If the US military didn't cover most of the globe

[The2ndWheel]

What do you think the world would be like if that wasn't the reality?

[Captain Hilts]

1. We don't cover most of the globe.

Troops in Europe? Mostly gone.
Bases in the Philippines? Much smaller.
Troops in Korea? Much fewer.
Troops in Panama? Much fewer, if any.

Subs at sea? In the past 20 years we've gone from 106 attack boats to 50.
Fewer aircraft carriers.

[Ravenseye]

3. We pretty much are everywhere

We might not have 50,000 Infantry in bases in every country, but we have a presence, and even 50 troops guarding a radar installation leaves a fingerprint in the local mindset. We have bases and troops in 63 countries, and 156 more have troops in them. There are only 46 countries in the WHOLE WORLD with no U.S. Military presence.

We currently have the widest ranging military presence for any country on this planet, ever.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Our force posture is FAR less dominant than it was...especially the USN

Yes, we have folks in many countries - often guarding radar stations, etc.

But we don't have combat troops stationed around the globe as we used to and the seas have far fewer US Navy ships.

Did you know the US Navy is the smallest it's been since before the First World War.

The naval 'footprint'is the smallest it's been in a VERY long time.

[Ravenseye]

9. Sure but it was bloated by the Cold War

The Naval 'footprint' is smaller, but only because we've achieved total and utter dominance of the seas, and are maintaining it with even our smaller force. Every inch of international ocean water is effectively in the control of the U.S. Nobody else even comes close to threatening our power anymore.

As far as combat troops, we don't need to have them stationed everywhere. We have minimal troops guarding base infrastructure and materiel that could be used for 100x the number of troops they have in place. That way we move our smaller force where it's needed rather than have 10 million active duty combat troops. It's less of a number, but no less effective, unless a second major conflict arises at any given time. That's one reason Iraq is looked badly upon even in some conservative circles, because it has reduced the effectiveness of our military power by locking 125k+ troops in one location making our response to other threats far more cumbersome.

Still, it would take very little to 'spin up' all those bases.

In addition our force posture is more complicated now. What we've effectively done with many countries is integrate our military advisors into their armies, or in emplacements in their countries, effectively making it impossible for them to ever do anything to counteract our power. 1000 troops in a country can not only effectively neuter it, but makes it a strategic piece of our imperial puzzle. Like what we were doing in the Cold War by playing a global game of 'Go' with the Soviet Union, except that now we're playing solo and just putting down our pieces with no competition. Those small forces in small countries exert more force and political pressure on those countries than a threat of actual violence.

[The2ndWheel]

5. Alright Johnny Technical

What if the US military wasn't able to deploy its forces in a short amount of time to any spot on the planet to deal with this or that issue?

[treestar]

2. We'd have a life at home

I mean, we might look inward instead of trying to control the rest of the world. We would just be another country, rather than "the superpower" which might not be a bad thing. Less resentment, probably no terrorist attacks.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Sept. 11th happened after dramatic force contraction...

under GHWB and Clinton.

[sinkingfeeling]

4. To quote from Chalmers Johnson, author of 'Sorrows of Empire',

Q: You say there are at least 725 American military bases in existence outside the United States. What purpose do they serve?

Answer from Chalmers Johnson:

America's empire of military bases is there to garrison the world, to ensure that no nation or combination of nations can exert influence that the president, his advisers, and the Pentagon have not sanctioned.

It is possible to reduce the complex set of purposes and interests that have led to this gargantuan deployment of military power to five post-Cold War missions for our bases. These are:

maintaining absolute military preponderance over the rest of the world, a task that includes imperial policing to ensure that no part of the empire slips the leash;

eavesdropping on the communications of citizens, allies, and enemies alike, often apparently just to demonstrate that no realm of privacy is impervious to the technological capabilities of our government;

attempting to control as many sources of petroleum as possible, both to service America's insatiable demand for fossil fuels and to use it as a bargaining chip with even more oil-dependent regions;

providing work and income for the military-industrial complex;

and ensuring that members of the military and their families live comfortably and are well entertained while serving abroad.


No one of these goals or even all of them together, however, can entirely explain our expanding empire of bases. There is something else at work, which I believe is the post-Cold War discovery of our immense power rationalized by the self-glorifying conclusion that because we have it we deserve to have it. The only truly common elements in the totality of America's foreign bases are imperialism and militarism -- an impulse on the part of our elites to dominate other peoples largely because we have the power to do so, followed by the strategic reasoning that, in order to defend these newly acquired outposts and control the regions they are in, we must expand the areas under our control with still more bases. To maintain its empire, the Pentagon must constantly invent new reasons for keeping as many bases as possible long after the wars and crises that led to their creation have evaporated.

[Ravenseye]

6. Complicated Question

Most likely either our taxes would be much lower, or we'd have far more social services (more probably the later). Universal health care, affordable and efficent public transportation, better general welfare.

The rest of the world would be a mixed bag. Some places would flare up into Anarchy and genocide, others would suffer economically for a short term after the withdrawal of a significant revenue stream. For the most part though, it would probably make the world like us more, but it would also serve to weaken our appearnce to the world and put us on par with other countries. This is probably a good thing, but it might also return with an economic backlash at this point...

I think on the whole everyone everywhere would be better off, but it would definately be compliated. Some people and places would suffer for it, others would succeed, both at home and abroad. It's not a cut and dry situation.