Expert: Military Alliances with the United States Benefit


There is nothing wrong with the desire to reduce the US excessive military presence abroad, but this issue cannot be radicalized, writes John Schaus in his article on the Breaking Defense portal.


On the eve of the 2020 American presidential race, supporters reinforced calls to end the US military presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. After 18 years of hostilities in Afghanistan and 16 years in Iraq, the American public has the right to "get tired" of these conflicts. However, the author asks, will the United States be safer if US troops leave these places?

In addition, the “ideology of restraint” has acquired rather blurred boundaries with the manifestation of extreme views that require Washington to abandon alliances and withdraw troops from Europe and Asia.

The author states that military alliances with the United States are beneficial by reducing regional rivalries in different parts of the world, contributing to greater stability and cooperation between countries that do not get along too well. They also directly contribute to the prosperity of the New World through closer trade between America and the economies of the Allies.

Today's alliances are defined by mutual defense treaties and were created after World War II in Europe, as well as the Korean War in Asia, to ensure the security and prosperity of Americans.

- recalls Mr. Schaus.

Other architecture


The reasons for participating in these pacts were not in the abstract ideals of the primacy of the United States and not in the assumption of the inevitable rise of democracies or capitalism. American alliances, the article says, were created on the basis of realistic views that each member state would be more secure and stable under a mutual defense treaty.

The author notes that Washington’s allies enjoy incredible prosperity. The West and East of Germany are cited as an example, and even more so, North and South Korea. Washington’s military-political ally has reduced duties and other privileges in trade.

Alliances, including the advanced deployment of US troops abroad, make the United States safer and its allies more secure and prosperous. Any plan to weaken the architecture of alliances should demonstrate how it will provide greater benefits than the current system, otherwise we just give rise to a bad idea

- sums up Schaus.

After this, the question arises: did Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya become US allies, democracy is already flourishing in them, have they already felt the benefits of an alliance with Washington?
Photos used:
U.S. Department of Defense
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Victor_B 30 December 2019 13: 20 New
    • 15
    • 3
    +12
    Military Alliances with the United States Benefit
    To the United States!
    Here the Kurds kissed them on the gums, and now their rotten teeth spit out.
    That is what you can’t refuse brazenly to the Saxons, because this is the deepest contempt for the interests of others.
    1. rich 30 December 2019 13: 52 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      Expert: Military Alliances with the United States Benefit

      Why is it so categorical? For example, the straightforward Polish foreign minister, Radoslav Sikorski, believes that his country's alliance with America is "useless."
      Wprost weekly published a recording of Sikorski’s conversation with the former Polish Minister of Finance:“This Polish-American alliance is useless. It is even harmful because it gives Poland a false sense of security. This is dog shit. We are in conflict with the Germans, with Russia and we think that everything is wonderful, because we are gratifying the Americans
    2. Jack O'Neill 30 December 2019 14: 01 New
      • 6
      • 6
      0
      Well, it would be at least strange if they did not care first of all about their benefit.
      You don’t give your salary every month, for example, to children. at home, children are needed, or for the needs of the poor, etc.
      You work for your own good, to buy yourself a treat, to buy a treat to your wife, girlfriend, children or parents.
      Oh this cynical world ...
      1. Nyrobsky 30 December 2019 16: 32 New
        • 6
        • 2
        +4
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        You don’t give your salary every month, for example, to children. at home, children are needed, or for the needs of the poor, etc.

        Yes, but we do not strive to take away from children and the poor the last that is, as the Americans do. Having settled
        in orphan countries, mattresses force them to pay for the American presence from their treasury.
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        You work for your own good, to buy yourself a treat, to buy a treat to your wife, girlfriend, children or parents.

        That's it, they work, work for their own benefit, and then rrrraaz .... and the mattresses were drawn with their "accomplices" in order to take away from the "hard workers" everything acquired by overwork.
        Quote: Jack O'Neill
        Oh this cynical world ..

        And don't say ...
        1. max702 30 December 2019 18: 06 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Quote: Nyrobsky
          Yes, but we do not strive to take away from children and the poor the last that is, as the Americans do.

          But precisely because of this, in the USA and other bourgeois countries, the standard of living is so much higher .. Either you rob everyone you can, or you live in poverty (on your own) .. otherwise under capitalism it is not given ..
          1. Oyo Sarkazmi 30 December 2019 20: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: max702
            And this is precisely why the standard of living is so much higher in the USA and other bourgeois countries

            Well, the American homeless, of course, has an unfinished can of beer for $ 5, and the Russian has one and a half for 100 rubles. American income from a sip of beer is 10 times more than Russian.
            1. max702 31 December 2019 09: 10 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
              Well, the American homeless, of course, has an unfinished can of beer for $ 5, and the Russian has one and a half for 100 rubles. American income from a sip of beer is 10 times more than Russian.

              Do you want to compare the income level of our teacher, doctor, carpenter, CNC machine operator and other working specialties? Especially living somewhere in Kostroma and for example in Wisconsin?
              1. Oyo Sarkazmi 31 December 2019 10: 08 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Divide income by expenses. If in the USA it is considered profitable to have a motor (mobile home) and pay $ 30 per day for a place on a PR (parking-hotel). Can you imagine an apartment with a rent of 60 rubles per month in Russia? And in the United States it is - for 000 square meters. meters of asphalt near the outlet.
  2. Mountain shooter 30 December 2019 13: 23 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    The ogre explains to the potential breakfast why he (breakfast) should open the doors for him ... belay
    1. cniza 30 December 2019 14: 40 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      And some breakfasts do this consciously ...
    2. knn54 30 December 2019 15: 56 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      "Because joint work, for my benefit - it unites"
      Cat Matroskin.
      1. Pete mitchell 30 December 2019 16: 56 New
        • 8
        • 1
        +7
        hi

        And in modern times, it is rather the power of a particular group. And this group does not care about the people of America, and all the rest and even more so.
  3. Seld 30 December 2019 13: 41 New
    • 9
    • 2
    +7
    Empty article. Obviously pulled out of the general context.
    Meanwhile, any aspiring MGIMO student will know and say: the entry of any party into any union / alliance AUTOMATICALLY creates a confrontation for such a party with third (or even third) !!!! both economically and geopolitically / militarily. AUTOMATICALLY....
    AXIOM!!!!!
    By the way, precisely for these reasons - and this is very reasonable - many actually allies of the Russian Federation (dadadadad !!!, actual, but not "legal") just refuse to conclude direct alliances / mutual agreements with the Russian Federation (including for example, they shy away from direct statements in favor of recognizing Crimea, etc.). Reason - see the above.
    In general, the theme of alliances / alliances and so on. worthy in itself of serious scientific research / analytics / analysis. Not once for "housekeeping professionals with an education just above the average technical grade of three."
    1. maidan.izrailovich 30 December 2019 14: 12 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      By the way, precisely for these reasons ...

      Not a fact.
      During the USSR, many were not afraid to enter into an alliance with us.
      Small and weak countries need a patron (master). Another thing is that there used to be a choice. Between the USSR and the USA. Not yet. This is the main reason why the US is so persistent in Syria. In case of success (final success) of Russia in Syria, the balance will not swing in favor of the United States. And many in the world will have an alternative.
      1. Seld 30 December 2019 14: 25 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Of course, NOT a fact.
        But - one of many reasons. And maybe the primary, fundamental. AXIOM to be reckoned with.
        And if an alliance / alliance occurs, it means that there are a lot of reasons for such a choice. And vice versa.
        By the way, a historical fact is of interest, there are still no official explanations for it (although, based on publicly available information, some “parasitic” (from the word parasites) conclusions suggest itself): why did Hitler let the British leave through the Lamansh. He just stopped his advance and let everyone go back to the island ...
        I mean, with regards to alliances and unions, situations are non-standard, non-standard, non-obvious for non-specialists.
        As he wrote earlier, "... the topic of alliances / alliances, etc. is worthy of serious scientific research / analytics / analysis in itself."
        1. Oyo Sarkazmi 30 December 2019 20: 46 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: seld
          why Hitler let the British leave through the Lamansh. He just stopped his advance and let everyone go back to the island ...

          Well, Hitler was out of luck. The tanks ran out of gas, and they stood for 100 km, and the weather did not allow the Yu-87 to work.
          150 thousand prisoners would serve as a good argument to make peace between Hitler and Churchill. But with the prisoners did not work. And the war continued
      2. Aaron Zawi 30 December 2019 15: 50 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: maidan.izrailovich
        And many in the world will have an alternative.

        Economic? recourse
  4. Den717 30 December 2019 13: 47 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    "any plan ..... should demonstrate great benefits"
    It remains to understand to whom he must demonstrate and whose benefit? Reciprocity is clearly not in vogue with the Americans
  5. Mytholog 30 December 2019 13: 50 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Of course they bring)
  6. rocket757 30 December 2019 13: 55 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Expert: Military Alliances with the United States Benefit

    It’s like someone ....
    1. cniza 30 December 2019 14: 38 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      They definitely benefit and fat, and the rest of the sheriff does not care.
      1. rocket757 31 December 2019 08: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: cniza
        They definitely benefit and fat, and the rest of the sheriff does not care.

        Hi soldier holiday greetings!
        Around the striped enough jump on their hind legs and yapping, how they feel good under the wing of that vulture, just like God’s in the bang!
  7. Kleber 30 December 2019 14: 25 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Americans are inherently typical businessmen. The main component in this or that decision is making profit from everything that is possible. Moral and universal principles do not interest them. Military alliances with the United States really bring Americans a lot of money in the form of selling both new and old weapons, payments for having a US base in the country, and many other delights of business. One thing is bad, that an alliance with the United States brings other countries only loss, loss of part (or even full sovereignty).
    1. maden.usmanow 30 December 2019 15: 16 New
      • 2
      • 6
      -4
      One bad thing is that an alliance with the United States brings only loss to other countries.



      All of Europe, except Eastern, rose at the expense of the Marshall Plan.
      Korea, Japan, China, have grown due to free access to the US market.
      Gulf countries received trillions of dollars from US oil exports. Iran itself flourished as an American ally, before the 79 revolution.
      Only a loss. 100%
      1. stalki 30 December 2019 16: 39 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Europe without FSH has risen, itself, it is simply necessary to trade with the whole world. So do not fantasize that which was not.
        1. maden.usmanow 30 December 2019 18: 00 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Marshall and Google plan to help.
          1. stalki 30 December 2019 20: 49 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Marshall and Google plan to help
            I am aware of this "snot napkin" you still do not understand why this was done, and even then, only in terms of profit? The main goal is to reduce, and where it is possible to exclude the influence of the USSR. Everything, this is the main task, in second place is the economic benefit. Google has not yet helped anyone know the truth, you know this independent "discipline"
      2. Oyo Sarkazmi 30 December 2019 20: 50 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: maden.usmanow
        All of Europe, except Eastern, rose at the expense of the Marshall Plan.
        Korea, Japan, China, have grown due to free access to the US market.

        The proximity of the USSR did not allow recklessly rob these countries, like Latin America. Yes, and the Marshall Plan ... Adenauer stopped inflation and restored industry, only expelling all American advisers from the government. What Putin did in the 2000s ...
        1. maden.usmanow 31 December 2019 00: 15 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          And you can ask where the FRG with its Adenauer drove the products of its industry.
          Hmm .. In one such country ... I can’t remember what it is called
          1. Oyo Sarkazmi 31 December 2019 10: 12 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            It is called Germany. While Germany was recovering, the United States dumped all the power of its war-warmed economy there. Corn, soy, cars, toilet paper. Adenauer said - not, ourselves, ourselves.
  8. cniza 30 December 2019 14: 37 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    for the safety and prosperity of Americans


    Wow, this is the main goal of the United States, and the rest of them deeply ...
  9. The comment was deleted.
  10. Seld 30 December 2019 15: 07 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    Quote: Kleber
    Americans are inherently typical businessmen. The main component in this or that decision is making profit from everything that is possible. Moral and universal principles do not interest them. Military alliances with the United States really bring Americans a lot of money in the form of selling both new and old weapons, payments for having a US base in the country, and many other delights of business. One thing is bad, that an alliance with the United States brings other countries only loss, loss of part (or even full sovereignty).


    Have you been in shats? Obviously, since you were so categorical ....
    And you talked with ordinary amers, on the street, in a tavern, at a party, had a drink with them? Obviously, yes, since you are so perspicacious ...
  11. stalki 30 December 2019 16: 36 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Belens overeat? Well, of course, everyone knows what they are the most, well, what is there to be modest about. In addition to Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, Japan should be included here on a short leash, looted Ukraine and Georgia, frozen on its knees, Turkey, whose pointer was across the ocean from across the throat, Europe can’t see anywhere without their knowledge, and the benefits are incredible. Especially for your own feed. Well, at the expense of security, this is generally a priori, without them, nowhere, otherwise all small children will trip over their foreheads.
  12. Kibl 30 December 2019 16: 38 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Another stupid chatter from another stupid "expert." And in which incubator they produce such ideas ?! Let him hang noodles to the million dead Iraqis and how many thousands of dead Afghans, Syrians, Libyans, Ukrainians are there. Your mother, you don’t need enemies as an ally !!!
  13. Gennady Fomkin 30 December 2019 17: 08 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    laughing Especially Iraq and Afghanistan where they did not build a single school and all the help poured into the gravel road laughing
  14. Gennady Fomkin 30 December 2019 17: 11 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: seld
    Quote: Kleber
    Americans are inherently typical businessmen. The main component in this or that decision is making profit from everything that is possible. Moral and universal principles do not interest them. Military alliances with the United States really bring Americans a lot of money in the form of selling both new and old weapons, payments for having a US base in the country, and many other delights of business. One thing is bad, that an alliance with the United States brings other countries only loss, loss of part (or even full sovereignty).


    Have you been in shats? Obviously, since you were so categorical ....
    And you talked with ordinary amers, on the street, in a tavern, at a party, had a drink with them? Obviously, yes, since you are so perspicacious ...

    A simple redek shit for the most part on some territory with local Papuans laughing
  15. Gennady Fomkin 30 December 2019 17: 13 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Quote: maden.usmanow
    One bad thing is that an alliance with the United States brings only loss to other countries.



    All of Europe, except Eastern, rose at the expense of the Marshall Plan.
    Korea, Japan, China, have grown due to free access to the US market.
    Gulf countries received trillions of dollars from US oil exports. Iran itself flourished as an American ally, before the 79 revolution.
    Only a loss. 100%

    The boar’s nudity must first be grown to be eaten later. laughing
  16. Gennady Fomkin 30 December 2019 17: 23 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    I would like to see in the article the growth figures of the German economy. laughing laughing
  17. cat Rusich 30 December 2019 18: 09 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    D. Schaus defender (lawyer) of the world RECETIR am "(usa). Schaus finds a digestible explanation why the usa" roofs angry "one country or another and invites under the" roof "of the United States other" simpletons fellow "(" young democracies wassat ")
  18. Prisoner 30 December 2019 22: 22 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Shaus fits in the best way with the unfading "Oh, these tales! Oh, these storytellers!" winked The propagandist is the same. laughing
  19. Seld 31 December 2019 09: 47 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: stalki
    Belens overeat? Well, of course, everyone knows what they are the most, well, what is there to be modest about. In addition to Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, Japan should be included here on a short leash, looted Ukraine and Georgia, frozen on its knees, Turkey, whose pointer was across the ocean from across the throat, Europe can’t see anywhere without their knowledge, and the benefits are incredible. Especially for your own feed. Well, at the expense of security, this is generally a priori, without them, nowhere, otherwise all small children will trip over their foreheads.


    Your text is not quite clear ...
    Hello, by the way!
    You know, if in the world and on the planet everything was so simply laid out on the shelves and understood ... Ooooooo ... Institutions of international cooperation and law would close.
    But in fact, I went to a couple of sites, read, surfed kamenty and - voila !!!!! The goals are clear, the tasks are outlined, for work, comrades! Ready strategy.
    Meanwhile, from a historical point of view and right on your knee, without going into details of nuance (which is WRONG in the root, well, oh well ...), you need to start discussions about the role of states, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, their interaction as minimum straight from the end .... 19th (!!!!!!!!) century and to present
    The preamble began tama ..., aha-aha ...
    It is necessary to take into account the general economic development in the above-mentioned regions, then further - to fasten the geopolitical aspirations of countries competently to the facts, make an adjustment for force-majeure circumstances, estimate the personal characteristics of the rulers of countries of that period, introduce the coefficients of NTR, DIFFERENT, (!!!!!!!) ....
    As a result, it will be possible to get funny ottistics of short historical "frames." Stages like ...
    Say, the periods: the beginning of the 20th century to 1919, then - 1924, then 1930, 1945, 1946,1949, 1974-1979. Googel to the rescue.
    And it will be very funny to see how, in what period and why the merger of the two continents grew. And the big question is who turns whom and by whom: the dog’s tail or vice versa. One thing seems to be visually, but if you look at the skuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuushuy) and the statistics, then the picture can be completely contradictory.
    In the world and in politics, by the way, everything is relative ...
    Happy holiday to all!
  20. Seld 31 December 2019 09: 56 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Gennady Fomkin
    Quote: maden.usmanow
    One bad thing is that an alliance with the United States brings only loss to other countries.



    All of Europe, except Eastern, rose at the expense of the Marshall Plan.
    Korea, Japan, China, have grown due to free access to the US market.
    Gulf countries received trillions of dollars from US oil exports. Iran itself flourished as an American ally, before the 79 revolution.
    Only a loss. 100%

    The boar’s nudity must first be grown to be eaten later. laughing


    - “The Marshall Plan” - Controversial. A plan of standards in itself. Compare, for example, in numbers per capita income in Europe and other countries.
    By the way, Google .... The Marshall Plan extended NOT only to Europe.
    - "Iran flourished as an American ally, before the revolution of 79" -?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! to go nuts ... Google "Mossadyk" ....
  21. Seld 31 December 2019 09: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Oyo Sarkazmi
    Quote: seld
    why Hitler let the British leave through the Lamansh. He just stopped his advance and let everyone go back to the island ...

    Well, Hitler was out of luck. The tanks ran out of gas, and they stood for 100 km, and the weather did not allow the Yu-87 to work.
    150 thousand prisoners would serve as a good argument to make peace between Hitler and Churchill. But with the prisoners did not work. And the war continued


    +10 on a five-point scale !!!!!!
    And then they drove a business, the sun looked out and rolled further ....
  22. Disorder 31 December 2019 21: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    “It’s dangerous to be America’s enemy, but doubly dangerous to be its ally”
  23. iouris 4 January 2020 17: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Alliances with the United States benefit the United States. This is a medical fact.