this holy debacle. But that fact shouldn't be justification for an open-ended war.

Instead, let's look at the consequences of staying, just up to the present. For all our military strength & firepower in Iraq, our political position at the moment is really quite weak, so the political consequences are already manifest. Much of the world thinks we're getting what we deserve. A generation of Arabs has been radicalized. America's traditional alliances are fractured, almost to the breaking-point. The U.N. has been rendered dysfunctional. As for security & strategic consequences, there is the regional instability exacerbated by this invasion & the potential power-vacuum. A country in which there was no terrorism has become one of the world's principal sources of terrorism. As for material consequences: 700 American soldiers dead & 3,000 wounded, 10,000 Iraqis dead, $200 billion already pissed away & no end in sight.

For all this, shouldn't there be some accountability?!

[ April 23, 2004, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: BillyBones ]

An interesting question. I think we should try it and see.

The geniuses who got us there in the first place will fill our airwaves with dire warnings of the horrible consequences if we let the Iraqis try to fix by themselves the mess we have made.

Poor dumb Iraqis. Who knows what follies they might commit, without the benefit of our geniuses to guide them. They might install a leader we don't approve of. Ethnic group A might install a leader not to the liking of ethnic group B. They might fight over this for a while. They might split up, a la Czecks & Slovaks.

But it's their country. We are no more justified in occupying that country than Germany was in invading and occupying Poland.

The one thing that will probably NOT make China a threat is the fact they are too dependent on trade to the United States. That is what is funding any of their militarization.

In 1979 US-China trade was at $2.5 billion, whereas today it is over $100 billion. The disputes between the US and China will only be over money. I dont think we will ever get into a military conflict with them, even over Taiwan. (I dont care if we have an alliance to defend Taiwan or not-when it comes down to it we will let them get invaded). China is also set to become the 3rd largest importer of goods in the world this year (behind the US and Germany, surpassing Japan).

Nixon I think forsaw China as a problem if we didnt find a way to be open with them. And he opened that door with trade. It certainly keeps me with a job since I work for a Taiwanese ocean carrier. But China's goals are not going to be that of taking over Asia. Im fairly certain they saw what Japan did in the 1930s and dont wish to swap roles. But balance of power would be good with a strong China.

On a side note, Iraq is now a perfect example of what happens when you take away balance of power. Like it or not, Saddam was a balance check against every other power in the Middle East. Now Iraq is a gaping black hole ready to collapse. We left him in power for a reason, and it wasnt just to screw with Iran. Now Bush made a big mistake and he makes us pay for it.

A couple of points in response to various items.

Yes, HulaBoy I agree generally that the EU is currently not very well co-ordinated - but I think in the next 15 to 20 years they will get their act together. When that happens, I'm concerned that the block will define its foreign policy primarily through distinctions, meaning separation, from that of the United States. An EU dominated by a Franco/German quasi alliance will not portend well for coordinated military and political action around the world. The United States will need European support in our attempts to stop an Iranian bomb, which unlike the current adventure in Iraq would be a direct threat to the United States, Israel, and the world economy.

Secondly, BillyBones, the consequences for freedom would be horrific if the United States withdrew from world leadership. Most of your post is dedicated to the Iraqi adventure - and you make some good points. In many other posts I've outlined my belief the United States should get in front of events in Iraq by creating new country's that recognize ethnic groups on the ground, instead of defending these holdover boundaries of British Imperialism. The United States should gives these people something positive to focus on - like creating their own nations - instead of fighting our occupation. That would mean an increased chance of actual freedom for these people - and that would only happen with American leadership.

Does anyone seriously believe that freedom would survive in Hong Kong, Taiwan or South Korea if the United States withdrew? Even Jimmy Carter cancelled an American troop draw down from the region because of the instability its announcement caused.

The only way a confrontation with China will be averted is if democratic political reforms take hold in that country - and the current communist government has no real plan to liberalize political freedoms anytime soon. With the exploding growth of their economy, what would happen if there were a sudden economic downturn? What would China do if a recession/depression left them with an additional 250 or 350 million people unemployed? I can easily envision a communist Chinese government using some military adventure to distract their people from the misery. Governments have done this sort of thing all the time - many would argue that Mush did just that during the run up to Iraq during the mid-term election cycle. No, once the Chinese economy matures, their need for resources will challenge that of the United States. An expansionist communist China will be a direct threat to American leadership of the world and therefore a direct threat to freedom everywhere.

[ April 25, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Undercenter ]

This thread has had some very impressive debate with lots of intelligent thoughts, hopefully I can add a few that are also intelligent....

First, a disagreement with concern over American hegemony and our defending of "freedom". We have to remember that "freedom", "liberty", "equality" and other maxims are AMERICAN ideals. These are part of our heritage and belief system. Too many Americans are under the false belief that everyone else in the world holds these ideals with the same importance. We just assume that everyone else wants the same things that America wants (especially since what American wants is always what is best for America). No matter how often or how hard we try to install our beliefs on other nations thru military, economic, or political methods, the people of those nations will still have the tendency to want to revert back to systems based on THEIR values and heritage. The one ideal that I do think is univeral is the belief that each nation should decide its own fate. This is why so many nations, especially those in the Middle East, resent American intervention. We try to impress our systems (usually based on Christian or capitalist institutions) on people who have no interest in either. Its America's superiority complex that says "we think we're democratic and capitalist and we're the best, therefore everyone else should be just like us." However, if given the chance many of the people of the Middle East would probably choose a theocratic society based on Muslin law. The US sees that as a threat and calls such believers "Muslim extremists" or "religious fundamentalists". (and yes, the Christian right in this nation, if given the chance, would certainly force their morals and beliefs on everyone else as well)
By imposing our belief systems on other nations, which we think of as "protecting American interests", we create a lot of animosity from other nations. This leads to resentment and if there is enough resentment, it may lead to terroristic or armed resistance against American influence.

My Tarheel brother in Dallas asks what would happen if we left Iraq. Well, our military is going to leave there eventually, I think whether its sooner or later, the end results will be the same. If we truly give the Iraqi people "freedom", part of which would be the right to decide their own government, then I think they will eventually move away from a secular system that we install to one based on Islamic beliefs, something American policy tends to fear. (Look at the situation now where the factional groups of people follow the clerics, not the politicians)

I think eventually the US government will have to realize this is not OUR world, its everyones. We will have to learn to repect other people in other soverign nations, even if their beliefs are different from ours. We will have to realize that influence must be subtle and thru our true strength, economics. And probably the most important lesson will be to "butt out" where we're not wanted and keep our nose in our own business (we have more than enough of our own problems to worry about) to avoid creating resentment.

It would only be practical to leave if we patch up the damage we've done and defend them from exterior threats while they recover.

Unfortunately we are demanding a high price for that assistance right now: control of their political process and management of their natural resources have been our minimal requirement.

Far more important, we suspend their free action.

Hi HotlanataTarheel, I too think this has been an interesting discussion/debate. I love discussions on topics such as America’s role in the world, what it is and what it should be. I think America is the most fascinating story in the history of civilization and we’re at the zenith of our power as we speak – to be a politically active American at this time is to be participating in events that will shape civilization for centuries. What fun!

Now to some of your points.

HotlantaTarheel wrote:
First, a disagreement with concern over American hegemony and our defending of "freedom". We have to remember that "freedom", "liberty", "equality" and other maxims are AMERICAN ideals. These are part of our heritage and belief system. Too many Americans are under the false belief that everyone else in the world holds these ideals with the same importance. We just assume that everyone else wants the same things that America wants (especially since what American wants is always what is best for America).

American “hegemony” has been successful because up until the current Administration, we wanted our “allies” to think we needed them and or appreciated their efforts – even if it wasn’t true. MushCo. has made it very clear to many of our traditional “allies” that for Iraq we’ll do it with or without you. The world resents it when the only superpower rubs it in their face that we can do what we want whenever and where ever. This posture from the current administration has been the single biggest diplomatic blunder an American president has made since the end of the Cold War and will take years to recover from – if we can.

Liberty, Freedom, and Equality are not just American Ideals. Many societies throughout history have expounded the virtues of democratic or republican systems based on their culture’s concept of equality – but not on our scale. America is just the most successful example to do so.


HotlantaTarheel wrote:
No matter how often or how hard we try to install our beliefs on other nations thru military, economic, or political methods, the people of those nations will still have the tendency to want to revert back to systems based on THEIR values and heritage. The one ideal that I do think is univeral is the belief that each nation should decide its own fate...Its America's superiority complex that says "we think we're democratic and capitalist and we're the best, therefore everyone else should be just like us." However, if given the chance many of the people of the Middle East would probably choose a theocratic society based on Muslin law.

The peoples of most countries are never given a fair chance to choose between a new path, or the “systems based on their values and heritage.” Freedom is all to often snuffed out, (Tianamen Square in China), or corrupted (Putin’s Russia) by indigenous leaders who claim to know what’s best for their country when in truth they are only interested in power. This is the main reason the United Nations is such a corrupted ideal. In Middle Eastern countries, if a fair and free vote of all the citizens were allowed asking which path to choose, I believe freedom would prevail.

If there is any country that deserves to have a “superiority complex” it is the United States - listing the reasons and justification for it would take days. We are democratic, capitalist, and we are the best. Having said that I want to point out that we’re not perfect, there’s lots of dirt on our white hat, and we have many social ills that press and tear our society, we’re hypocritical and idealistic - America is a work in progress, but oh what work! Sometimes what’s best for America is also what’s best for other countries – ask Germany and Japan - even if it has to be imposed.

HotlantaTarheel wrote:
We will have to realize that influence must be subtle and thru our true strength, economics.

I can agree with this statement entirely. America leads best by leading through example rather than intimidation, hubris, and arrogance – “speaking softly and carrying a big stick." That’s just one reason the current administration is so dangerous to the future of our republic and must be replaced in what is the most important election since 1980, and arguably one of the most important elections in our history.

[ April 27, 2004, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: smoothboy99 ]

[ April 27, 2004, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: smoothboy99 ]

You certainly have my agreement on that point, and on the whole you have presented a good set of arguements
Smoothboy

[ April 27, 2004, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: smoothboy99 ]

Smoothboy, please note that I did not claim that Americans invented the ideas of freedom, democracy, or equality or that we have perfected such ideals (it would be easier to argue that we have failed), I was just making the point that these tend to be maxims or slogans that our government and culture throw around to justify our systems and actions.

I would also disagree with the previous writer who said we are democratic, capitalist, and we're the best at it. I'm not sure what being the "best capitalist" entails....and you'd first have to prove that capitalism is the best economic system. In many ways, it is in conflict with the idea of everyone being equal, since its moreso based on the Darwin belief of survival of the fittest. And it would be very easy to argue that we are by no means the best democracy, or even a democracy at all (please reference the 2000 presidential election when the majority vote was slighted in favor of the electoral college).

Smoothboy, please note that I did not claim that Americans invented the ideas of freedom, democracy, or equality or that we have perfected such ideals (it would be easier to argue that we have failed), I was just making the point that these tend to be maxims or slogans that our government and culture throw around to justify our systems and actions.

I would also disagree with the previous writer who said we are democratic, capitalist, and we're the best at it. I'm not sure what being the "best capitalist" entails....and you'd first have to prove that capitalism is the best economic system. In many ways, it is in conflict with the idea of everyone being equal, since its moreso based on the Darwin belief of survival of the fittest. And it would be very easy to argue that we are by no means the best democracy, or even a democracy at all (please reference the 2000 presidential election when the majority vote was slighted in favor of the electoral college).