People are divided on what the US military‘s role in the world should be and how much money it should take to uphold that role.
Sitting atop the longest stretch of global stability (largely enforced/maintained by the US military), it’s very hard to think clearly about what variables we can or should fiddle with.
The globe might feel stable while sitting inside the US and reading domestic media sources, but it sure hasn’t been easy for the dozens of countries we’ve been invading/occupying for the past decades.
If we're making sweeping generalizations, then countries with stable benevolent governments who don't threaten their neighbors / the US and fund terrorism don't get invaded or occupied either. To be clear, I'm not saying every foreign policy action the US has undertaken in the last few decades has been superb.
If we're making sweeping generalizations, then countries that don't project military power to prop up dodgy regimes and enforce their currency on major commodities don't get targetted by terrorist action. To be clear, I'm not saying every action that resistance organisations and foreign governments have taken in the last few decades has been superb.
> Sitting atop the longest stretch of global stability (largely enforced/maintained by the US military), it’s very hard to think clearly about what variables we can or should fiddle with.
Yes, if you only count the 20th century. Apparently the human race is only 100 years old. It’s time you read some history.
I’d be very keen to learn about a particular period, or multiple, of an earth without large scale armed conflict (obviously controlling for difference in scale over time).
That's a though one to argue. 90% of people in a peaceful country take peace for granted, so their opinion on what should the military do is honestly nonsense.
Anticipating the downvotes: if you think peace is "easy" and are no aware of how much a strong military power is required to hold it you are delusional.
