We are a target because we are number one. We could withdraw all of our troops from every country in the world tomorrow and we would still be a target.
It is your neighbor's responsibilty to protect his own home. You shouldn't be expected to sit watch his house to protect him and his family. However, when a string of robberies or violent crimes goes on in your neighborhood, it is your civic duty to help your neighbors patrol your community. The American community is now global.
Modern technology has no historical precedent, and so I think that analogies of prior empires (if we are to agree that America is an "empire") are without merit. Think about how tiny Europe actually is, geographically, in modern terms. It is impossible to conceive that a land mass from Germany over to Portugal and down to Italy could have a half dozen full major languages with dozens of minor languages and dialects. What in the past amounted to several months of travel can now be traversed in hours. Tele-communication occurs at the speed of light. English may very well become a global language (it almost is) within our lifetimes (depending on how old you are ;). Isolationism at this point is literally impossible. In fact, if America attempted to pull out much of the world would collapse and we would suffer in the end. The only question is not whether to be an empire, but how to be a benevolent empire.
And is the term "Buchananite" supposed to refer to me?
I wrote:
If you want to sit in your basement with a bunch of Buchananites while the rest of the world eats itself alive, just remember, once the world does fall to global socialism, do you really think you will be able to fight them all off?Clearly I wasn't calling you a Buchananite. I was implying that you are alone in your isolationist view with the Buchananites. And I was also stating that, American isolationism creates a void into which evil flows and which, once filled, presents an insurmountable challenge.
We are a target because we are number one. We could withdraw all of our troops from every country in the world tomorrow and we would still be a target.
We are a target because of what we do, i.e. play the world's policeman. Pure isolationism is of course unrealistic and utopian--not possible in the 21th C. However, our so-called allies must ante up when it comes to defense. We can still maintain a strong military and influence democratic movements around the globe without our troops stationed in, and committed to the defense of, nations around the globe. This costs us billions and makes us THE target of the enemies of democracy. Why not let our allies share in this burden?
Modern technology has no historical precedent, and so I think that analogies of prior empires (if we are to agree that America is an "empire") are without merit.
Perhaps different, but not without merit. Call it what you want, but we are a global The Roman Empire's collapse can largely be attributed to its military being spread too thin. There remains a lesson there for us to heed.
In fact, if America attempted to pull out much of the world would collapse and we would suffer in the end
The world would not collapse. In fact it might even learn how to take care of itself with the U.S. "aiding" democratic proxies in troubled spots. This was the policy of Ronald Reagan. He never used our military as Hessians of a new world order.
Perhaps different, but not without merit. Call it what you want, but we are at least a benevolent global hegemony. The Roman Empire's collapse can largely be attributed to its military being spread too thin. There remains a lesson there for us to heed. Call it what you want, but we are at least a benevolent global hegemony.