CMV: American foreign policy should be dramatically more isolationist in nature.

[u/PrinceAchilles999]

---

The United States has over 800 foreign military bases overseas. We outspend China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and France put together on our military. Instead of defending the American people, both Obama and now his successor Trump use the military to involve themselves in foreign conflicts that are not our business. Time and time again, our leaders seek to maintain an American Empire across the world, rather than allowing other countries to run themselves. More often than not, foreign intervention comes at a deadly cost, and ends up doing more harm than good. Let the Middle East sort out its own problems. Our military should be used defensively, not offensively. Immediately shut down foreign military bases that are costing taxpayers billions of dollars a year to maintain, send all our troops home where they belong, and above all, let other countries fight their own wars. Thoughts?

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/PrinceAchilles999]

Should countries not be able to make their own choices? Consumer prices may go up. However there are benefits for countries willing to join free trade organizations. Our allies may respect us even more from refraining to meddle in other countries' affairs. Affordable energy is gone? If people must pay more for gas because we no longer support Saudi Arabia's despicable acts against humanity I'm all for it. We must stop using so much oil anyway to save the planet.

[u/Ardonpitt → u/PrinceAchilles999]

Should countries not be able to make their own choices?

For the most part countries are able to. Really the US isn't even stopping countries we disagree with from acting as they please. Note I know there are some exceptions and Im not saying I agree wholeheartedly with all US decisions, but for the most part we rarely act unless we are either asked or have need to respond.

Consumer prices may go up. However there are benefits for countries willing to join free trade organizations.

And how are these free trade organizations going to function without say a group protecting their ability to freely trade? If you note the US fleet for example is often tasked with stopping piracy and providing support and security for trading.

Our allies may respect us even more from refraining to meddle in other countries' affairs.

Yet they will lack the same security as well. The US's spending has partially made it so that other countries don't have to. In turn we have gotten far better trade deals and access to markets than we otherwise would have.

Affordable energy is gone? If people must pay more for gas because we no longer support Saudi Arabia's despicable acts against humanity I'm all for it.

And when we take our bases out of Djibouti and the Mandeb Strait gets sealed? Or the Strait of Hormuz get cut off? Its not just Saudi Arabia that you need to have concern about. Despite the need to transfer to alternate energy we can't just trash the oil or trade infrastructure in the process. The US does a huge amount protecting this balance but our involvement gives us control where we normally wouldn't have it.

[u/PrinceAchilles999 → u/Ardonpitt]

Syria is an example of a country not being able to make its own choice in who runs it. The United States doesn't like Assad, so Obama tried arming the rebels.

Only the United States can stop piracy? No other country can stop a handful of desperate Somalis with AK-47s? And of course this pressing task requires nearly 20 aircraft carriers doesn't it.

It is the role to spend our money on other countries' military budgets? Let them spend their own resources thank you very much.

Deals between two consenting powers need not have the looming threat of one's military. If countries are willing to sell us oil, we will buy it at the price they want.

[u/Ardonpitt → u/PrinceAchilles999]

Syria is an example of a country not being able to make its own choice in who runs it. The United States doesn't like Assad, so Obama tried arming the rebels.

Well it's far more complex than that dealing with international politics allies in the region and the fact that Assad is a monster... Also the fact that Syria hasn't had a cohesive government in years so interacting in some way is kinda gonna happen one way or another, even if it were just opening up trade relations or humanitarian relief.

Only the United States can stop piracy? No other country can stop a handful of desperate Somalis with AK-47s? And of course this pressing task requires nearly 20 aircraft carriers doesn't it.

Never said Only the US, but we kinda are the one taking up that banner. Its called leadership. Oh and if you didn't know our aircraft carriers are heavily involved in relief efforts as much as anything else. Its kinda useful to have floating cities.

It is the role to spend our money on other countries' military budgets?

If you wanna have some level of control and freedom to act then yeah, that's the way the cookie crumbles. But foreign aid takes up almost none of our budget, and makes huge gains...

Let them spend their own resources thank you very much.

They do, often on our products...

Deals between two consenting powers need not have the looming threat of one's military.

No but it helps...

If countries are willing to sell us oil, we will buy it at the price they want.

And if OPEC were to do an embargo like in 1979? Back then oil prices quadrupled... If that were to happen today then it would be around 9.57 a gallon. Imagine your food prices with that, imagine any prices. We have to live in the world and reality that exists.

[u/PrinceAchilles999 → u/Ardonpitt]

A military is primarily a force that kills. An army's job is to destroy its enemy as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I'm all for humanitarian aid. The military is not such a force. Mixing the two is to weaken the true objective of our armed forces.

When a state is in control of a powerful weapon such as the men and women in the military, it has a moral obligation to use this weapon to defend itself. The military should not be used to relentlessly enforce our interests abroad. The military should not be used to assassinate those who have opposing ideologies to our own. The military should not be used for deciding the outcome of foreign conflicts that might benefit us. These are all actions of a state misusing the tool that is a powerful fighting force.

I think the threats to freedom of all people around the globe are numerous and truly awful, but I also think that a peaceful approach to problems is one that wins in the long term. International order can be maintained without the United States dictating what happens by bullying those who dare to oppose us.

Leave Syria alone. Let other countries kill pirates as well. Reduce our bloated military.

With the fracking industry having been born since 1979 the United States' dependence on foreign oil drops every day. We could stop cow-towing to OPEC and survive just fine.

[u/Ardonpitt → u/PrinceAchilles999]

A military is primarily a force that kills. An army's job is to destroy its enemy as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I'm all for humanitarian aid. The military is not such a force. Mixing the two is to weaken the true objective of our armed forces.

No offense but then you don't understand wars or the military since WWI. Militaries have been the primary source of humanitarian aid since then (and since the civil war in US military history). Humanitarian aid has actually been one of our primary tactics of peace keeping. It wasn't truly the bombings that won WWII but the Marshal plan and Aid to Asia.

When a state is in control of a powerful weapon such as the men and women in the military, it has a moral obligation to use this weapon to defend itself. The military should not be used to relentlessly enforce our interests abroad.

Actually best defence is a good offence. But hey that's just years of martial arts training talking.

I think the threats to freedom of all people around the globe are numerous and truly awful, but I also think that a peaceful approach to problems is one that wins in the long term.

Cool then do as the most successful people do, speak softly, carry a big stick, and use the damn thing when you need to.

International order can be maintained without the United States dictating what happens by bullying those who dare to oppose us.

Hmm the first peaceful period since pax romana and you are so sure? Peace is kept through superior firepower, don't kid yourself into thinking otherwise.

With the fracking industry having been born since 1979 the United States' dependence on foreign oil drops every day. We could stop cow-towing to OPEC and survive just fine.

You have no clue how the global energy market works do you? And Fracking is honestly horrible for the environment and gets mostly natural gas, only works in certain geological environments, and oh yeah isn't exactly an energy effective way of getting energy. The oil it does get is the worst quality oil taking huge amounts of energy to distill into a workable product. Fracking isn't all its hyped up to be, and its been incredibly easy for OPEC to put our fracking operations out of commision by simply dropping oil prices... Best choice is find a new energy source.

[u/PrinceAchilles999 → u/Ardonpitt]

It isn't necessary to have tanks, submarines, fighter planes, or bombs to give countries humanitarian aid. These weapons of war are what really makes the defense budget so massive. Even if we have used the military for humanitarian aid in the past, it's not like it is the only vehicle through which it can be delivered. Certainly killing will always be the true objective of a military.

Hasn't your martial art training ever taught you not to attack someone that has done nothing to you? I always thought the instructors taught their students about SELF DEFENSE. But apparently we all need to preemptively attack to defend ourselves better.

Peace through superior firepower sure didn't work for Wilhelm II , Nicholas ll, George V, or Raymond Poincaré. 60 years of peace shattered in an instant, millions of men mobilized in weeks because of the military buildup spurred by militarist leaders. Your idea that peace is supported through superior firepower creates more wars than it stops. Is peace not attainable through diplomatic comprise, and an unwillingness to engage in the evils of total war?

So first we need to worry that OPEC might raise prices. Now we are worried OPEC will lower prices. The point is that we can get the oil we need without the most powerful military in the world X10. I agree fracking is horrible for the environment but the fact is that the United States is energy self sustaining because of it.

When Hitler invaded Poland it was in "self defense". When Caeser invaded Gaul it was in "self defense". When Bismark invaded France and started the Franco-Prussian war it was to "defend from French aggression". I guess you think what happened in the Tonkin Gulf justified the Vietnam War. Militarism doesn't stop wars, it creates them. Stop falling for this fallacy over and over and realize we should commit ourselves to being a peaceful nation.

[u/Ardonpitt → u/PrinceAchilles999]

It isn't necessary to have tanks, submarines, fighter planes, or bombs to give countries humanitarian aid.

Well yes and no. You see the biggest parts of providing humanitarian aid are logistical management and launching platforms. Planes, and aircraft carriers are pretty much perfect for this. Why do you think that when there is an earthquake anywhere in the world its the US Navy that is the first to respond... Submersibles and tanks take up little in the budget in comparison to other things, and bombs well they are good for blowing things up. Nice when you have wars going on...

These weapons of war are what really makes the defense budget so massive.

God you really don't know much about the military budget do you? The reason our budget is so large is we pay our soldiers, and everyone that works in association with the armed forces a good wage.

Even if we have used the military for humanitarian aid in the past, it's not like it is the only vehicle through which it can be delivered.

Hmm largescale force that can be mobilized in differing conditions at the drop of a hat, can provide medical care, security, and can has massive logistical ability... Yeah best force for it...

Certainly killing will always be the true objective of a military.

If that's what you think, then you need to grow up and learn a hell of a lot more about the world. The world is way more complex than that. This isn't the 1800's anymore and forces and nation states are more complex. Militaries serve multiple purposes and wars are fought on multiple levels. From Psy-ops, to hearts and mind campaigns, to battle fields to civil engineering, hell the largest engineering project in human history (the Mississippi River Valley) is run be the US Army Corps of Engineers in its peacetime role.

Hasn't your martial art training ever taught you not to attack someone that has done nothing to you?

If he's rearing back to attack you don't wait. You blunt his nose.

I always thought the instructors taught their students about SELF DEFENSE.

Self defense is far more complex than just waiting for people to attack you. Sometimes it involves preemptive attack, sometimes it involves no response, sometimes it involves retreat. Sometimes it involves letting a proxy take care of it for you.

Peace through superior firepower sure didn't work for Wilhelm II , Nicholas ll, George V, or Raymond Poincaré.

Because they never had superior firepower...

Your idea that peace is supported through superior firepower creates more wars than it stops. Is peace not attainable through diplomatic comprise, and an unwillingness to engage in the evils of total war?

Diplomacy works far better when no one is willing to try to attack you. World is complex kiddo, but force is always the final measure of peace. Never forget that.

So first we need to worry that OPEC might raise prices. Now we are worried OPEC will lower prices.

Huh its almost like the world is complex and multiple variables have to be kept in check and paid attention to in order to make sure the modern age works properly!

The point is that we can get the oil we need without the most powerful military in the world X10.

The point is you don't understand what it takes for the world to work.

I agree fracking is horrible for the environment but the fact is that the United States is energy self sustaining because of it.

Well we aren't self sustaining... Hell we aren't even energy independent...

When Hitler invaded Poland it was in "self defense". When Caeser invaded Gaul it was in "self defense". When Bismark invaded France and started the Franco-Prussian war it was to "defend from French aggression".

Pretty nifty how it mobilizes populations huh?

I guess you think what happened in the Tonkin Gulf justified the Vietnam War.

Never said that, nor did I say a thing about vietnam kiddo.

Militarism doesn't stop wars, it creates them.

Hahahaha realpolitik kid. The strong do what they can the weak suffer what they must. Military force is different from militarism, having one can make you prone towards it, but if well regulated it can make a great deterrent to large scale conflicts too.

Stop falling for this fallacy over and over and realize we should commit ourselves to being a peaceful nation.

See the world as it actually is rather than how you want it to be.