Coup attempt in Turkey

[Berkut]

america being willing and capable of fighting and dying for other countries increases our global influence

Influence that helps America to what end?

trade agreements, security, etc. all the benefits of being a superpower. a superpower can't be isolationist because then it loses the global influence that helps maintain that superpower status.

Not intervening constantly, or not being obligated to defend Europe does not equal "isolationist".

This is just a bizarre, but not uncommon, idea. The US over the last few decades is hyper interventionist. Surely we can be LESS interventionist without being "isolationist"?

I question that our bankrolling of Europe's security gets us much influence in any case. If anything, it seems like it mostly gets us resentment.

[Valmy]

I question that our bankrolling of Europe's security gets us much influence in any case. If anything, it seems like it mostly gets us resentment.

That is not what gets us resentment. We are the biggest and strongest so we are going to resented no matter what we do. Because no matter what we do it will be something somebody doesn't like.

My issue with your thinking on this is it seems to be throwing away real concrete assets in exchange for theoretical things. So we toss basically controlling European foreign policy in exchange for...what exactly? We throw away having strategic assets in Turkey in exchange for...what? What if Turkey becomes our enemy? Then we might end up having more commitments and spending more and having less flexibility.

As far as bankrolling Euroland well I am not convinced we would not be spending that money anyway.

[LaCroix]

Not intervening constantly, or not being obligated to defend Europe does not equal "isolationist".

This is just a bizarre, but not uncommon, idea. The US over the last few decades is hyper interventionist. Surely we can be LESS interventionist without being "isolationist"?

I question that our bankrolling of Europe's security gets us much influence in any case. If anything, it seems like it mostly gets us resentment.

the original complaint seemed to concern general interventionism rather than certain specific cases.

I think the US has exercised "not intervening constantly." if the US were intervening constantly, there are probably many more conflicts we'd have engaged in over the past decade.

[Berkut]

I question that our bankrolling of Europe's security gets us much influence in any case. If anything, it seems like it mostly gets us resentment.

That is not what gets us resentment. We are the biggest and strongest so we are going to resented no matter what we do. Because no matter what we do it will be something somebody doesn't like.

My issue with your thinking on this is it seems to be throwing away real concrete assets in exchange for theoretical things. So we toss basically controlling European foreign policy

LOL, we don't control Euro foreign policy by any stretch of the imagination.

To the extent that we "control" anything it is that they have no ability to project, and hence rely on us. In or out of NATO, that would still be the case.

If your fear is that absent NATO they might actually get a serious military capable of intervening locally, and hence will no longer be willing to defer to us, I am fine with that. Like I've said, I believe that the US and Europe are aligned on western principles at a fundamental level, so I am perfectly ok with them having the ability to act regionally because I believe that such actions will generally align with out shared principles.

in exchange for...what exactly? We throw away having strategic assets in Turkey in exchange for...what?

Not paying to put strategic assets in a country where they are not that useful, and where to the extent they ARE useful are limited by that countries likely willingness to just deny our ability to utilize them. It's not like our alliance with Turkey as a NATO member is free. Those assets could be elsewhere.

What if Turkey becomes our enemy? Then we might end up having more commitments and spending more and having less flexibility.

They might do that anyway, and their trend has been pretty consistently away from western values.

It's not like we can't make deals with Turkey outside the structure of NATO anyway...

[Zanza]

Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Most of those are not there to defend Germany though. My hometown has the US Africa Command in it. You're welcome to stay, but I feel like this is more to further American geostrategic goals rather than area defense.

Correct on them not being there to defend Germany, but U.S. Africa Command serves almost no U.S. interest, I can't think of any intervention in Africa where the U.S. wasn't essentially doing Europe's dirty work for it. So I see no reason for it at all, to be honest. We have the bases in Germany from the Cold War and a lot of inertia keeps them there, but they serve no valid U.S. interests.

That would violate the NATO-Russia agreement of 1997 (or so).

So be it--such is required. Russia violates international agreements all the time, like the one it signed when it helped denuclearize the Ukraine to respect its territorial integrity.

We already outspend Russia significantly.

And yet, the intervention Russia has taken in Ukraine or in Syria would be impossible for continental Europe working together, even under the framework of NATO, without Britain + the United States. You guys just don't have a credible military. If you don't want one, fine. But my only point is I sure as shit don't want my military being your military. I'm fine making a "guarantee of defense", but that's not the same as a "guarantee of acting in loco parentis ad infinitum."

Not particularly interested.

And that's cool--so you probably get 100% where I'm coming from. I have no problem with the fact the U.S., as the world's lone superpower, does have some obligations to defend other democracies. I am not saying we would disengage from the world to that degree. What I'm saying is there are regions of the world where bad shit happens, and I don't think America can respond to all of them. We have to start limiting our scope and our interventionism. If we, as the collective West, really think that interventions are necessary in certain parts of the world, especially those in "Europe's back yard", then Europe needs to take the lead. If Europe isn't willing, then America needs to be willing to say "oh well." We cannot be the answer to all the problems every where, it isn't sustainable or desirable.

FWIW, this is an area where I've seen Obama moving. We are slowly but surely I think doing much of what I suggest in Europe, and I can't imagine either of our current Presidential candidates reversing course. Clinton would probably continue roughly in Obama's path and Trump would likely do so even more aggressively.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.

We want to move more to South Korea last I heard. U.S. Pacific Command is up to 100,000 from 80,000 when Obama declared a "pivot to the Pacific." Two things happened after that which I believe has slowed out withdrawal from Europe and planned increase in the pacific: Ukraine and Syria.

[Berkut]

Totally agree with Otto.

I would even go a step further, in some ways.

To the extent the US is willing to be the world policeman, we should do so primarily where

A) Our interests lie, and
B) There isn't a credible alternative.

Right now, we are "responsible" for parts of the world where there are absolutely credible alternatives, if only they would do their part. So if someone needs to intervene in Libya, then that should be Europes area of policing, while the US focuses on parts of the world where there isn't a regional western power such that our global reach is required.

[LaCroix]

Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.

yeah, a few garrison soldiers and a handful of nukes aren't really material assets. it's not like we have a full army permanently based in turkey.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think domestic politics will eventually require what I've said. There's been a "slow turn" against NATO. Right now most Americans don't think about NATO enough to really care, but Trump has campaigned against NATO. I think you'll see more of that, Trump is just willing to be more bombastic about it.

During the Cold War our commitment to Europe was essentially beyond question, virtually all serious Americans believed we had a grave responsibility to protect Europe from falling under the Iron Curtain, and further, that failure to do so would be essentially a fatal blow to U.S. interests. After the Cold War ended, I think a lot of Americans haven't really fully recognized how big our commitment to NATO is and how it constrains us being able to operate elsewhere, and how the countries we're expending so much on are all rich countries themselves who can decide for themselves if they want that level of military power or not.

I don't believe long term domestic opinion will be in favor of the one-sided NATO arrangement.

[Tamas]

You guys are starting sound like American versions of Brexiters

[OttoVonBismarck]

Would the US actually put more forces elsewhere outside the continental US if it would withdraw them from Europe? Are you currently not deploying more troops in MENA or APAC because of your committments in Europe? I was under the impression that the US already had bases and troops everywhere it deemed them useful.

yeah, a few garrison soldiers and a handful of nukes aren't really material assets. it's not like we have a full army permanently based in turkey.

Post Cold-War Turkey, for us, is almost exclusively useful as an airfield. Nothing else could easily replace it in Syria/Iraq unless we built a new air base in Iraq, which as I mentioned has problems.

Even if we could get agreement to say, build a big air base in Greece (which is probably the closest NATO ally to the fighting and wouldn't add huge amount to flight time), the problem is any planes flying from Greece to conflict spots in Iraq have to fly over other countries. Now, since we fly over Syrian airspace at will now because we basically can, that wouldn't be a big deal. But in theory if the Syrian civil war ended, an air base in Greece would mean a huge detour flying around no-fly countries to strike targets in Iraq (something we don't have to worry about with our base in Turkey.) Saudi Arabia is out because of the political problems. We do have deployments in Kuwait/Qatar/Bahrain, but they're all either naval or small, we don't have any real airstrike capability from those countries and there are prickly problems with establishing them in any of those countries.

But it's conceivable in 10 years or so it would be a moot point. My hope is we aren't bombing Syria and Iraq forever.

[Zanza]

Correct on them not being there to defend Germany, but U.S. Africa Command serves almost no U.S. interest, I can't think of any intervention in Africa where the U.S. wasn't essentially doing Europe's dirty work for it.

The mission list on Wikipedia for the US Africom suggests two related missions as part of the Global War on Terror (Enduring Freedom at the Horn of Africa and in the Sahara), the anti-piracy mission off the Horn of Africa which is a global effort with contributions from many non-NATO countries, and two missions related to the war in Libya (which was a European intervention). So I guess the last two qualify, the first three are part of America's geopolitical interest, no?

So be it--such is required. Russia violates international agreements all the time, like the one it signed when it helped denuclearize the Ukraine to respect its territorial integrity.

Fair enough. I think we should then openly cancel the agreement first though. But I agree, we should be more forceful vis-a-vis Russia.

And yet, the intervention Russia has taken in Ukraine or in Syria would be impossible for continental Europe working together, even under the framework of NATO, without Britain + the United States. You guys just don't have a credible military. If you don't want one, fine. But my only point is I sure as shit don't want my military being your military. I'm fine making a "guarantee of defense", but that's not the same as a "guarantee of acting in loco parentis ad infinitum."

That's fine. I don't want to see German soldiers fighting in Eastern Ukraine (my grandfather actually did just that ) or Syria. So yeah, I don't need a "credible" military if credible is defined as being able to intervene in those countries.

And that's cool--so you probably get 100% where I'm coming from. I have no problem with the fact the U.S., as the world's lone superpower, does have some obligations to defend other democracies. I am not saying we would disengage from the world to that degree. What I'm saying is there are regions of the world where bad shit happens, and I don't think America can respond to all of them. We have to start limiting our scope and our interventionism. If we, as the collective West, really think that interventions are necessary in certain parts of the world, especially those in "Europe's back yard", then Europe needs to take the lead. If Europe isn't willing, then America needs to be willing to say "oh well." We cannot be the answer to all the problems every where, it isn't sustainable or desirable.

[Zanza]

Why can't you build a base in Jordan? From what I heard Germany considers to move its jets from Incirlik to Jordan if Erdogan continues to pester our parliamentarians over our Armenian genocide resolution.

Or Israel for that matter as it is your closest ally in the region anyway.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think there are political problems with a base in Israel. The U.S. is unabashedly pro-Israel, but at least tries to front the position that we can serve as a "mediator" in the larger Israeli-Palestine conflict if necessary. A large U.S. air base in Israel would make that impossible and also likely expose us to more terrorist attacks than we already are.

Jordan might be a good answer though, I hadn't considered them.