Why should U.S. defend entire world? Atlanta Journal-Constitution

[KB]

Published on: 05/29/06

In the Pentagon's world of multibillion-dollar weapons contracts, the item might seem insignificant. But sometimes, little things have a way of illuminating big things, in this case very big and difficult questions about the future mission and responsibilities of the U.S. military.

Those questions ought to be confronted, not least because doing so might ensure that future Memorial Days are not unnecessarily grim for many American families.

Recently, U.S. officials opened negotiations with European countries, trying to find a nation willing to host an American-built missile-defense installation. With an initial estimated cost of $1.6 billion for 10 interceptors, the system is intended to protect Europe from intercontinental missiles that might someday be installed by a nuclear-armed Iran.

Some of the issues raised by the proposal are rather straightforward. Is such a system necessary, given that Iran is a decade or more away from even a rudimentary intercontinental missile capacity? Furthermore, would the anti-missile system even work? The United States has spent tens of billions of dollars trying to develop intercontinental anti-missile systems, none of which has been demonstrated to work under anything close to real-life conditions. Investing more money in that technology before it has been proved effective is foolhardy on its face.

The larger question, though — the question that takes this issue well beyond this individual proposal — is why.

Why and when did it become the sole responsibility of U.S. taxpayers and U.S. soldiers to protect foreign countries far from our shores against still other foreign countries?

The question is made even more pertinent by the fact that Great Britain, our closest ally and one of the nations that would presumably be protected by the anti-missile system, has made it publicly clear that it wants nothing to do with such a facility.

Our European allies, in other words, aren't asking us for our protection. We're asking them, almost begging them, to let us give them that protection, and to let us foot the bill for it as well.

Again that question: Why?

Why is it the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers to protect other countries from threats that they themselves do not consider serious enough to defend against, particularly at a time when our economic dominance, long the foundation of our military power, has begun to slip in relation to the rest of the world?

Despite its profound implications, that question has gone largely unexamined in U.S. foreign policy and military strategy, even though it explains in part why we are trapped in Iraq, unable to extract ourselves from a bloody and expensive struggle.

Are we extending our military power around the globe simply because we can? Because it feels good to think of ourselves as the most powerful nation on the planet? Because the influential defense industry pushes such programs, buying support from decision-makers in Washington not just with campaign donations but with golf trips and yachts and jobs for relatives?

Or is our monumental investment in American lives and dollars — we probably spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, with a military presence in well over 100 nations around the world — truly necessary for our national security?

During the Cold War, the United States was locked into a potentially fatal long-term struggle with the Soviet Union, which was trying to spread communism throughout the globe.

The military alliances we joined and the treaty obligations we accepted made enormous sense in that era, in no small part because our self-interest was clear and because other nations made significant contributions to the effort through NATO and similar groups.

Even now, as the world's only superpower and as the irreplaceable guarantor of stability in world affairs, we have a unique mission to fulfill, both for our own benefit and the benefit of other nations. Our military power is and should remain an integral part of that mission.

But it important to acknowledge that everything we step forward to do on behalf of other countries is something they no longer have to do for themselves. Every risk we take, every American life we put at stake, every American dollar we invest are dollars and lives that other nations are freed from committing.

So . . . why?

[Bert]

Just like the Marshall Plan, it's about extending the frontline. During the Cold War, it was the USSR. Now it's the SCO and Islamist states.

[ttunavy]

hopefully it never comes to this but...10 billion now or countless billions if we had to go over there and fight a war. if spending "x" amount of dollars now could deter a crisis(which may or may not happen) then its worth it imo.

and the article mentions how europe is declining our protection, well im sure those voices would change their tune if a conflict did arise.

[mas36]

Perhaps because the Europeans aren't as paranoid as we are?

You raise a few different questions here:

First, it's not a question of Europe not wanting a defense system. They just don't understand why it must be an American built system. Just look at the problems arising from the JSF system. They have defense contractors just like we do, and their contractors would like a fair chance to get in on a juicy deal such as this. Quite simply, they don't think that us giving Boeing or whatever-else a no-competition, sweetheart deal is a fair way to go about it. Granted, they would do the same if they could, and we'd naturally refuse it. So I'd say that it's mostly an aspect of contract/marketing problems.

Secondly, maybe because they feel that the threat is more likely to come from other avenues than solely missiles. Thanks to our Glorious CIA/FBI/Bush-Cheney Administration/Iraqi dissidents/etc., many other countries simply don't think we have much credibility anymore concerning intelligence.

Thirdly, we complain-bitch-gripe that the Euros don't do much themselves of defense. However, when they do creat their own defense systems/responses, etc., we complain-bitch-gripe that it leaves us (the US) out and that it supposedly undermines NATO. So damned if they do, damned if they don't. Why can't we make up our minds what we want? Needless to say, I think the answer to this possibly revolves around reason #1, stated above.

And finally fourth, I personally think the Euros are doing much more than we are led to believe, especially covertly. Anyone who's been reading the papers/blogs etc. during the past 3 years will realize that we are getting more and more of our intelligence from other agencies these day, mainly British-French-German. Just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there, or doesn't exist.

[JoaMei]

Just to mention It, the european States and Russia are cooperating on their own Missile defense System....

[Resurrection]

Just to mention It, the european States and Russia are cooperating on their own Missile defense System....

Russians? Why?

[JoaMei]

Dont ask me....

[Resurrection]

Well I'll be damned if what you're saying is true.

[JoaMei]

Well I'll be damned if what you're saying is true.

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/sokrmd.htm

[Bert]

Well I'll be damned if what you're saying is true.
Don't act so surprised. Even the Chinese are cooperating with you on the Galileo positioning system.

[Resurrection]

Don't act so surprised. Even the Chinese are cooperating with you on the Galileo positioning system.
Nah, China's okay. I just think cooperating with Russia on a project like this is overstepping the boundaries IMHO.

[Lokos]

the United States was locked into a potentially fatal long-term struggle with the Soviet Union, which was trying to spread communism throughout the globe

...

Since when was the Soviet Union 'trying to spread communism throughout the globe'?

Back before National Socialism forced a full-blown reconfiguration of Soviet socialism into 'communism' (apparently, all you have to do to be a full-blown communist is to change the name on the party card), they came up with this little doctrine called 'Socialism in one country'. Even when the Soviet Union stopped being the new kid on the block that everyone could take a piece of if they really wanted to, no Soviet government did more than support existing 'friendly' (i.e. 'communist') regimes and movements. The VC, the Cuban revolutionaries, the CCP, the NK communists... these were all homegrown movements. Only the VC and the NK communists received significant Soviet support, and that support was given out of shameless self-interest, not any real desire to spread communism in and of itself.

After all, the Soviets also spent a great deal of energy undermining the Chinese, who in the 60's became a belligerent regime, despite their 'communist' underpinnings.

In Europe, on the other hand, the boundaries of 'communism' were defined in 1945. The Soviets spent the entire Cold War maintaining the status quo there.

That passage from the article annoys me.

Lokos

[Tim Nice But Dim]

Why and when did it become the sole responsibility of U.S. taxpayers and U.S. soldiers to protect foreign countries far from our shores against still other foreign countries? ... Our European allies, in other words, aren't asking us for our protection. We're asking them, almost begging them, to let us give them that protection, and to let us foot the bill for it as well.

In addition to mas36’s excellent post, and with regards to BMD, the USA needs radars to detect incoming ballistic missiles, to get early enough warning to prepare and launch the inceptors these radars need to be based in Europe. If you place the radars in Europe, you make Europe the first strike target for such an attack. European countries won’t therefore allow you to base the radars in Europe without extending the protection of the inceptors to cover Europe.

[Flagg]

...

Since when was the Soviet Union 'trying to spread communism throughout the globe'?

Lokos

Cuba was as forward a Soviet SIGINT and IRBM missile base as one could get to the continental US.

Efforts by proxy in Central America in the 1980's were attempts to extend that in the western Hemisphere.

Southern Africa was a major strategic push by the Soviets in the 70's and 80's, both directly and via proxy, to gain advantage.

[caridon]

@KB There are some things I think the Atlanta Journah has got wrong.

1) The primary reason the US whant a Europeean base for this system is to protect the US (basicly have a earlier engagement opurtunity)

2) Any protection of europe is more marginal (this type of system works best against the missiles apex of flight and much worse against missiles in the terminal flight phase.)

3) the US has allways looked out for itself first and the rest of the world second.
so the BS about "Why and when did it become the sole responsibility of U.S. taxpayers and U.S. soldiers to protect foreign countries far from our shores against still other foreign countries?" is just that, BS. The US has helped countries defence when it has deemed it to be beneficial to US interests (or when a domestic lobygroup made it "vital"

/C

[tsuri]

Since when was the Soviet Union 'trying to spread communism throughout the globe'?

Since the time the US tried to spread capitalism ;)

[signatory]

@ Mas36

Good post.

@ Article

Thought provoking..

Not really a new question though... International US commercial interests and US foreign policy is of the concern for the American people and often I see comments asking "why should we?" and tbh I think the US politicians do a horrible job informing the public on how things actually work to secure the status of the US as a world power.

Not just the US public of course, this is a common 'problem' with people not being aware on how and why their country acts as it does in the world. The days of living in a shell is since long gone.

[dangerclose]

...

Since when was the Soviet Union 'trying to spread communism throughout the globe'?

Back before National Socialism forced a full-blown reconfiguration of Soviet socialism into 'communism' (apparently, all you have to do to be a full-blown communist is to change the name on the party card), they came up with this little doctrine called 'Socialism in one country'. Even when the Soviet Union stopped being the new kid on the block that everyone could take a piece of if they really wanted to, no Soviet government did more than support existing 'friendly' (i.e. 'communist') regimes and movements. The VC, the Cuban revolutionaries, the CCP, the NK communists... these were all homegrown movements. Only the VC and the NK communists received significant Soviet support, and that support was given out of shameless self-interest, not any real desire to spread communism in and of itself.

After all, the Soviets also spent a great deal of energy undermining the Chinese, who in the 60's became a belligerent regime, despite their 'communist' underpinnings.

In Europe, on the other hand, the boundaries of 'communism' were defined in 1945. The Soviets spent the entire Cold War maintaining the status quo there.

That passage from the article annoys me.

Lokos

Of course it would ... to a communist apologist. Stalin started the Korean War in collusion with Mao and Kim Il Sung. A communist takeover of Korea and Southeast Asia was just a part of the grand scheme.

And the Soviets were satisfied with the status quo in europe? They had no intentions of invading west germany and the rest of europe right? What was it that premier Kruschev said to the west? "History is on our side. We will bury you." ? Soviet-backed governments and insurgencies did not spring up across the globe?

If the United States had not stood up to the Soviets and had kept their post WWII forces immobilized, Europe and the rest of the world would be the same today wouldn't it? Germany, France and Britain would not be Soviet satellites and there'd still be a South Korea right?

[JoaMei]

Of course it would ... to a communist apologist. Stalin started the Korean War in collusion with Mao and Kim Il Sung. A communist takeover of Korea and Southeast Asia was just a part of the grand scheme.

And the Soviets were satisfied with the status quo in europe? They had no intentions of invading west germany and the rest of europe right? What was it that premier Kruschev said to the west? "History is on our side. We will bury you." ? Soviet-backed governments and insurgencies did not spring up across the globe?

If the United States had not stood up to the Soviets and had kept their post WWII forces immobilized, Europe and the rest of the world would be the same today wouldn't it? Germany, France and Britain would not be Soviet satellites and there'd still be a South Korea right?

Even with larger expansion Communism would have collapsed sooner or later, a System that supresses all initiative and thinking is doomed to fail.

[Atlantic Friend]

The larger question, though — the question that takes this issue well beyond this individual proposal — is why.

Why ? To protect the United States first and foremost. Setting up advanced radar stations in European countries has been done for decades, and has a lot to do with defending the United States.

Why and when did it become the sole responsibility of U.S. taxpayers and U.S. soldiers to protect foreign countries far from our shores against still other foreign countries?

First, this implies no other countries pays for its own defense, nor fields its own army, which is, at best, a terrible misunderstanding, and at worst, a complete lie. As for why the United States should protect country A from country B, two very "realpolitik" reasons would be : because country A either produce something the US needs, or buy something the US produces.

The question is made even more pertinent by the fact that Great Britain, our closest ally and one of the nations that would presumably be protected by the anti-missile system, has made it publicly clear that it wants nothing to do with such a facility.

How dare the United Kingdom decide what's best for its citizens, indeed.

Our European allies, in other words, aren't asking us for our protection. We're asking them, almost begging them, to let us give them that protection, and to let us foot the bill for it as well.

Again, this is at best a complete misappreciation of the situation, and at worst a deliberate lie.

Again that question: Why?

I think this might have something to do about the said European allies being sovereign nations.

Why is it the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers to protect other countries from threats that they themselves do not consider serious enough to defend against, particularly at a time when our economic dominance, long the foundation of our military power, has begun to slip in relation to the rest of the world?

But it is not, precisely ! Unless the United States government truly thinks it's in America's best interests to preserve country A, whether stragic provider or strategic buyer, from external and maybe even internal threats.

Despite its profound implications, that question has gone largely unexamined in U.S. foreign policy and military strategy, even though it explains in part why we are trapped in Iraq, unable to extract ourselves from a bloody and expensive struggle.

I beg to disagree, as I don't see how the current situation of American-led forces in Iraq can be blamed on other countries' stringiness.

Are we extending our military power around the globe simply because we can?

There's this saying : when your only tool is a hammer, then all of your problems begin to look like nails.

Because it feels good to think of ourselves as the most powerful nation on the planet?

Judging by the comments on many American forums, it DOES feel good. And there's nothing wrong about that in my book, BTW. It has always feel good to be the the one at the top, and it always will.

Because the influential defense industry pushes such programs, buying support from decision-makers in Washington not just with campaign donations but with golf trips and yachts and jobs for relatives?

That can explain some weapon programs, but hardly the situation in Iraq, IMHO.

Or is our monumental investment in American lives and dollars — we probably spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined, with a military presence in well over 100 nations around the world — truly necessary for our national security?

Not for me to say. Welcome to the old "imperial burden" dilemma.

During the Cold War, the United States was locked into a potentially fatal long-term struggle with the Soviet Union, which was trying to spread communism throughout the globe.

Just as Germany, Italy, the UK, France, etc, which faced possible annihilation and/or possible occupation under Soviet rule. Does that grant a country special rights ?

The military alliances we joined and the treaty obligations we accepted made enormous sense in that era, in no small part because our self-interest was clear and because other nations made significant contributions to the effort through NATO and similar groups.

Spot on. The objectives were clear and were shared by all NATO members then. Nowadays who can say what is exactly the Big Objective or who it is supposed to benefit ?

Even now, as the world's only superpower and as the irreplaceable guarantor of stability in world affairs, we have a unique mission to fulfill, both for our own benefit and the benefit of other nations. Our military power is and should remain an integral part of that mission.

If it is the United States' specific mission, then there's no point in asking why this nation has to bear this burden.

But it important to acknowledge that everything we step forward to do on behalf of other countries is something they no longer have to do for themselves. Every risk we take, every American life we put at stake, every American dollar we invest are dollars and lives that other nations are freed from committing.

Problem is, other nations are committing. Look at the deployment of UK or French forces abroad, look at what European or Asian intelligence services are doing in the WOT, which BTW began looooong before somebody invented this acronym.

So . . . why?

Didn't the author answer to his own question before, when he stated that the United States are "the world's only superpower and as the irreplaceable guarantor of stability in world affairs, [...] have a unique mission to fulfill, both for our own benefit and the benefit of other nations" ?

[Mcbain321]

Nah, China's okay. I just think cooperating with Russia on a project like this is overstepping the boundaries IMHO.

How could you trust either of them with that technology?

[annihilation]

3) the US has allways looked out for itself first and the rest of the world second.
so the BS about "Why and when did it become the sole responsibility of U.S. taxpayers and U.S. soldiers to protect foreign countries far from our shores against still other foreign countries?" is just that, BS. The US has helped countries defence when it has deemed it to be beneficial to US interests (or when a domestic lobygroup made it "vital"

/C

Maybe we need to change that. Not actually look out for the worlds interest but more take a hand off approach on the world.

[EvanL]

Wow. The idea of the U.S. having to defend the entire world is mighty big headed. They don't need your defence, you guys go ahead and do it anyways. And I'm nopt going to get into the political reasons for why you did it because that would result in a flame war.

[KB]

@KB There are some things I think the Atlanta Journah has got wrong.

1) The primary reason the US whant a Europeean base for this system is to protect the US (basicly have a earlier engagement opurtunity)

2) Any protection of europe is more marginal (this type of system works best against the missiles apex of flight and much worse against missiles in the terminal flight phase.)

3) the US has allways looked out for itself first and the rest of the world second.
so the BS about "Why and when did it become the sole responsibility of U.S. taxpayers and U.S. soldiers to protect foreign countries far from our shores against still other foreign countries?" is just that, BS. The US has helped countries defence when it has deemed it to be beneficial to US interests (or when a domestic lobygroup made it "vital"

/C

I don't really have a position on this either way. I thought the article was interesting and figured it would stimulate some posts...which it did.

[meatpuppet]

We all need a good beaten once in awile!:slap:

[TheStorm]

How dare the United Kingdom decide what's best for its citizens, indeed.

I think this might have something to do about the said European allies being sovereign nations.

Aren't you proving the article's point?

...

On a separate thought, don't forget that the US has many military bases in Europe that an enemy might try to attack. We have our own assets to defend in Europe.

[Lokos]

And the Soviets were satisfied with the status quo in europe? They had no intentions of invading west germany and the rest of europe right? What was it that premier Kruschev said to the west? "History is on our side. We will bury you." ? Soviet-backed governments and insurgencies did not spring up across the globe?


The Soviet Union had no intention of starting a war in Europe, no. History supports my position. Present yours, and the evidence for it.

Stalin started the Korean War in collusion with Mao and Kim Il Sung. A communist takeover of Korea and Southeast Asia was just a part of the grand scheme

LOL.

Korea; yes. It was in the Soviet Union's interest to see Southern Korea under the control of a co-belligerent. The rest of South East Asia? Prove it.

Of course it would ... to a communist apologist

If I was a communist apologist, I'd say so. If I was a communist, I wouldn't be ashamed of it. For only fools believe that the Soviet Union or China were/are examples of Communism in practice. But I am neither a communist, nor a communist apologist. The tradition of politics I stand behind is called 'realism'.

Lokos

[Kilgor]

If I was a communist apologist, I'd say so. If I was a communist, I wouldn't be ashamed of it. For only fools believe that the Soviet Union or China were/are examples of Communism in practice. But I am neither a communist, nor a communist apologist. The tradition of politics I stand behind is called 'realism'.

Lokos

if there is one thing communist apologists do say, is the whole line of "communism has never worked because its never been tried properly"

Well, sorry buddy it has been tried and it failed terribly. Centrally planned economies and one party states have a failed and deadly legacy of failure.

[Minardiau]

Kilgour you don't know what the **** your spewing about planned economies. And socialism has never been implemented in any nation. PERIOD. Capish?

:)

Apart from that I am backing you up with everything else you have said.

[Henry's Fork]

socialism has never been implemented in any nation. PERIOD.

There is a very good reason as to why. Not like it would work in the first place. Anyone with logic knows that.p-)

[Durandal]

hopefully it never comes to this but...10 billion now or countless billions if we had to go over there and fight a war. if spending "x" amount of dollars now could deter a crisis(which may or may not happen) then its worth it imo.

and the article mentions how europe is declining our protection, well im sure those voices would change their tune if a conflict did arise.

Not too sure why WE have to fight to be honest. Not to sound like some sort of 1930s isolationist, but I have to be honest, we keep the sea lanes open.

Screw Iran. The nations most impacted by that country should be dealing with then...Europe and the rest of the GUlf and Middle East, just like China, South Korea, and Japan should be dealing with North Korea.

The United States is sort of like a cop. You don't want to see 'em, but damn if you don't want them to protect you. Quite frankly, with the rise in the Euro, China's explosive growth, and our economic uncertainty, I would love to see us cut the spending back to something that does not reflect a war footing.

[Pandy]

Korea; yes. It was in the Soviet Union's interest to see Southern Korea under the control of a co-belligerent. The rest of South East Asia? Prove it.

Lokos

Hey Loko, likeing the post.

When I was visiting korea (ROK), my grandfather said something along the lines that the DPRK invaded ROK to crush the military before it grew size.

Let me make a note, my grandfather was a DPRK soldier during the Korean War. That's what my grandmother told me, that's all I know, and what she said he said, he was told they were invading south korea to basically to crush the south-korean military, and believed they would have win in 4 months.

He fled to South Korea after the war, I believe she said 1954. I can't confirm any of this, last time I saw my grandfather, I was 8, my grandmother, I was 15.

From what I know, I have family in both koreas. And I'm only half-korean.

[Fliptape]

this is stupid, the US only defend their own strategic and economical interests, i womit when i hear about liberty freedome and all that crap

[ed316]

We shouldn't defend the world. Too much money that can be use on fellow Americans. I would like to see us not meddle in other countries affair. If the people don't do anything about thier own present situation then it's thier perogative.

[foxtrot023]

Not too sure why WE have to fight to be honest. Not to sound like some sort of 1930s isolationist, but I have to be honest, we keep the sea lanes open.

Screw Iran. The nations most impacted by that country should be dealing with then...Europe and the rest of the GUlf and Middle East, just like China, South Korea, and Japan should be dealing with North Korea.

The United States is sort of like a cop. You don't want to see 'em, but damn if you don't want them to protect you. Quite frankly, with the rise in the Euro, China's explosive growth, and our economic uncertainty, I would love to see us cut the spending back to something that does not reflect a war footing.

The US fights overseas to avoid fighting at home. Why were US troops based in Europe during the Cold War? to protect Western Europe out of kindness? no, they were in Europe, acting, and I quote US presidents here as ¨tripwire¨. Why was the US involved in Vietnam? to contain communism. By the way Containment was the policy instituted by Eisenhower in the 50s and followed to the letter by later presidents. Why is the US in Afganistan? to avoid having a new crop of talibans- AQ. Why is the US interested in Iran? to avoid having an A bomb go off in NYC.

So US troops overseas are there to avoid having further Pearl Harbours or 9/11s

But at the end, it is all a decision by the US if they want to go or if they want to stay, but make no mistake, they are overseas to defend US interests not someone´s else.

[RS_Leo1A5]

I think this might have something to do about the said European allies being sovereign nations.
Which brings us to the IMHO core problem in US-world relations: The USA doesn't want allies but vassals, not friends but followers.
An ally is someone you ask for help, value and accept their opinions - even if they differ from your's.
A vassal is someone you order to help you, no questions asked. He's not supposed to have an opinion of his own.

It always struck me as odd how the US adamantly deny accepting any outside influences and higher authorities (like, e.g. the International Criminal Court or the United Nations - the UN constantly painted as plotting an, anti-American of course!, world government) while at the same time expecting without questioning that any other country in the world should accept orders from Washington and regard the US president as the unchallenged leader and savior of the Free World.

The UN is a good thing - as long as they pass resolutions Washington likes.
NATO is a good thing - as long as the US is in command.
Other nations are "allies" - as long as they commit troops and money as ordered, keep their mouths shut and buy American weapons.

To put it clearly: I am not anti-American! I think Americans are nice people and the USA is indeed a great country.
But the unique level of arrogance and ignorance the US government shows to the world makes me sick time after time.

[Atlantic Friend]

Aren't you proving the article's point?

Geez, I sure hope not ! How ?

[Henry's Fork]

Which brings us to the IMHO core problem in US-world relations: The USA doesn't want allies but vassals, not friends but followers.
An ally is someone you ask for help, value and accept their opinions - even if they differ from your's.
A vassal is someone you order to help you, no questions asked. He's not supposed to have an opinion of his own.

It always struck me as odd how the US adamantly deny accepting any outside influences and higher authorities (like, e.g. the International Criminal Court or the United Nations - the UN constantly painted as plotting an, anti-American of course!, world government) while at the same time expecting without questioning that any other country in the world should accept orders from Washington and regard the US president as the unchallenged leader and savior of the Free World.

The UN is a good thing - as long as they pass resolutions Washington likes.
NATO is a good thing - as long as the US is in command.
Other nations are "allies" - as long as they commit troops and money as ordered, keep their mouths shut and buy American weapons.

To put it clearly: I am not anti-American! I think Americans are nice people and the USA is indeed a great country.
But the unique level of arrogance and ignorance the US government shows to the world makes me sick time after time.

It would be arrogant and ignorant to think the U.S. is alone in this type of thinking. It's the modus operandi of the majority of countries on this planet. Take care of numero uno first!

[TheStorm]

Geez, I sure hope not ! How ?

It seems to me that both you and the article are saying that if European countries don't want the system then why are we pushing for it anyway?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[afrographX]

lol

USA defending the whole world? Against who?

The imperial wars the USA are fighting at the moment and that they will fight in the future are motivated by their own economical and strategic interests.

No bull**** like freedom, liberty, deomcracy, etc.

And it's the same with the European nations. 95% of their foreign policy pursues pure national interests. From time to time they do something for the general welfare, this is the last 5%. This 5% are played for the media so the citizens can be happy about what a kind nation they're living in.

The international community is a kindergarten.

[Bert]

lol

USA defending the whole world? Against who?

The imperial wars the USA are fighting at the moment and that they will fight in the future are motivated by their own economical and strategic interests.

No bull**** like freedom, liberty, deomcracy, etc.

And it's the same with the European nations. 95% of their foreign policy pursues pure national interests. From time to time they do something for the general welfare, this is the last 5%. This 5% are played for the media so the citizens can be happy about what a kind nation they're living in.

The international community is a kindergarten.
Hah, we don't have enough defence resources for power projection up here. We send a few blue helmets here and there so we can call ourselves saints, that's it.