> which a lot of other countries (and some portion of their populations) don't like because it's broadly incompatible with a human-rights centered worldview
>> I understand that's the liberal and progressive thing to say. But if you really think about it, it reeks from hypocrisy. The "progressive" countries (who are they exactly?) like Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them. They wouldn't want the U.S to go away, not in a million years.
Yeah, even a self-identified progressive, I unfortunately still mostly agree with you. Most of the liberals/progressives I've discussed foreign affairs with seem to have a pretty limited understanding of (or even interest in) military history. Not that I'm an expert by any stretch, but I do worry that they naively see the world as an unreasonably safe place. I don't think it is.
The American progressive strong suit is in domestic affairs -- leftist populism, basically -- not military strategy or even foreign policy at large.
Broadly, I suppose I believe in big hugs for my fellow citizens, big talks with our competitors, and big guns for our enemies (but we sure as heck shouldn't shoot first).
> Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them
Y'know, Trump wasn't right about much, but maybe NATO really ought to pay its fair share in regional defense. Our forces are so disproportionate that NATO is less like an alliance and more like a protectorate. It can't just forever be "the Western world will fall apart absent American carriers"... if for no other reason than hypersonic missiles. We cemented global hegemon status in the post-WW2 years, but it's not a responsibility we should have to single-handedly carry into the indefinite future. If our allies need to build up their defenses, maybe we could encourage them by gradually bringing ours home. And if we have fewer foreign expeditions, cool, maybe we'd make fewer enemies.
In other words, I think our military should be strong enough to defend against homeland invasions and provide limit support to our allies, but not so strong that it runs the entire world's geosecurity. Somewhere in between is the question of what to do about Eurasia and specifically China... ideally we'd find some Cold-War like balance of mutually assured destruction, with neither side really wanting a hot war. Even better would be if we just cooperated economically with them and worked together on climate change, and let them run their social experiment while we run ours. We need to stop thinking we can singlehandedly liberate the world from oppression, or bring light to darkness, or whatever. We're just another country with big guns and small hearts... there's been many through history, none of which ended particularly well.
>> I understand that's the liberal and progressive thing to say. But if you really think about it, it reeks from hypocrisy. The "progressive" countries (who are they exactly?) like Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them. They wouldn't want the U.S to go away, not in a million years.
Yeah, even a self-identified progressive, I unfortunately still mostly agree with you. Most of the liberals/progressives I've discussed foreign affairs with seem to have a pretty limited understanding of (or even interest in) military history. Not that I'm an expert by any stretch, but I do worry that they naively see the world as an unreasonably safe place. I don't think it is.
The American progressive strong suit is in domestic affairs -- leftist populism, basically -- not military strategy or even foreign policy at large.
Broadly, I suppose I believe in big hugs for my fellow citizens, big talks with our competitors, and big guns for our enemies (but we sure as heck shouldn't shoot first).
> Canada, Sweden, Australia etc all need the U.S to protect them
Y'know, Trump wasn't right about much, but maybe NATO really ought to pay its fair share in regional defense. Our forces are so disproportionate that NATO is less like an alliance and more like a protectorate. It can't just forever be "the Western world will fall apart absent American carriers"... if for no other reason than hypersonic missiles. We cemented global hegemon status in the post-WW2 years, but it's not a responsibility we should have to single-handedly carry into the indefinite future. If our allies need to build up their defenses, maybe we could encourage them by gradually bringing ours home. And if we have fewer foreign expeditions, cool, maybe we'd make fewer enemies.
In other words, I think our military should be strong enough to defend against homeland invasions and provide limit support to our allies, but not so strong that it runs the entire world's geosecurity. Somewhere in between is the question of what to do about Eurasia and specifically China... ideally we'd find some Cold-War like balance of mutually assured destruction, with neither side really wanting a hot war. Even better would be if we just cooperated economically with them and worked together on climate change, and let them run their social experiment while we run ours. We need to stop thinking we can singlehandedly liberate the world from oppression, or bring light to darkness, or whatever. We're just another country with big guns and small hearts... there's been many through history, none of which ended particularly well.