That is oversimplified. The oil from the region is important to the world and the US presence in the region helps the flow of oil reach the world.
The rest of the world is therefore depending on the US presence and therefore “indebted” and this solidifies the US’s position of power.
Just look at what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to create too much of a Powerhold over the oil flow from the middle east.
The US is a net exporter of security to regimes it allies with in trade for fielty, support and the sale of gigantic amounts of international trade of all types including but not limited to oil and arms.
Post WW2, the United States still had their industry intact whereas everywhere else was destroyed so they were the wealthiest nation, which has continued to this day, and leaders at the time wanted to keep it that way.
Bases around the world let the US respond to basically any small threat it wants to, which helped keep its “most powerful nation” position.
It hasn’t always been successful and US power hegemony seems to be on the decline, but they still have bases everywhere even if they’re extremely unpopular like Okinawa.
US has bases because we have powerful aircraft. And Jordan lets us have that base because they’d prefer it if our base were there also protecting them from such dangers.
We have a base there because ISIS is a real threat and deserved nearby air-power to counter it. Iran is there because ISIS is a real threat and Iran is rightfully setting up defenses. ISIS is there because Iraq / Syria destabilized (we are to blame for Iraq, but Syria is on its own for their troubles, we had nothing to do with that. ISIS took advantage of weakening Al Qaeda thereby absorbing local militants / former Al Qaeda and becoming a regional problem).
USA countering ISIS is to our benefit in Iraq, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
We don’t really take power “just to take power”. There’s a reason behind all of our decisions.
Agreed that ISIS is a real threat and that it’s all incredibly complex and short responses on Lemmy won’t do the topic Justice.
I disagree with the statement:
We don’t really take power “just to take power”
as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
1800s everyone was taking power, even well into 1910s or 1930s. But modern 1990s+ era politics is pretty different. Monroe Doctrine barely applies today (we’ve kept our hands off of Venezuelans even as they collapsed, and I’d prefer if we stabilized South America more actually…)
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
Its largely for the defense of trade routes. Look at the Houthis, they’re not exactly a minor entity. They have cruise missiles and other such weaponry. To effectively combat Houthis, it makes sense to attack them with overwhelming might. Even then we aren’t going to really deal with them or stop them from disrupting trade in the Red Sea.
Why the USA? Well, look at Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They haven’t been able to keep the area peaceful by themselves and we now have to step in with Operation Prosperity Guardian. Or what? Are we supposed to just let $Billion cargo ships get boarded by the Houthis?
We haven’t pulled a Vietnam on Venezuela likely because of OPEC connections.
You cannot deny the influences of historical actions on modern politics. There’s a direct line of people who supported / enacted US power ambitions, that you’ve agreed with, to the modern day. Many of these people are either on their deathbed or 1-2 generations gone. Kissinger just died two months ago.
You’re justifying the power projection after the fact. The original question was why does the US have bases everywhere and they didn’t just appear one day.
I’m gonna edit this comment as time passes cause mobile Lemmy is spotty
Sanctions are “I’ve decided not to trade with you”, which hardly constitutes “imperialistic ambitions”. Mercenaries do not constitute proper US policy either.
And yes, I recognize we’ve done some shitty things in the 1950s (“banana republic”), but its difficult to even call those things “Imperialism” proper, especially given their overall effects between our countries. Shitty foreign policy does not necessarily mean that we’re going around trying to conquer people.
This one is because “Fuck ISIS” and “Holy shit Syria is collapsing”.
The world is a bit more complex than “fuck Iran”. Iran themselves improved their position against ISIS and Syria as well, because that’s a shitty situation. USA found itself within shooting distance of Syria (aka: Russia-backed), Iran, ISIS, and more. But we gotta protect our allies (aka: Kurds) who helped us out so much in Iraq, as well as Israel.
Its genocides all the way down. Shia want to genocide Sunni. Sunni want to genocide Shia. They both want to genocide Kurds. They all want to genocide Israel.
Because they were stationed at a US military base. I think its called “Tower 22.”
The better question is why does the US have so many military bases scattered throughout the middle east in other countries.
I think the short answer is US policy is basically “because fuck Iran.”
That is oversimplified. The oil from the region is important to the world and the US presence in the region helps the flow of oil reach the world.
The rest of the world is therefore depending on the US presence and therefore “indebted” and this solidifies the US’s position of power.
Just look at what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to create too much of a Powerhold over the oil flow from the middle east.
The US is a net exporter of security to regimes it allies with in trade for fielty, support and the sale of gigantic amounts of international trade of all types including but not limited to oil and arms.
Meh, the short answer is power projection.
Post WW2, the United States still had their industry intact whereas everywhere else was destroyed so they were the wealthiest nation, which has continued to this day, and leaders at the time wanted to keep it that way.
Interesting article about the wealth: https://medium.com/the-worlds-economy-and-the-economys-world/a-short-history-of-americas-economy-since-world-war-ii-37293cdb640#:~:text=At the end of World,net exporter of petroleum products.
Bases around the world let the US respond to basically any small threat it wants to, which helped keep its “most powerful nation” position.
It hasn’t always been successful and US power hegemony seems to be on the decline, but they still have bases everywhere even if they’re extremely unpopular like Okinawa.
US has bases because we have powerful aircraft. And Jordan lets us have that base because they’d prefer it if our base were there also protecting them from such dangers.
We have a base there because ISIS is a real threat and deserved nearby air-power to counter it. Iran is there because ISIS is a real threat and Iran is rightfully setting up defenses. ISIS is there because Iraq / Syria destabilized (we are to blame for Iraq, but Syria is on its own for their troubles, we had nothing to do with that. ISIS took advantage of weakening Al Qaeda thereby absorbing local militants / former Al Qaeda and becoming a regional problem).
USA countering ISIS is to our benefit in Iraq, and Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
We don’t really take power “just to take power”. There’s a reason behind all of our decisions.
Agreed that ISIS is a real threat and that it’s all incredibly complex and short responses on Lemmy won’t do the topic Justice.
I disagree with the statement:
as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
1800s everyone was taking power, even well into 1910s or 1930s. But modern 1990s+ era politics is pretty different. Monroe Doctrine barely applies today (we’ve kept our hands off of Venezuelans even as they collapsed, and I’d prefer if we stabilized South America more actually…)
Its largely for the defense of trade routes. Look at the Houthis, they’re not exactly a minor entity. They have cruise missiles and other such weaponry. To effectively combat Houthis, it makes sense to attack them with overwhelming might. Even then we aren’t going to really deal with them or stop them from disrupting trade in the Red Sea.
Why the USA? Well, look at Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They haven’t been able to keep the area peaceful by themselves and we now have to step in with Operation Prosperity Guardian. Or what? Are we supposed to just let $Billion cargo ships get boarded by the Houthis?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-68139518.amp
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10715
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gideon_(2020) - *US mercenaries
We haven’t pulled a Vietnam on Venezuela likely because of OPEC connections.
You cannot deny the influences of historical actions on modern politics. There’s a direct line of people who supported / enacted US power ambitions, that you’ve agreed with, to the modern day. Many of these people are either on their deathbed or 1-2 generations gone. Kissinger just died two months ago.
You’re justifying the power projection after the fact. The original question was why does the US have bases everywhere and they didn’t just appear one day.
I’m gonna edit this comment as time passes cause mobile Lemmy is spotty
Sanctions are “I’ve decided not to trade with you”, which hardly constitutes “imperialistic ambitions”. Mercenaries do not constitute proper US policy either.
And yes, I recognize we’ve done some shitty things in the 1950s (“banana republic”), but its difficult to even call those things “Imperialism” proper, especially given their overall effects between our countries. Shitty foreign policy does not necessarily mean that we’re going around trying to conquer people.
This one is because “Fuck ISIS” and “Holy shit Syria is collapsing”.
The world is a bit more complex than “fuck Iran”. Iran themselves improved their position against ISIS and Syria as well, because that’s a shitty situation. USA found itself within shooting distance of Syria (aka: Russia-backed), Iran, ISIS, and more. But we gotta protect our allies (aka: Kurds) who helped us out so much in Iraq, as well as Israel.
Its genocides all the way down. Shia want to genocide Sunni. Sunni want to genocide Shia. They both want to genocide Kurds. They all want to genocide Israel.