It's kind of a chicken and egg argument there. Western Europe knows that the US will cover their external security and thus has been free to spend more on social services. Most Europeans worldview, in believing that countries should refrain from going to war is reliant on the outside force (the US) protecting them from outside threats, without admitting the US's role there.I don't think Germany is, and they have deployed within NATO in recent years. I saw something along the lines that Japan recently sent foreign troops overseas for the first time since WWII. I think we're encouraging them to get a little bigger military to counterbalance China/enable us to withdraw from Korea some.Their military focus in recent years seems concentrated on becoming able to fight off the US, possibly in anticipation of a showdown on Taiwan. For example, they've been spending a lot on subs to try and counter the advantage aircraft carriers give us.As you can see from recent UN deployments, it's mostly been third world countries sending the troops and the results have been disastrous. You have rampant corruption and child prostitution in places like the Congo, Sierra Leone and Kosovo perpretrated by the UN soldiers. Even when western countries sent troops, UN-led missions failed to prevent genocide in Srebrenica and Rwanda.
Is this counting all the money we send to the UN and its subsidaries, or things like using our military to provide disaster relief in SE asia currently? In terms of ODA and direct foreign aid we're fairly cheap (although only in comparison to the Scandanavian countries, we actually end up well above many industrialized nations including France, Germany, Canada and Japan in humanitarian aid) but in terms of things like trade which actually do a lot more to help alleviate poverty and raise living standards we're higher up. And if you look at ODA and direct foreign aid, it's really ineffective. A lot of African countries in particular have received a lot of ODA compared to other parts of the world the past 30-40 years, but many times it does as much harm as good. Meanwhile, SE Asia has seen poverty levels drop drastically in the last few years alone due to globalization. If you ask the Sub-Saharan African countries what would be best for their countries economically, it's a reduction in agricultural tariffs, especially from the EU.Rwanda is one of the blackest marks on the international community since WWII. France and Belgium actually had troops there and pulled them out. US Marines went in, got our citizens and came out. And no one cares. Just ask anyone you know about Theoneste Bagosura and look at the blank look on their face. But if you actually look at US military interventions since the 80's there is Gulf War I, Somalia, Haiti more than once, Liberia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq II and I'm probably missing one or two. In all of the cases I listed, we were siding with the oppressed masses against a dictator/warlord (whatever our reasons for intervening may have been.) Yet every time we've had people calling the US imperialist, denouncing our invasion, and had people back home clamoring for our withdrawal because it was sacrificing American kids for a war that wasn't theirs. From talking to people that have actually fought in these conflicts, they overwhelmingly support the missions, believe they are making a difference and want to continue. So maybe better PR is the answer, because the reality on the ground matches up fairly closely to what you are advocating. As a side note, I don't think the active-duty armed forces are suffering enlistment problems, it is NG units where a lot of people signed up assuming a weekend a month commitment but no real service. Now that so many NG units are in active-duty rotation, if you are enlisting it makes more sense to just sign up for the regular Army/Navy/Marines where you'll be better trained and equipped since you'll probably be fighting anyway.

I don't advocate that, exactly. I think it is a good idea worth serious consideration, for two reasons: 1) It really, really needs done - there are people all over the world that seriously need some freaking help; 2) It should give us a combat hardened, experienced military with sky-high morale (which any strategy gamer knows is the key to any conflict).

As for 1) true, but the problem is while Step 1 of Taking Names and Kicking Ass is easy for us, looking at Iraq, Africa or Latin America shows Step 2 of helping the people back up onto their feet is a lot harder. Especially when if the group being killed could just as likely be doing the killing if they had the opportunity. I do advocate this approach generally, but in order to actually rebuild countries quickly we'd need a much bigger military that focuses on tasks like policing, rebuilding etc that we don't now as opposed to one that focuses on combat and then tries to adapt when presented with peacekeeping operations. There are also a lot of countries that haven't had any civil war or genocide where people could be helped onto their feet.

As for 2) we already have that.

Okay. Now, if we withdraw, suddenly Europe is faced with hard decisions, and the US once again gets painted in a poor light. If we're making decisions about our military based on how the world will view us, this is not a fight we can win. If we're making decisions based on consistency and moral correctness, then that's another matter.


They're still constitutionally enjoined from having an overseas military. That's the thing. The troops they've sent have been from their "Homeland Defense" sector. Until they change their constitution, any standing military they'd present is illegal under their own laws.


Thing is, though, our carriers give us the ability to project power. The carriers don't *have* to be in the big middle of things to be efffective. That radius of control also limits the effectiveness of inbound action groups, since we can intercept them from some way out. Now, subs are harder to acquire and engage, certainly, but that's what our own subs are for, and given that the subs China is buying are of Russian manufacture, I'm not sure they'd really fit their intended purpose. I think the idea is more to get the Chinese Navy a quick leg up so that they have the pieces while they work on enhancing the effectiveness of those pieces. They have to know that a sea war over Taiwan is not going to be a winnable fight for them unless they can get allies involved and split the attention of our navy. They have the nuclear option, of course, but would they loose the nukes over a Taiwanese breakaway?

Good point, but it underscores another problem: we can't help in every single circumstance that could use help. Genocide in Africa is a problem. Genocide in the Balkans is a problem. Female children are getting murdered in China. Terrorism festering and genocide in the Middle East is a problem. And it goes on and on and on. We have to either:

a) be selective, and get criticized for being selective;

or

b) do nothing, and get criticized for not caring.